Medium Format vs Digital

I tend to shoot a lot of landscape and nature photography. Right now

im using a 35mm Nikon outfit. My question is for landscape is a

digital (Nikon D70 or D100) better or medium format. Any tips would

be great.

Thanks

I'd say for your type work which is probably mostly tripod go with the MF. If you haven't

shot much 6x6 it takes some getting used to for composition but it lends itself nicely in

my opinion to landscapes. You could always go 6x7 if that suits your style better.

Workflow will be slower but well worh the effort for big prints/quality.

Here we go again... I throw in my suggestion of 4x5 large format for best results (Graflex Speed/Crown Graphic if you want an inexpensive camera to test the water). Or if you want medium format an old folder in good condition with 6x9 format is also a low cost alternative (but no interchangeable lenses then).<p>

A digital camera is always much more expensive and produces probably inferior pictures when compared to high-quality scans of the results with the above cameras, but has of course other advantages.

I have both a Nikon D2x and a Hasselblad 500c/m. I still prefer using the Hasselblad for landscapes as it provides for better print quality at large print sizes. Take some wide-angle shots with lots of tiny details & trees in the frame and you'll see what I mean. My minimum print size is usually 12"x18". I also have a Tachihara 4x5 wooden field camera with Schneider lenses that allows for even better enlargements. I have basically given up on 35mm for landscape work, since you can get good used medium format equipment for equal or less money than 35mm right now. Long live film!

For a slow-paced enterprise like landscape photography, the bigger the better. That is, if image quality is the only concern. Other issues include bulk, weight and cost. Were it not so, we'd all be schlepping 8x10 view cameras.

 

I enjoy using a view camera, and go so far as to schlep a 4x5 Sinar into the field, not too far from the car, mind you. This is an 8 pound camera that fits nicely into an 18x18x36 inch box, including holders, changing bag and a bottle of aspirin (for later). Film costs about $2/sheet, and $5/sheet for processing. If you have an enlarger, great! Otherwise look for an Imacon or drum scanner (figure $50/image for professional scanning service). Allow about 20 minutes to set up for a shot. Get the picture? For all this effort, you get a 40x50 inch print that has details you need a loupe to see - WOW!

 

You can get a good 11x14 or 13x19 inch print from a 6MP camera like the D70 or D100, that is nearly indistinguishible from a medium format shot, and far better than you can get from 35mm, grainwise and acuity (apparent sharpness).

 

I do love medium format, and put a lot of time (and money) into it. Medium format is reasonably portable and economical. The lenses are relatively limited compared to 35mm/DSLR offerings, and much more expensive. With care (ie, tripod, good technique, fine-grained film), you will see a difference between a DSLR and medium-format film even at 11x14 (I know, I know! This is a judgement call, but I do both and have no reason to promote one over the other). For larger prints, medium-format really stands out. Without due diligence, you should not be taking landscape photos with any camera.

 

For me, 35mm is not a contender any more. I haven't shot 35mm film since seeing the results from my D1x - and I'm not alone in that regard. 35mm is sharp enough (at modest enlargements) but the grain becomes objectionable at 8x10 and above. I don't mind grain for PJ and artsy stuff, but it doesn't work well for landscapes, portraits and group pictures.

Adam I don't know how anyone can begin to answer your question without knowing what your end use is. If you want to project slides, so far shooting film--any size--and using an optical projector is better by far than anything digital affordable to a mere mortal. If you want prints, then the question is, how do you plan to get them? With an optical enlarger? High-end drum scans? Dedicated film scanner? Flatbed scanner? It might be a trick to match the quality of a dSLR let alone exceed it with a flatbed. That's where I'm at right now, expecting an Epson 4990 any day, hoping to get results in 13" square prints from an HP 8750 that make me think twice about getting a dSLR. However I'm not comparing to a D70 (my son has one), I'd be looking for a Canon 5D which is full-frame and has twice the pixels.

