large format vs 5d...

This is not a digital vs film argument...it's more about professional

landscaping...I have a mf film camera and a 20d...I want to shoot

landscape...perhaps make fine art sales and perhaps get a nice set of stock

photos together...film is a lot more cumbersome than digital...getting enough

film...developing, printing or scanning...I've got a lot to learn... that

said...I want to take a trip in Jan...somewhere...what would you

recommend...nice calumet cadet or a 5d...does anyone sale fine art photos with

a 5d...I always hear people say they want to shoot ff dslr for landscape...are

they all amateurs...I know pros do use digital to shoot portraiture...but

landscape...I've seen great prints with 35mm film...but i've yet to see the

refinement of those shots on digital...thanks...ok...there is a bit of a

digital vs film question...but we know a great film large format images is

pretty much the best we can get...unless one buys a state of the art digital

back...then the serious question of digital vs film...might begin...but I'm not

in that market as most of us are not...I'd like to get some good shots

together...I doubt I'll get acceptable results from the large format camera

immediately and to be frank I've yet to get stunning images on my mf...part of

the reason is the lens...90mm on an rz67 pro II not my favorite

perspective...I'd like a bit wider...50mm (boy that thing is a grand

used)...which is why I'm even thinking about getting a large format...why spend

this much money on a mformat lens when large format is where I'll probably end

up...getting a 5d with rebate seems very enticing; it will yield a lot of shots

that I will be happy with immediately as well as be able to use it for

portraiture and shoot the occasional wedding...the landscape right now is for

my personal enjoyment...Thanks

Film is not cumbersome...If you keep thinking like that.. making assumptions that simply are not true... then you will never figure out the answer to your question...whatever it really is... The only reason to use LF is for the movements, which may or may not be important for your style of lanscapes and for the larger negative and its associated "quality' wiht regard to enlargement...I don't know the Cadet very well but it is the low-end of the market and may have limitations on bellows draw... Perhaps you should be looking into a used camera whre you can get more features for the same money.

Oh, and one more coment. January is next week. I doubt that you have enough time to learn to effectively use a LF camera. Perhaps the best option for you is your film MF camera and a sturdy tripod.

I'd agree with the above re. cumbersome. Large format photography is, what most digital photographers would call 'cumbersome'. An entirely different mindset is required to use a LF camera effectively. They take some time to set up, require alot of fiddling and loading/reloading film into and out of holders etc. (unless money's not an option and use quickloads) and are expensive in terms of scanning, processing and cot of film.

 

Having said all that I wouldn't use anything else. The results are incomparable - the difference in quality is far above medium format and miles beyond digital. If you are a perefctionist - patient and stubborn type of person you'll love large format.

 

Check out the Horseman Woodman and Tachihara cameras which are quite cheap to buy new. Also keh.com, mpex.com for 2nd hand lenses, meters, film holders etc.

There is no chance you will acquire and learn to use a large format camera well within the next month. At the same time it is so superior to 6x7 film that the most practical suggestion would be to take the money you saved for the trip and buy good quality LF equipment with it. Learn to use it properly at home, which with diligence will take possibly as little as a year, and go on the trip next year. Don't buy low end junk either. Get a good camera and lens. One lens is enough to start. If and when your eye develops from this the film vs. digital issue will disappear. Digital will begin to look very cheap to you.

Patrick,

 

I'd like to echo Brian's comments - and expand a little bit more with my own .02. You said a lot, yet I'm not sure if I'm clear what you're asking... Getting in to LF photography to take better pictures is, IMHO, not the right approach. If you have "yet to get stunning images on ...mf"... than LF won't change that. This may be out there, but photography is a bit like golf. Expensive, top end, custom fit clubs and $90 for a dozen top-end golf balls "may" make great golfers better, but they won't make the weekend hacker a scratch golfer. Same goes for photography in that respect - You can give a seasoned, published photo-pro a Nikon coolpix or a Canon Sureshot and they will find a way to make a great image. And if they've made a name for themselves, I'd be willing to bet folks would pay for a print too.

