Leave Hasselblad for the EOS 1DS?

[paulrumohr]

Many of you have shot with the EOS 1DS this year and your posts are greatly

appreciated. I am still reading through them very carefully.

 

I'm toying with the idea of trading my Hasselblad system for a Canon EOS 1DS System.

I unfortunately do not have the financial power to own both, so this is a difficult

choice. I have many other working photographer friends who have told me that their

clients will require them to be completely digital before the end of the year

(Nordstroms, Eddie Bauer, JC Penny's).

 

I am shooting for two clients presently with medium format. One has complained

about the inconvenience of having to scan film but the other is not showing any

particular preference to going digital.

 

Most of this work is catalog. One of the art directors loves to crop severely- he's old

school and would never actually think of trusting the photographer to do the crop! :-)

This makes we worry a little, because he presently likes Minox sized crops from my

2 1/4, and the EOS 1DS may not cut it, unless we have a serious discussion about his

compulsion.

 

I was planning on an EOS 1DS System and Capture One DSLR for workflow. I use the

ColorVision products for color management on a dual G4 Powermac.

 

I like the EOS 1DS for obvious reasons (price, portability, versatility, untethered

shooting, weathersealing, battery power, EF lenses, etc.).

 

I would like to get your current opinion about the quality of the images produced

from the EOS 1DS RAW files. The ones I've seen on the net seem pretty good, but I

don't know how much tweaking they've been through. I guess I'm saying I'd like some

honest non-commercial feedback from shooters who have also shot film for some

time, hopefully commercially.

 

One of my major peeves with the D1X was RAW processing time. Could someone give

me some current feedback on what workflow is like with Capture One DSLR and

Panther OSX? I'm finding it very hard to find RAW conversion processing times for this

product, so if anybody has a good link to some real world testing for this product, I'd

love to know.

 

I'd also like to know if CCD based MF digital backs look astronomically better to you

than the CMOS based EOS 1DS. And speaking of the CCD- less dust with CMOS?

True? Or are you guys packing sensor swabs and Eclipse solution all the time?

 

And here's a fantastic reverse question- what do you believe one loses by giving up

medium format for digital?

[paulrumohr]

I guess I'm saying I'd like some honest non-commercial feedback from shooters who

have also shot film for some time, hopefully commercially.

 

Sorry- I have no idea what I actually meant by this. I will try working on some

cohesive thinking before posting in the future.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Abetter investment for that much money will be to buy an 11 or 16 megapixel back

for your blad. Kodak, Leaf-Valeo, Imacon ll make backs that will work on Hassleblads

and will out perform the 1Ds. it isn't simply megapixels that make the differenmce

here -- it is also the firmware & software. I used a Caon Eos 1ds extensively early last

fall and have been working with the kodak pro Back 645C since Novemeber. There is

a clear superiority to the files from the Pro Back: skin tones, moire, resolution,

aliasing, etc.

Michael Reichman at Luminous- Landscape thinks so too: <a href = http://luminous-

landscape.com/reviews/cameras/kodak-dcs.shtml> Kodak DCS Pro Back review

</a>.

[beauh44]

Hi Paul, I'd at least look at the Kodak digital backs. While this route may be more expensive than the 1Ds body alone, you have to take into account purchasing the Canon glass that will be comparable to your Zeiss lenses, and it protects your current investment. If I'm not mistaken the new Kodak 14Mp backs fit most all of the Hassie models that do not use focal-plane shutters. (i.e. it supports 500 series) The Kodak back does not have to be tethered to AC power and has a histogram display and aren't as expensive as some. Don't get me wrong - I'm not dissuading you from a 1Ds - I own both a Hassie system and Canon and I'd love either solution! It's just that I'd wondered which way to go myself, but budget does not permit right now. I do have a 10D, btw, and it's great! That does give me the chance to use some of the software you mentioned - C1DSLR is very good. I think the new Camera RAW in "PS 8" does better than Canon's software, which is slow. As for the CCD versus CMOS debate, I think CMOS might hold an edge, particularly in terms of low-noise at higher ISOs. If I were shooting sporting events indoors, it's a no-brainer - the 1Ds wins. In a studio however, things get different when one can control the light. In the reviews I've read, I believe the Kodak back can hang with Canon's CMOS sensor and might even have a greater dynamic range, but it will be a bit noisier when pushed. Best wishes . . .