Most all MF is much better than a D70. One thing for sure is the color is better with film IMO and takes less fiddling, but the entire process is much slower.

 

Digital pretty much equals 645 film with the 1ds and 1ds mkii, but the D70 is more in line with a clean 35mm slide scan.

 

I have a drum scanner so I can really see the best quality from film, unlike scans from an Epson flatbed or the like.

 

E100G,GX and VS film scanned at 2000-2500 dpi is almost a dead ringer for bayer digital.

 

Looking at it in those very simple terms, a 2000 dpi scan would yeild a super clean, sharp E100G scan .....

 

(Same format as 35mm)

 

645 - +- 15 mp

6x9 - +- 30 mp

 

At 2500 dpi you end up with a bit more detail, but you have to use the sharpest lenses, tripod and the best technique to benifit at higher resolutions. For me, my scans are so clean at 2000 dpi, I would rather move up in format rather than try to eek out the last bit of detail with a high dpi scan ......

 

At 2500 dpi

 

645 - +- 24 mp

6x9 - +- 48 mp

 

I recently did a 16x enlargement from 6x9 and it looked really good in print at 200 dpi. That works out to around 10000 x 15000 or 150 mp, but I dont think it carried 150mp digital equiv. That was upsized from a 4000 dpi scan and with a super sharp lens.

 

A while back I did an somewhat exhasting study of drum scans of E100G compared to digital, and in the end I figured a square inch of film was roughly equal to 4-6 mp, but its highly dependent on the entire film process, film, film flatness, technique, scanner, and especially the camera lens.

There is absolutely no way anyone call tell you what's best for you. We don't know what lenses you use, if you're shooting positive or negative film, how it's being printed and who's doing it, your final intent for these images, or weather or not you want to be involved in the editing process of your images.

 

If you're happy with your results from 35mm then digital might be just fine. If you're finding quality lacking and you know it's not just your technique then maybe you do need to go with MF. But then how are you going to make prints? If you buy a cheap flatbed scanner it will likely be no better then digital.

 

You have a lot of questions you need to ask and answer for yourself. What kinds of answers do you expect to get on this forum? Ask the same question in the digital camera forum and see what answers you get.

 

Alan

Here's another vote for 4x5! Simply because of the higher image quality, the ability to use a cheap consumer flatbed scanner, and because used LF can be cheaper than MF.

 

But the prices quoted by Edward seem a bit high. New color film is $2/sheet. I usually find recently expired film for less than $1/sheet and haven't noticed any color shifts. Processing color film is indeed $2/sheet at my local lab but I have seen it as cheap as $1.25 online if you can mail it out. However you can always use a medium-format back with a 4x5 camera. But then there is really no point unless you also do B&W in which the film is cheaper and you can process yourself for next to nothing.

 

With the large film area, a flatbed scanner like a $400 Epson 4990 does quite well. No, not as good as a drum scanner, but very very good. 1200dpi is certainly within its limits which gives you 27 megapixels. With some judicious use of unsharp masking, you can get a decent 2400dpi scan giving you 110 megapixels. See www.clarkvision.com for some nice analysis.

 

The Epson 4990 class of machine does not go as far with 35mm and medium-format film.

 

You can get a used LF setup for less than $500.

Mike, it hadn't occurred me to use expired film. That changes everything.

 

By the way, I get 24 MP for 35mm and 72 MP for 6x6, at an honest 4000 ppi (3700 by some accounts). By my math (and experience), your flatbed with 4x5 film delivers 35mm quality. The 4990 delivers about 1500 ppi resolution - anything higher is simply puffed up. If I'm going to lug 40 pounds of gear for 3 shots an hour, I'd like to get something for my effort besides pain.

 

I'm going to rule out conventional enlargements as well. I'm not about to build a darkroom, and custom prints cost as much as a drum scan - and you only get one copy.