 

I've been a LF (4x5) shooter for about 15 years. I continue to shoot LF for many reasons, but mostly because I enjoy the process of searching, finding and capturing images. LF by default, slows you down; it's not a format that will "yield lots of shots." Having the ability to shoot tons of pictures doesn't, and most likely won't, yield better images.

 

If I had the money, I would love a top-end DSLR. There are many many times when light is changing fast or I don't have the right focal length that LF won't capture (or my ability to capture it.)

For now, I stick with my old trusty F4 for that purpose and my digital pt-n-shoot for capturing snaps along the way.

 

This was true for me and perhaps others, but for the 1st 2 years I attempted to shoot both LF and 35mm. It was a mistake that almost made me toss out the 4x5. Always catching the fading light with the 35mm to make sure I got the shot and then struggling to get something with the 4x5. Once I made the conscious decision to make 4x5 my first priority, I was ok - but it has to be a choice, and I learned from it. Anyway, you are correct in assuming that it will take a while to learn.

 

If you have marketing savy (I don't) then in general, the source of your captured images shouldn't matter a whole lot. Back "in the day", 4x5 trannies were quite impressive to an editor looking on a lightbox comparing similars in 35mm or MF. But I imagine today it's giving way to viewing everything on monitors and a scanned 4x5 doesn't quite have the edge when viewing similar images on a 72 dpi screen.

 

Having said all that (and I can ramble with the best of them) you need to make some choices... If you want a good library for stock images, then go for the high end digital. I'd certainly recommend trying LF to anyone, but it's not for everyone - it depends. :-)

 

Good luck,

Lon

The most beautiful landscapes I've seen have come from the digital HDR (high dynamic range) process. But these are images that did not require view camera movements. Check out some of the HDR photos on the web and see if you like them.

A 1 second exposure takes exactly the same time with any camera, but the time and effort involved getting to the point where you trip the shutter is WAY different. Only you can know how you actually shoot, but a 35mm/DSLR is almost immediately available, an MF less so, and an LF requires a dedication in time and routine well beyond the other two, even more so if you intend carrying it any distance.

 

I'd be interested to know whether you use the histogram function on the 20D and whether the lack of this feature on film is one of the reasons for your lack of satisfaction with your MF? I have to say that you don't sound as though you are ready to go with LF, far less the Cadet with its monrail portability issues (field camera would be better). LF may well be in your future, but I don't think the time is right for you just yet.

Depends on what you are doing. A dslr is a lot easier to use, but the quality of 4x5 should not be ignored. The 5d is a nice camera especially at iso 1600, its amazing. If you never want to enlarge past 12x18 or 16x24 it probably does not matter that much.

 

LF is just an entirely different method and its slow.

 

If you have each system fully set up with lenses etc the dslr will be a lighter kit but not by a ton if like mine and you still have to have a few 4gb cards, batteries a computer etc.

 

For 4x5 LS you only need 2-3 lenses. My 4x5 kit weighs about 22# with a dryzone backpack, tripod, readyloads, 2 lenses, and the camera described below.

 

My super with 150 lens mounted, cambo back and reflex viewer weighs 5.25# and is very compact. I would recommend a folder over a rail camera for landscape. IMO If you are hiking and want 4x5, get a super graphic, a top lens, put a cambo back on it and use a reflex viewer and shoot readyloads.

 

I would base my decision on the enlargement size and how you expect to shoot. Do you want the freedom to move and shoot handheld and rip off 300-500 photo a day or do you want the best quality and shoot off a tripod all the time and slow down.

 

Something in the middle would be a mamiya 7 or a fuji 690 RF.

 

Personally for wandering abound I use a rollei 6008 and if I have a camera on a tripod its almost always a 4x5. I use my dslr for snapshots telephoto, family and such.

 

BTW if you are comfortable with other film formats, 4x5 is not such a big deal and you can get good results after a couple of practice sessions. Just learn how to focus and apply tilt. Its not difficult. My last trip tilt was from 3-5 degrees for 95% of the shots. Also probably the one thing that really got me when I started with LF is that if there is anything high in the frame and close like trees you should not use tilt.

