Throwing in towel and replacing Mamiya RZ with Canon 5D Mark II but..

<p>Hi,<br>

I am a fine art photography, but have been doing more landscape shots out in the wilderness.... I have used a Canon 20d for my "sketch" camera and then came back to a location with my RZ outfit (about 35 lbs in it's special backpack including lens, backs, tripod etc). While I love the transparencies I shot, eventually they have to be scanned, and so much is lost in resolution and dynamic range unless I pay $20 for a drum scan. And the film is $5 a roll and then $5 to develop and if I shot a measly 20 rolls that can alone cost $200 ! (despite all that I still love that camera somehow). But now that a 21mexapixel camera is afforable (barely) I may sell my RZ outfit and spend that toward the Canon 5d Mark II. So is there rumor that I should hold off a few months because a newer version is on the way? How is it in lowlight situations, like night sky shots, is there much noise ( I never shot my 20d above 200 iso prefering a tripod, but the noise for lowlight was horrible). Perhaps I should send this to medium format also to see who tries to convince me that the RZ and film is still the best quality.<br>

Have a great weekend<br>

Michelle</p>

 

<p>The only solution is to rent one and try it. At the unaffordable end, you could look at the Pentax 645D.</p>

<p>NB. There always will be newer models of electronic cameras for the forseeable future. </p>

<p>I wouldn't hold your breath for the 5DIII to arrive, Michelle, given the recent events in Japan. People are still awaiting the arrival of EF lenses that were announced last fall.</p>

<p>As far as the 5DII's low light performance goes, it is outstanding. When the 5DII came out in late 2008, it was said to provide the best overall combination of resolution, image quality, high ISO performance, and dynamic range of any DSLR on the market. (The Sony may have had slightly higher resolution, and the Nikon slightly better high ISO performance, but neither combined these parameters like the 5DII did). And I believe that this is still true.</p>

<p>For fine art photography, landscapes, and portraiture, there is no better DSLR for the money, at least IMHO.</p>

<p>have you tried renting a digital back for your rz? i used the rz system in the early nineties, loved it, but stopped imaging, then came back to imaging using digital but still have regret i am not using the rz gear. owned the 5d ii, great camera for image quality but less than satisfying to use; moved to 1Ds III and that was better, but for the money have 'just' gone to the 40D now and use live-view the majority of the time and put the "surplus" money in to lenses and stitching software. i would really like to go back to the rz system with one of the phase one backs, so maybe look at some of the older [three years?] units on the market as they seem to be nearing the parity level with the 5D II for similar pixel count.</p>

<p>Learn to "stitch" images (easy to do, even hand-held) in digital - this will give you resolution and detail equivalent to MF. The 5Dii with even an ordinary 17-40mm lens (use from apprx. 28mm and up) will provide great images. Try PTGUI or AutoPano Pro as software to do stitching (either can be learned in an hour.) For Panos, even an average lens in the 28-50mm range will provide fine image quality...</p>

<p>Look to get the 5Dii as a refurb from Canon (about $1700) or buy used - many available these days. 7D is too noisy and does not have the same DR of the 5Dii - just a function of the larger sensor of the 5Dii.</p>

<p>Landscapes are the forte' of the 5Dii - you don't need the weight/expense of the 1Ds3 (I have owned both) - and the image quality of the 5Dii is exactly as good as the 1Ds3 - and better if shooting at night. (Both cameras use the same sensor - but some tweaking by Canon makes the 5Dii a better night camera.)</p>

<p>I did "stitch" images on my 20d but with the 5dII it should be really phenomenal. I am a bit scared of buying used digital cameras... or refurbished.. perhaps if it was a store with a warranty of some kind. The digital backs are a great idea, anyone have $15,000 lying around ! Actually the Leaf has a 75 megapixel for around 25,000... if only my art sold ! But I hear you about how the RZ feels... I will really regret getting rid of it. But they keep depreciating in used sale value, if I sell I should do it soon. Glad to hear it has great low light quality. </p>