Edward,

 

I think we all know that even a high-end 4000dpi scan of 35mm does not give you 24 megapixels of clean data. You have the pixels, but they are noisy and lack resolution. My 1200dpi scan of 4x5 film will give a completely superior image than a 4000dpi scan of 35mm film. Have a look at this executive summary:

 

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

 

As far as your 4000dpi scans of 6x6 vs. my 1200dpi scans of 4x5, well I'm not sure. But my 4x5 camera weighs no more than many MF outfits. The body is only 4lbs or so. And I get the advantage of lens and film movements.

Mike, the article you cite compares 35mm film to a DSLR, stating that starting about 10 MP, a DSLR is superior to film, and even 6 MP is superior at higher ISO ratings. I agree, but with some qualifications.

 

A DSLR has a very high MTF up to the Nyquist Limit, whereas the MTF for a fine-grained film (Velvia) rolls off with a corner frequency of about 20 lppm. The Nyquist limit for a 6 MP camera is about 60 lppm, and a 12 MP camera about 80 lppm. Velvia limits out at about 80 lppm for subjects of normal contrast. Thus even a 6 MP DSLR looks sharper than 35mm film for enlargements up to about 11x14 even though film has a higher ultimate resolution. I refer you to www.normankoren.com for more details. You can also crack about any book on Fourier analysis.

 

Your premise that a 4000 dpi scan (24 MP) lacks detail and is noisy is completely unfounded, based in part on a misunderstanding of your source. Is a flatbed scan of 4x5 is superior? Grainwise, perhaps, but contrast, color and resolution - NOT! I have scanned hundreds of rolls of 35mm, hundreds of 4x5 negatives and transparencies, and edited tens of thousands of DSLR images. 4x5 film has an enormous potential, but at a price. If you have some personal experience, I'd like to hear it.

6000dpi 35mm vs. 3300dpi 4x5:

 

http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm

 

I've seen other similar comparisons and will try to dig them up.

Also the previous link also shows that 35mm Sensia film gives no more than 10 clean megapixels.

 

For the 6000dpi 35mm vs. 3300dpi 4x5, I realize that the number of pixels is different. So I guess I haven't made my point and you may be right, so I'll keep looking for those other comparisons I've seen!

 

I personally don't have a comparison to show you.

 

Do you not believe that Canon's latest 16.7 megapixel full-frame dSLR (1Ds Mark II or something or other) is superior to your 27 megapixel 35mm film scans??

I don't know where all the large format stuff comes from since thats not helping the questioner make the choice he wants assistance on. Further with todays digital printing processes you no longer need sheet film to make great big prints from you landscapes, and many people won't take well to the enormous cost hike between MF and LF on a per shot basis, and the implications for volume of shooting and bracketing. Personally I'd also object to the time taken to set up by comparison to either the digital or medium format routes as I'm convinced I'd miss half the shots I make now or have to spend too long waiting for the conditions that motivated me to start with to recur ( though I'm in the UK and the light tends to change rapidly). Frankly I can only think of two reasons to choose LF- firstly if you need the camera movements and second if you happen to enjoy that style of equipment and photo making. I don't think very many people actually need the quality of LF today.

 

The questioner says he shoots landscape and nature. I wonder what he means by this. Is there much wildlife or birds involved? If so i'd suggest that medium format systems are less suitable than digital or indeed 35mm. If its pretty much all landscape, then the choice is more open.

 

Personally I'd vote for the medium format, and here's why. First because the process of using a medium format camera is different from a 35mm or digital equivalent. What you see through the finder seems bigger, more detailed and I feel more part of the landscape than I ever have using a smaller format. Its a more contemplative process to, albeit still very much faster than LF, and for me it made me think more about what I was trying to achieve. Its that thinking, not just the equipment itself, that will help you make better photographs. Also I like the square 6x6 and relatively square 6x7 formats and find it easy to compose within them. If these issues resonate with you then maybe MF is the way to go- its not a hugely expensive route to follow today buying used.