 

Lens tilt tilts the plane of sharp focus. A lot of people think that tilting just increases the entire dof but it does not.

 

Whatever you choose good luck.

 

If you do select LF you might want to post asking for a few movement tips and tricks.

With a Digital scan back on Large format here one is really way slower than shooting LF film, scans take minutes. In the field on has a tethered laptop. There is the sub 4x5" effective scan area of 7x10cm so a 90mm lens really is not as wide as shooting with film. Things that move get blured, even trees. This can make a building shot ok, but is useless for a group shot. The scan is so slow one can run around an be in a group shot twice. With a 35 or 50 Megapixel image one gets an image that can be enlarged abit. Usually scan backs are used for product shots or shooting still artwork instead of landscapes.<BR><BR>You should figure out what size <I>"landscape...perhaps make fine art sales and perhaps get a nice set of stock photos </i> one needs to determine what tools are required. Unless the size is known one cannot figure what tools are required. My cellphone shoots great 4x6 prints. "Fine art sales" of prints really has no specific sizes. With our customers at the print shop this can be from 4x6" to 40x60" or larger. There are folks who give us inputs with P&S digitals that we make posters for that are many times great images.<BR><BR> Maybe you can get a 5D'S RAW or TIFF image to fiddle with from a Photo.net user to fiddle with, so there are no surprises as to what the quality is. Then you can experiment with viewing distances and printing.<BR><BR>

If I am reading this right you say that with the 20d and the rz 67 you are not getting the results you would like. If that is the case don't worry about the camera you are using

Since you say you want to produce large fine art images I will make this suggestion.

Purchase the widest zoom canon makes for your 20 d(since you said you liked the wide perspective)Use this to work on your technique and vision with the instant feedback digital gives.

At the same time find a used LF system and become familiar with its operation.

By doing this when you come up against the wall of adequate file size for the prints you want and the lack of movements for the perspective you require You will have the technique down to produce the work you want.

Equipment can solve many small issues in the process but equipment alone will never make you a better fine art photographer.

Here we have customers who shoot soccer with Kodak Max zoom 800 and F5.6 kit zooms that use the term "fine art" when they want prints, and 4x5" & MF landscape calendar shooters, and dslr folks, etc. Folks may want to use clear terms of what they are talking about then use phrases like "fine art" or "fine art photographer" which have lost most all meaning due to overusage across ALL types of images. Fine art means to us printers usually that the customer cares about their images, no matter what type of image at all. In the printing business one wants to barf when folks use the term "fine art" in a zillion different meanings, with no overlap at all.

I don't have the time or inclination to struggle through the weird punctuation, lack of paragraphs, caps, strange abbreviations, etc. in your message. But from looking at the first couple sentences I gather you're asking for some kind of comparison of the quality of images from the Canon 5D vs 4x5. I've been using a 5D for about a year. I've used 4x5 and larger formats for about 8 years. Assuming you have an excellent understanding of how to edit and print digital photographs you can make very nice prints from the 5D up to about 12x16, prints that are quite comparable to what you could expect from 4x5.

 

The principal problem I have with the 5D compared to 4x5 is the lack of camera movements, especially front and back tilt and front rise. The lack of tilts means that to get the depth of field I often want for landscape photographs I need to stop down to f22, which often results in shutter speeds too slow to stop things like foliage movement and also creates diffraction. Even at f22 the depth of field is sometimes inadequate if there's a lengthy near-far relationship between the objects in the photograph. And the lack of front rise and/or front and back tilt means the camera is pretty much useless for serious architectural photography.

 

With those two qualifications I'd say that if you do everything else right in your editing and printing you can make images with the 5D up to about 12x16 that are comparable to 4x5. But you won't do that just by sticking the flash card in the reader and hitting the "print" button on your printer. There's a very steep learning curve to making excellent digital prints, in my experience much much steeper than traditional darkroom printing.