[rick_helmke]

I'm curious why you don't take a look at the 10D or D100. Using the 10D made me decide to get out of medium format completely and did so at half the cost of the 1D. The 10D will provide RAW images and unless you are out in the mud, rain or dust will do pretty much everything else. You can also leave some room for the art director to crop, then everyone is happy. Anyway, it's another option.

 

Rick H.

[yuriy y. vilin]

To fella who "abandoned MF for DSLR" - I guess he just didn't know what MF gear is used for. Oh, well maybe that jump did make him happier after all.

 

To Paul: I am with Mr. Vener here. Considering what you got right now I'd look at digi backs.

[jamiew]

A digital back is good advise, but make sure you check compatability. Some of the older Hasey's are a pain to use with digi backs.

[rick_helmke]

Actually I know exactly what MF is used for, been using it for many years. It's just been the past 12 months that dslr has been able to compete cost and quality-wise and based on the prints sitting next to my keyboard a good 6MP camera is kicking the MF butt. I'm sure the digital MF backs are better still but at the beginning of this thread cost was mentioned as a factor. If Paul can swing a 10D or D100 (or 300d or d75) without geting rid of his MF equipment then that is what I'd reccommend.

 

Rick H.

[kelly_flanigan1]

<b>Most of this work is catalog.</b><BR><BR>I like Ellis's idea best. This gives your client more to work with; and allows him to still crop alot. Sometimes catalog shots require shallow isolation in focus; ie small DOF to isolate the object; and MF or larger is/used just for these properties; plus better tonal qualities too.

[paulrumohr]

Actually one of the thing that bugs me most about switching is losing the visual

characteristics of my medium format lenses (perspective, depth of field

characteristics, working distances to subjects). I spent a lot of time (years) trying to

put together the lenses I have now and I like the way my current lenses "see" the

world.

 

Sigh. I'm going to go and try to give my brain some rest.

[moses_sparks]

Paul,

 

Not to confuse you any further, but...you mentioned that you like the way your MF lenses see the world, but they won't see it the same way with a digital back.

 

The Kodak ProBack is capable of amazing quality, (and they can be found for good prices now) but because of the sensor size it will change the effective field of view you're going to get with any of your lenses.

 

That's one of the main reasons I opted not to get one for my Mamiya RZ system, there simply is no wide angle option for instance, even the new 47mm lens announced only gets you to about a "normal" focal length equivalent.

 

The hot ticket for MF digital IMO is something like a Hasselblad H1 or Mamiya 645 AFD coupled to one of the new 22MP backs like the one from Leaf or Imacon. Those sensors are very close to 645 format in size, so you don't have a significant magnification factor and you have lots of options for lenses, even on the wide angle end.

 

The problem is that the backs alone are in the $27,000 range, plus you need the camera system to go wih it. Not practical for lots of guys to own.

 

For high end advertising work and such, that's going to be the benchmark for a while, but for a LOT of commercial work a professional quality DSLR is going to be more than adequate for most clients.

 

I currently own 3 of them, and am anxiously waiting for Nikon to bring the D2X or whatever their next high res body will be called to market.

 

I cannot get ANY of my clients to work from scanned 6x7 film any longer. Once they have experienced the speed and ultra-clean results from the DSLR's they won't go back to dealing with film at all.

 

And since I rarely need big enlargements there's really no reason to.

 

But I'm appalled at what my RZ system is now worth on the used market because of all this.

 

Good luck with your decision.

 

P.S. Anyone interested in a mint condition RZ system?

[aaron_good]

I'm sure this will invite much flameage from X3-haters, but if you're doing product photography, why not get a Simga SD-10? Its Foveon X3 chip is quite good. Sample pics can be found all over the net.<p>

Or wait until someone comes out with a Foveon back.

[khairul_yusuf]

How long have you been a 'blad user? It is very rare that someone would leave Hasselblad for a digital, SLR or not. Say bye-bye to Zeiss Distagon 4/40, never ??

[._._z]

<i> It is very rare that someone would leave Hasselblad for a digital </i><p>

 

Anyone paying attention to the falling prices of used Hassie gear, and the rush to

digital by pro photographers, realizes that this is untrue.