I totally agree that a 3300 dpi drum scan of 4x5 is superior to a 6000 dpi scan of 35mm. In fact, scanning above 4000 dpi adds little except detail of the grain structure. I also agree that a 16.7 MP Canon 1DSMKII is superior to any 35mm scan. The Canon is largely responsible for the flight from medium format by many photographers. In my own experience, even a 6 MP (5.47) camera is superior to 35mm scans in most respects - that's why I don't do 35mm any more.

 

Stating that a 10MP DSLR is equal to or superior to 35mm film is not the same as stating that there is no more than 10 MP of data in a film scan. This is because digital has more edge detail than film at frequencies greater than 20 lppm, yet film has greater resolution. Basically, not all pixels are equal.

 

What I did say is that 4x5 is wasted on a consumer-grade flatbed scanner.

Consumer Flatbed vs. Drum scanners for 4x5

 

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/drum.vs.flatbed-scanners/

The arguments start, lol. Here's my US$0.02 worth. I shoot 35mm, DSLR and *just* started shooting medium format. I haven't had many issues with digital (the few landscape type things I have done, very very few), but the largest prints I can get from Taiwan Frontier 670s are 10x15ish. I sharpen a bit, tweak here and there.....

 

...the thing is, I was (and still am) very happy with DSLR, but I can't shoot at apertures smaller than f11 (D70 with a dirty sensor, and no way to actually have it cleaned here in Taiwan). Just this morning, I did some black and white landscape type things with my 645, and was completely blown away by the tonality and sharpness, like nothing I've ever done before....and suddenly I'm getting the urge to put a roll of color film in the 645 and simply SHOOT a roll of landscapes. Yes, at 11x14, you can get digital images that are sharp (and I'm talking black and white digital conversions), but...maybe its just my Photoshop technique, but the sharpness, tonality, contrast, and density from the wet darkroom 11x14 prints has me absolutely and completely in love with MF film.

 

Mind you, I still shoot 35mm and digital where they have strengths, but I'm a complete and total convert back to film due to MF.

 

I'm not sure how much success you'll have with moving targets and nature photography, I'm a stickler for focus, and the Bronica focuses just fine for a manual focus camera, but if you're used to AF, critters tend to move quickly. I looked briefly at the new Pentax 645, mainly because of its autofocus....but got such a great deal on a second hand Bronica that I couldn't pass it up.

 

Oh, the scans of the prints in my portfolio do NOT do the sharpness and tonality of the prints justice.

 

And you DO know that Pentax is going to be releasing a digital version of the 645? Unfortunately, the price is going to be right around US$10,000 :-(.

One camera is never enough . . .

 

I've bagged 35mm film for medium format film. But my choice was partially driven by workflow - I really enjoy darkroom work. Turn on the music and play with the light and chemistry. Other folks like digital work flow.

 

Even if I liked digital workflow, I'd still opt for MF over a DSLR for landscape work, at least for now. But that's because of the cost of a full sensor DSLR. You can get a very nice MF setup for $1,000 or less (or more if you are inclined). That's a lot less money than the super duper DSLR's that could tempt.

 

I will eventually get a DSLR for some types of work. But I'll wait for lower prices and keep shooting film.

 

Robert

"What I did say is that 4x5 is wasted on a consumer-grade flatbed scanner."

 

I don't know about this. I have a Howtek D4000 and an Epson 4870. I scanned a 4x5 Velvia 100 @ 2400 DPI on the Howtek and compared it to a scan on Epson 4870 @ 2400 DPI. For the Epson Scan, I created a custom mask made of Stylar that's approx. 1.5mm thick. (1.5mm is my guess of the optimum focus on my 4870) and wet-mounted the film on a non-reflective float glass I purchased at a framing store. The scans came out similarly sharp, same details and same resolution. The slide was perfectly exposed and it wasn't high contrast, so I didn't compare DMAX but that wasn't the purpose of the test. The colors came out different because I didn't profile the scanners but there's really almost no discernable difference once you take away the wet-scanning advantage of the drum-scanner. Now if I was drum scanning on an ICG or a Tango, that would be a different story but I don't 20 grand to spare right now...