It depends on the size you're printing to. I'm a MF photographer, maybe only having taken

10 LF pictures in my life, but while 4x5 is probablly what 3x the negative information of 2

1/4 x2 3/4, you'll still get a damned sharp print from 6x7cm, especially when shooting

something like Velvia 50. I only shoot slides in 35mm, but with negative film, Portra 400,

6x7 from my RB 67 gives me almost grainless 16x20s. I've seen digital files from high end

digital cameras, such as the 5D, fall apart even at 8x10 inches. I got a sample print from

Kodak on their Supra Endura paper from a 5D that was noticeably noisy, pixelation in the

shadows, and it really surprised me, as I have heard that digital can compete with LF up to

12x16 or 11x14 or whatever. Here I see a print that is trumped by 35mm, IMO! A little

grain is fine to me, but JPEG jaggies are decidedly unnatural. When they show up in a

bride's veil and in all of the shadows, that's definitely not a picture I would want to give to

a customer.

 

Therefore, I am highly skeptical that a 5D is comparable to a 4x5. Maybe if grain is the

only thing you look at, the 5D is going to be equal, but if you keep in mind things such as

resolution, sharpness, and contrast, I find that claim highly suspect, unless you have

cataracts or are viewing the print from across the room. If you're printing on glossy paper,

and viewing them from a normal distance, 4x5 is going to trounce a 5D, and certainly will

be a good deal sharper than 6x7cm. I saw a print once from 4x5, maybe enlarged to 24

x30 inch size that I will never forget. It was a 1996 state championship picture of my

Highschool's football team. You could clearly see the HAIRS on the legs of a group of at

least 100 players. A 5D most certainly could not do that, at 12x16 or any other size. If

you think otherwise you are deluding yourself.

"Therefore, I am highly skeptical that a 5D is comparable to a 4x5"

 

You've made no photographs with a 5D and maybe 10 with a 4x5? And you base your statements about the 5D and 4x5 from having seen one sample print from Kodak and some unspecified number of digital prints made by unspecified people with unspecified talent using unspecified equipment. I've made at least a couple thousand 4x5 photographs and more than that with my 5D. I've made another couple thousand with my 67 system that I no longer use because the 5D produces equally good results as 6x7 at my print sizes. There's no need to be skeptical, you can take my word for it that with the necessary education and experience in making a fine digital print (a major qualification) the 5D produces results that are comparable to 4x5 up to about 12x16, as I stated in my earlier message. Note that I said "comparable," not "identical." By "comparable" I mean that a normal person simply viewing an exhibit of photographs and paying attention to the images as images rather than as examples of technology would be unlikely to say "aha, that one was made from a 4x5 negative and this one was made from a 5D camera." In other words, the images at that size or smaller would be of comparable quality.

 

"If you're printing on glossy paper, and viewing them from a normal distance, 4x5 is going to trounce a 5D and certainly will be sharper than 6x7"

 

No, I'm sorry but that's wrong on both counts. The 4x5 doesn't trounce a 5D if the print is no larger than about 12x16 and was made by a capable printer. And 4x5 isn't "certainly sharper" than 6x7 with prints up to 11x14 (and not a whole lot "sharper" with 16x20s). There actually is usually no noticeable difference between a well-made print from a 6x7 negative and from a 4x5 negative until the print size gets above 11x14 or so. I think it's fair to say there's a general consensus about that among people who have extensive experience with both formats. The advantage of large format photography isn't that the quality of the prints is so much better than medium format up to 11x14 or so. It's the movements and the ability to individually process each negative, plus intangibles such as the need to slow down, take your time, carefully plan each photograph, etc., that provide an advantage to 4x5 with 11x14 and smaller prints.

 

"I saw a print once from 4x5, maybe enlarged to 24 x30 inch size that I will never forget. It was a 1996 state championship picture of my Highschool's football team. You could clearly see the HAIRS on the legs of a group of at least 100 players. A 5D most certainly could not do that, at 12x16 or any other size. If you think otherwise you are deluding yourself."

 

Wrong again. I don't think otherwise, I know otherwise because I have many years of experience with 4x5 (and 5x7 and 8x10) and a year with the 5D. Having never used the 5D and having made only about 10 4x5 photographs you clearly lack the necessary experience with either system to be making the kind of pronouncements you're making here.