<p>Michelle, I've been shooting landscape - and often on the trail while backpacking - using DSLRs for a half dozen or so years now, the past five using a 5D and now a 5D2. At this point, there is little to recommend MF film over the best full frame DSLRs for the kind of work you describe. In most ways - though no quite all - digital formats can match the performance of the next larger film format. Friends of mine who used to shoot 4x5 LF have now largely moved to MF digital. If MF film was fine for you, then full frame DSLRs should be able to produce equivalent results.</p>

<p>Let me start with the noise concern. Whatever noise you'll get from full frame DSLRs, it will be less than what you are used to with MF film. Shooting at ISO 100 or ISO 200, in the vast majority of situations there will be no visible noise even in quite large prints. You will be able to find some noise if you inspect at 100%, for sure, but that would be equivalent to making a 72 inch print or so.</p>

<p>If you follow the web forums, you'll find impassioned discussions of so-called noise banding on the 5D2. The story goes that in very dark areas of the frame with uniform of smoothly graduated tones, that you may see some banding in the noise if you push the shadows or increase curve steepness, etc in the darkest tones, especially if you underexposed. On some of my images, if I look very closely at 100% magnification, I can occasionally detect (or think I detect) some banding in the noise. However, this has never been an issue in a print. (If it were to be an issue, there are several ways to deal with it.)</p>

<p>Speaking of prints, in my view it is reasonable to expect to reliably produce very high quality 24" x 36" prints from 5D2 originals, assuming good shooting technique, good equipment, and good post-processing skills. At this size the print quality can be very, very good indeed. How much larger than this is possible? That depends on a variety of factors, including the your expectations and those of your clients and various shooting and processing and printing factors. </p>

<p>I also do a great deal of night photography with my 5D2. For my sorts of night photography it is a fine tool. In addition, you don't have to deal with the reciprocity failure issues that you are familiar with from your work with film. For very long exposures, you might want to use the long exposure noise reduction feature on the camera, which uses a second "dark frame" exposure to identify and subtract noise data from the image.</p>

<p>In addition to the ability to make as many photographs as you want without worrying about schlepping film around, the DSLR will lighten your wilderness load considerably. I carry between 12-15 pounds, which seems to be about half of what MF film folks seem to end up carrying. (I ran into John Sexton and Anne Larsen in the Yosemite backcountry during a recent season, and they were each carrying nearly 30 pounds of photo gear. I felt silly complaining about my load! You may know, but they shoot MF black and white film on the trail.)</p>

<p>Good luck,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Aside from a large format camera set up there probably isn't a heavier bulkier camera than the RZ to take on the trail. And unless someone else is going along with you, there isn't much room in your bag for even snacks or a water. I love my film when it comes back from the lab, but I either do a rough scan at home on an Epson 4990 which honestly sometimes looks worse than the images off of my 20D ! But to get a a drum scan can cost upwards of 20-40 $$$ per image. I will be heading to B & H photo here in NYC to play around with the 5d soon, and will look a the noise reduction feature you spoke about. The issue of noise on long exposures had me a bit jittery, but it sounds like that isn't so much an issue with this camera.<br>

Thanks<br>

-Michelle</p>

<p>How long are your long exposures, Michelle?</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>sometime in a early morning in the woods you can have several second exposures, or longer if it is deep shade.. i almost always tried to shot at f16 or smaller for maximum depth of field. but I am interested in night time shots also, star trails, the woods under moonlight and such... so it could be really long exposures... depends</p>

<p>Hi Michelle,</p>

<p>You might want to consider not going for the Canon upgrade and instead trudging along for a while with a low priced DSLR. At the same time saving like fiend and then go for a Pentax 645D.</p>

<p>I am still shooting with a Canon 300d, and 10d converted to IR. For an upgrade I bypassed full frame and went to the 645D. The resolution is staggering compared to a 6.3 megapixel model from the 2004 period.</p>

<p>CHEERS...Mathew</p>

<p>There's a big difference between a 20D and a 5DII. That said, you'll to need some good lenses in order to appreciate that difference fully.</p>

<p>Even if the "newer version" is announced tomorrow, it would probably be SEVERAL months before you'd be able to get your hands on one (unless you're very cozy with a dealer). How much money do you want to spend on film between now and 'someday'?</p>