I see a big difference in my 4870 at 2400 dpi and my Howtek 4500. In general terms i get roughly a 2 pixel edge with my Howtek and a 3-5 pixel edge with my 4870.

 

A good while back I did a comparison between a Nikon 8000 and my 4870 and they were about the same. After really digging into what was going on, since I was sure the 8000 could do better, it turned out I had a soft camera lens.

 

I personally see a big difference between a drum scan and a 4870 scan with something like a Mamiya 7 and E100G.

 

Also I am not sure what software you are running on your 4000, but I have one brand of software, that I wont mention here, that constantly misses the auto focus. Its a real PIA.

I agree that one camera is not enough for all applications.

 

My 20D can do very good 11x17 inch prints, and even though I could probably go bigger, I don't like to.

 

If you decide to use MF film, then get the best scans possible. A good 645 drum scan WILL be much better than a Nikon D70, for example, and for landscapes, I'd use the 645 instead of the D70 in this situation.

 

Large format will be even better, and if you're looking to print big, you can't settle on a flatbed scanner. It's just wasting away the huge potential that a 4x5 transparency has. It holds an immense amount of detail. Again, you should get the best scan possible (a professional drum scan from west coast imaging or calypso) if you're going for very large, very detailed prints.

 

Also, many people are missing a major point on the flexibility of Medium Format. A Contax 645, Mamiya 645AFD, or any Hasselblad will take the top digital backs that are available, now, AND in the future. Shoot film now, or shoot digital later with the same camera. There's so many options and possibilities.

 

You need to determine what you're going to do with your images, then make a decision. :)

"A Contax 645, Mamiya 645AFD, or any Hasselblad will take the top digital backs that are available, now, AND in the future. Shoot film now, or shoot digital later with the same camera."

 

Well, that is correct. But unfortunately new state-of-the-art digital backs for these cameras are, and probably will always be, very expensive and the cost may be prohibitive for most amateurs. Perhaps there will be a small market for second hand medium format digital backs. But many great cameras like Rolleiflex TLRs probably never can be equipped with digital backs.

 

In this digital age I still shoot medium format because I get better quality with it than with 35mm or digital. And it is also such a joy to shoot with these mechanical masterpieces like Rolleiflex 3.5F. No plastic-feeling DSLR with small viewfinder image and all kinds of distracting technical gimmicks really appeals to me in any way.

 

(Someone joked that digital cameras are soon equipped with new "shooting modes" which are "Robert Capa - mode", "Ansel Adams -mode" etc. Looking at the digital camera advertisements I am not so sure that this will be a joke forever. Yuck.)

Don't forget that you can print with an enlarger, too. You can either print yourself (4x5 enlargers are not that expensive) or send it to a good lab. Not everything need to be scanned!

 

Robert

"Well, that is correct. But unfortunately new state-of-the-art digital backs for these cameras are, and probably will always be, very expensive and the cost may be prohibitive for most amateurs."

 

This is very true, Lauri, they are extremely expensive, especially when they first come out, but there are some very good *used* backs out there that cost less than $3,000 . In another thread I mentioned the Kodak Pro Back, which is now discontinued. It's a square 16MP back, and will give you better than (dynamic range), or equal to 1Ds2 results, for sometimes less than half the price.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if a P25 can be found for $8,000 within a year, and what about Mamiya with their "ZD." Who knows when it'll be released, but they set a very low price point compared to the current MF digital backs.

 

$8,000-15,000 sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but there are many "amateurs" who buy a Canon 1Ds2 to take pictures of their kids and pets. :)