I had a Cambo Cadet as my first LF camera and it is probably all you need for Landscape. Sure its a monorail but its light and tough. Plus its cheap so you can throw it around without worrying too much.

As for the 5D, if you are trying to compare a 12MP dslr to a 4x5 camera in terms of image quality you are crazy. There is no competition. The 4x5 will be the clear winner for any size.

But portability and ease of use etc is another problem. The 5D is a lot lighter and you can reel off a load of shots within a matter of seconds whereas the LF will take you a good few minutes to set up. Landscape photograpy is not all about speed though so I would argue that the LF disadvantages are reduced. There is the argument that there might be fast changing light and LF won't be quick enough to set up etc, but it all comes down to planning. If you are walking around without set up ready and decide to take a shot on impulse then wether you get a good shot or not is largely down to luck. LF is not about luck. Its skill. It gives you precise control of the whole process. If you are a person who just takes a few shots of everything hoping that at least one will be good then go for digital.

LF is also not hard to learn. Exposure calculations are the same for the large part and just playing with the movements in the field will reveal what they do. You have a huge screen for focussing too so you just look at that and if its not sharp there then it won't be sharp on your slide so don't take the picture! Its really not that hard and I honestly don't understand why people need weeks or months to learn. Unless you come from a digicam background or are a complete beginner of course.

All this might make me sound quite anti-digital but I do think that digital has its place in photography. It has a lot of advantages with convenience being the biggest. LF is not for the impatient. In fact soome people might even find medium format a bit slow. Plus its cheap in that you don't need to pay for film.

It all depends on what you are looking for from this camera. If you want a pure landscape camera and are prepared to take things slower then go for LF. If you want a multi-purpose camera then the 5D is the best.

If you want to do sales then it all depends on final output size and how you will output your work. Digital offers quick reprints and is nice and comfortable. Film will require scanning if you plan to output digitally. Optical printing requires a lot of work if you want control of the image, which I am guessing you do since you are looking at fine art. But in my experience, a 5D will struggle at about 8x10 sizes. The digital look just starts to become too apparent. Whereas 4x5 wil probably go to 16x20 before I would stop. It all depends on your standards though.

You can get very nice prints from a MF setup. In fact if you want a nice all purpose camera with quality I would stay with your RZ67 and bulk out your lens collection. Unless you plan to print large on a regular basis I would stay with MF and save yourself the problems of new gear etc.

It sounds to me though that you are sort of hooked on digital since you want results that you are "happy with immediately". How many shots do you take on an average outing? If you number hundreds then you had better be rich if you plan on LF shooting!

Regarding your January trip, think fast, draw a conclusion, and go with it. Not much time left to figure it out.

 

As far as large format vs. the digital, only you can decide. BUT, if, as you say, you will eventually end up with large format, then you have a world of opportunities for getting your feet wet.

 

Some of my best early shots were taken using an old pre-Anniversary Speed Graphic (my first 4x5) fitted with an old cheap 90mm Wollensak Raptar wide field, a 127mm Kodak Ektar, and other old lenses which even now still go for very low prices. Front rise was the only movement/adjustment on the camera.

 

But with a camera like that, you can learn a lot about film processing, composing upside-down on the ground glass, and go nuts over the quality of your negatives. Start out with black and white to keep it low-cost while you burn up the film.

 

Meanwhile, you can probably also afford the digital you're looking at and take it along all the time, as well as putting it to the other uses you're thinking of.

 

Once you've got your feet wet with a low-cost 4x5 outfit, then start looking at other equipment that will be more versatile and to your liking.

 

But the point is, with a set of old Tessars and very old wide field lenses, you can get negatives of exquisite quality (compared to smaller formats) and learn the ropes, then choose your more modern lenses (used or new -- IF you decide to upgrade them) while trying out and settling in with other styles of camera. You can always keep the lenses and swap them from one camera to another. (And don't sell the old lenses short. For example, I have a hundred-year-old re-branded Wollensak uncoated wide field lens that makes exquisite color chromes even now.)

 

Good luck and have fun!

I went from an Arca-Swiss 6x9 to a 5D. As the previous poster says, on a 12x18 print LF does

not bring anything significant. I also agree that movement are essential and that's why I took

the TS-E 24 and 45 with my 5D. My blog tells exactly that story.