<p>Noise. Yes, it's very good and in many cases it means the difference between getting a handheld shot and missing it. That said, I always have to do some noise reduction in post-processing when I shoot at ISO values of 800 or more. The internal noise reduction helps, but it doesn't work miracles.</p>

<p>Shadow noise can a bigger annoyance, and it can cause problems even at low ISO values. This varies greatly with subject matter. IMO, it seems most problematic with high-contrast shots of people.</p>

<p>Here are a few other advantages that the Canon has over your MF system.</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Telephoto lenses - Canon excels here - wildlife and distant objects are now within reach.</li>

<li>Image Stabilization (IS) - It works very well when you have to hand hold shots.</li>

<li>Live View - a great tool for ensuring accuracy when focusing manually.</li>

<li>HD Video - video pros love this camera. Great for capturing audio/video notes on location.</li>

</ul>

<p>Do you have a computer? I recommend downloading a trial version of Lightroom. And install the copy of DPP that comes with the camera. It's useful for viewing images with the camera's settings intact and for evaluating sharpness before opening files for Raw processing.</p>

<p>By the way, here's a shot that I handheld at ISO 1600 at a location where tripod usage is both expressly forbidden and aggressively discouraged. I added a touch of NR in Lightroom. This shot would not have been possible with film.</p>

<div></div>

<p>In addition to what has already been said:</p>

<p>I upgraded to the 5D2 from the 350D (same sensor as your 20D). Just like you I rarely shot above ISO 200 with my 350D. Noise started to appear at ISO 400 and above that it was unpleasant. With the 5D2 I don't even begin to consider the effect of noise until I shoot above ISO 1600. Even then, the noise on a 5D2 is vastly different to the noise on the older DSLRs. It is actually quite pleasant when handled correctly, more like film grain. I would happily shoot at ISO 3200 for most things. I have had useable results at ISO 12800. My tripod has been covered in dust since I got this camera. With IS and this sort of low light performance the good days are here to stay.</p>

<p>The other important factor you'll need to bear in mind is the greater depth of field compared to your MF kit. If you shot your landscapes at f16 on your RZ then you can probably shoot the same landscape at f8 on the 5D2. That'll gain you another stop of ISO performance.</p>

<p>It's pointless waiting for the 5D3. The 5D2 will do far and above what you need. It's a landscapers dream DSLR. Just buy it, you will NOT regret it.</p>

<p>You don't get better pictures (than film) with a digital like the 5D. You get different capabilities, which leads to more "good" pictures. Sensor-size, and resolution, are the same as 35mm film. The big difference is that you need to use a low speed film like Velvia to get max resolution with film, while the 5D does any ISO you basically want.</p>

<p>Digital has a long way to go before it reaches the quality you can achieve with your RZ. At the end of the day it all comes down to your needs, I still shoot a lot of film but also have a d700 as I'm a wedding photographer.<br>

Landscapes is IMO one of the few areas of photography that can still justify shooting film over digital.</p>

<p>Several seconds isn't even an issue. I do a lot of night photography that focuses on urban and abandoned industrial sites, and typical exposures range from a minute or two up to about 15 minutes. Here I can get very clean exposures using long exposure noise reduction. (I have done exposures into the low 20 minute range this way, including a shot of Mounts Ritter and Banner in the eastern Sierra from Thousand Island Lake that was lit by a rising full moon behind me.)</p>

<p>Though I don't do it myself, it is possible to do much longer exposures by combining a series of many shorter exposures. There is software that automates this process. This method is favored by many who do the images with very long star trails.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I think if I had unlimited money and really wanted the true digital version of 6x7 film I would need to upgrade to a medium format digital outfit such as mentioned like a Pentax or Hasselblad and go for 50 megapixal or up ! But the lowest price version is the Mamiya 645 outfit at 10,000 and it is 22 megapixels.... I think that is something to shot for after I have the 5dII and with the versatility it has I can see doing more stock photography (most stock companies won't even consider the 20d photos at this point and film is too expensive for mass amounts of stock images). I am really glad to hear about being able to use a higher ISO... I still probably will drag around the tripod for landscapes though... and may "stitich" some photos together if I think I will be needing to print large. But the video feature is also a big draw for me as well... so I am sold... but it is funny as a fine artist, I feel like I am somehow "cheating" with shooting DSLR... something like you have to suffer for your art ! Time to let that go as well..</p>

<p>I would most certainly use a tripod for the landscape work - it is pretty much a necessity, especially if you want to take advantage of live view. </p>

<p>As an artist, let me say that there is nothing "cheating" about any format choice. Each has its advantages and disadvantages and those are what determine what is the best tool. For example, I do a lot of landscape work with long focal lengths and I also frequently work with subjects that change quickly - for both of these elements the full frame DSLR format makes the most sense, even though I might be able to produce a bit higher resolution with MF. For some of my work there would be advantages in shooting MF digital - and when the time is right I will expand in that direction - but for other important aspects of my work, MF digital would not be the right choice.</p>

<p>Also keep in mind that among those doing the switch from film to digital, a great many of them have moved to the next smaller format. While certain things like the effect of aperture on DOF and so forth don't translate perfectly to the smaller formats, other things like resolution and color and dynamic range do.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

Michelle, I too love to work with my RZ and for a while was torn between the cost of film and scanning, good scans I

mean. The kind of scanning needed for selling your work requires a healthy wallet! I decided way back that I would

keep the RZ due to my longtime investment in lens and accessories. I use the RZ for specific work with both film back

and digital back as well. Not a very big digital back only 16 megapixel square format but it works very well for my food

photography because of the cropping and macro capabilities. There is something about the look and feel of an image

taken with a great camera system like the RZ that cannot be duplicated by DSLRs. For that reason alone I think is

why I haven't changed course. I do have to say that most of my work is done with a rental Hasselblad HD system due

to the ease of use and very large file not to mention great IQ too.

 

I love my RZ and use it as much as I can for both personal and business. I think the only thing I would do is maybe

someday soon get the new RZ system with it's integrated digital back and 31 megapixel and I'll be a happy camper.

Most of the images I now produce with the Hasselblad HD 31 megapixel are more than enough for what I do and I find

myself resizing them anyways.

 

Good luck!

 

Ed

<blockquote>

<p>but it is funny as a fine artist, I feel like I am somehow "cheating" with shooting DSLR... something like you have to suffer for your art !</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, don't worry. There's plenty of suffering to be had in the digital world. What until you blow the highlights in a shot that you can't re-stage.</p>

<p>.Aren't true artists supposed to "suffer" ?</p>

<p>Dear Michelle, apologies for making it complicated but I have a slightly different point of view.I have been using a 5DmkII for a couple of years now and have found that the images don't really have the look I'm after and so have returned,partly, to MF film. <br>

If you're used to MF film I would definitely consider renting a 5D, just over a weekend maybe, before spending your cash just to make sure.<br>

As regards weight etc, I go to some fairly remote places and so this is an issue for me also. I use a Mamyia 7II as opposed to the heavier outfits and find this suits very well.</p>

<p>Yes, I have a pretty extensive outfit for my RZ also...but I think that sellling it is what I have to do to get the $$ for the 5dII... and I live in NYC so there is Adorama, Fotocare that have rental depts you can get a film MF, such as my RZ and it's soooo much cheaper to rent than digital. So if that shot comes up that I feel I really want to shot 6x7 format film I can always rent. But I do love the macro on the RZ too... I have the extension tube and shoot like f22 or so. Though the depth of field is still pretty shallow.. it works sometimes but can be a bit frustrating when photographing textures in nature... they never seem to be on a flat plane.</p>

 

<p>Michelle,</p>

<p>I understand completely about MF film. I had a complete Hasselblad kit and the day I sold it for a 5DmkII was the best day of my photographic life. Scanning and dealing with poor processing, expense/poor availability of film, X-rays, scratches and dust not least the improved post-processing ability when dealing with native RAW files makes me wish I has switched earlier. The only reason to shoot film MF, in my opinion is if you shoot black and white and have access to a darkroom with top class equipment.</p>

<p>Robin, that top class darkroom equipment can be had for less than the cost of three 100 sheet boxes of paper for it these days. There is no reason not to have it.</p>

<p> </p>