 

http://www.lumieredargent.com

If you are considering stock then a high end digital body is much more practical than any film camera simply because of the lower cost of production. Yes you can scan LF or any film but how often do you plan to do this? If rarely then it's not a big issue.

 

JJ

I've never used a LF camera, but I do have a 5D and it certainly does NOT struggle to make great 8x10s. The 5D raw image file has way more detail than you can show in an 8x10 without a lot of cropping of the original image. In fact my 6.1MP Konica Minolta 5D can handle 8x10's quite well, and all I take is landscapes.

 

I admit I'm not a professional, but the whole idea of the Canon 5D "struggling" with 8x10 is ridiculous. And my printer isn't even the latest tech, it's a mere Epson Photo Stylus 820.

FWIW, if I take care I can produce a 10x15 inch print from a Nikon D50 that is more than sharp enough and with sufficient dynamic range to keep a competition judge happy when viewing the print at close range on a print light box - IF I take care! Bottom line is that my technique tends to be the limiting factor at this print size and below, not the camera!

yeah, I don't know where the comment about "5d struggling to make 8x10s" came from. Even on my 6mp 10d the 8x10 are fine. To the OP, you should stick with what you have until after your trip, when you can relax and make an informed decision. A lot of other people have good suggestions. My suggestion is to visit photo galleries in the real world and get off the net for a bit. If you can't make "sellable" landscapes with the MF film and/or 20d, then you won't be able to make them with the 5d, either. No one said you are required to use a wide zoom for landscapes, nor is it required that the pics be large. That aside, I am happy with a 90mm and 150mm on 4x5 field cameras for my landscape photos. Good luck Mr. Tom. Tom.

If you plan on shooting a wedding, then the Canon 5D is your best bet. Only a very brave soul would use LF for that, only a fast lightweight 4x5 would be suitable for such a venture. No one at weddings is prepared to wait for the setting up required for a normal LF field or view camera.

 

If you plan on shooting serious landscapes or architecture, after learning the skills required to fully understand the movements involved, then a vast amount of great equipment is available at sometimes very low prices.

 

The 5D is an awesome camera, I have used it often and for the price it has little opposition. Being digital, it gets frames on the board, with the instant confirmation that the shot has worked. Shooting at some distance in RAW at an ISO of 1200 or higher in low light in a stage performance is way beyond the realm of LF.

 

You can bet when it comes to landscapes, that`s a different story. Most of the pleasure associated with photography involves the thinking and planning about what you are about to do, not how many shots you can fire off.

 

I recently set up my 6x17 on a bridge in Melbourne in order to get a shot across the Yarra River in evening light. I was next to a guy using a 5D wired directly into his laptop. In the time it took me to get my four shots on one roll of Provia at a slightly different exposure each time, this fellow had fired off nearly a hundred!

 

I was more than pleased with my efforts as I had achieved them using by brain and not the shutter button. I figure if one shoots enough digital files, one or maybe a few will be usable. My best frame was so sharp and well exposed, it allowed an enlargement (Duratrans) measuring eleven by three FEET! Even the 5D might struggle with that. Then there`s the time spent in PS stitching, (cheating) together several frames to wind up with just one.

 

It`s just horses for courses...........

Just to put a final nail in the coffin of this notion that the 5D struggles with 8x10 or can't produce a print that's comparable to a print from 4x5 - Ken Allen is a master digital printer who did all the printing for the current Look exhibit at the Museum of the City of New York. He's posted a message about his printing for the exhibit in the photo.net digital darkroom forum. He concludes the message with the following statement:

 

"By the way, I just printed an image from a Canon 5d (12megapixels) 50 inches wide and the photographer was blown away by the results. Wow!"

 

I don't know about 50 inches wide but I think it goes to show the importance of the person doing the printing and what the 5D can do in the hands of someone like Ken who really knows what he's doing.

Patrick, check out this link to see what is possible with dslrs. I think a 5D and 20D were

used.

 

 

http://www.photo.net/photos/bearsphotography