[moses_sparks]

Yup...there's nothing rare about it. I have been working with MF equipment for over 15 years and I would have found it very difficult to believe it would ever be obsolete, but from a commercial standpoint that's exactly what's happening, and moreover, at a pace that is simply amazing.

 

Hasselblad equipment for instance, has always been a good investment (although for working photographers, equipment is NOT an investment, it's overhead) because it held it's value very well in the resale market.

 

Not any more. Digital has changed that dramatically.

 

New MF prices are stable, i.e. they are not going down and you can see that by checking prices at major dealers like B&H, but sales of this equipment is way down.

 

And if you check what you can get for your used MF gear, you will be shocked at what it's worth now. I certainly was.

 

It's simple supply and demand economics.

 

If you shoot for pleasure and MF film works for you, there's certainly no reason to "go digital", the equipment is probably worth more to you than you could expect to get from resale anyway.

 

Pros don't have that luxury, as they have to cater to the clients that pay the bills, and sitting on equipment that isn't generating income is just bad business. In my experience, once a client has seen the benefits of the digital workflow, they never go back to film. Even if higher quality reproduction is possible, and a LOT of that is theoretical and based on numerous factors I won't go into here, the speed, convenience, and flexibility of digital wins out.

 

You're also going to see a reduction in the availability of films for MF as the demand for the equipment drops. Try to find 220 rolls of anything except the "bread and butter" emulsions that wedding and portrait guys use, especially outside the major cities, and you'll see for yourself.

 

120 is easier, but it's only a matter of time.

 

I don't say any of this with pleasure, quite the contrary, the thought of film becoming extinct in my lifetime is quite depressing to me...I grew up with it after all...but digital technology is changing everything about the world of photography, in lockstep with computer development, and there's no going back.

[paulrumohr]

One of the things I have noticed about the whole issue of the film digital thing is how

it is f***ing with my head.

 

Whenever I think of shooting for myself or for a client, the first thing I think of is HOW

I'm going to do it (ie film or digital). Well I can save money here, but lose time there-

the client wants it fast, the client doesn't want it fast- the client can't handle digital

files even though they're asking for it...

 

My head is so preoccupied with the techy crap I have analysis paralysis. It's amazing I

can even get it together to get out every day and actually take pictures. Who would

have ever thought I would look into my Hassy case and wonder if I had the right tools

for a photo assignment!

[moses_sparks]

Paul,

 

Making the change from film to digital IS overwhelming on many levels.

 

An amateur shooter can buy a DSLR, a couple of CF cards, and some form of editing software, and provided they already have an adequate computer and printer, they're pretty much ready to go on a basic level.

 

Not so for the pro...you need 2 cameras, probably dedicated flashes for them, lots of CF capacity, extra batteries, standalone storage like external hard drives, a laptop, etc... plus many guys find that their existing computer and software don't have the horsepower necessary to handle big image files at a speed that won't drive you crazy. Very expensive journey (although I found it pretty comparable to building a really complete MF SLR kit).

 

The learning curve is also daunting, it takes a while to figure out what it is you even need to learn.

 

Personally, I put off making the transition as long as I could, but it got to a point where it was obvious my clients were going to go elsewhere if I couldn't give them what they wanted, and that was digital.

 

It's a little like the expression "It's hell getting old...but it beats the alternative".

 

So in December of 2002 I bit the bullet and bought a full DSLR system, including a high powered laptop and all the software. I really started from scratch, because I had all the lenses I needed, but nothing else that would support the digital transition.

 

I've spent the last year testing, reading, taking classes, and learning everything I could about all aspects of digital imaging. I also shot a lot of jobs digitally, and made a decent amount of money from it. I haven't recouped my investment yet, but I've definitely put a dent in it, and I expect to recoup it in full this year. That's not a bad ROI (return on investment).

 

And you know what? I haven't completely divorced myself from film yet, but I can't wait to get to that point. I love the digital workflow. I find that I have so much more control over my images, my schedule, and my ability to service my clients, I think it's great.

 

(I do spend a LITTLE more time on post-production, but I bill for that time, so I also make more money. That whole conception that digital has WAY more post time involved than film is BS in my opinion, at least it certainly is for me. I spent a lot of time editing proofs and transparencies for my clients, and I find that it's easier and more enjoyable on the computer).

 

I only shoot 35mm film now because I have a certain market segment (wedding clients) that still want it, and I am working on leading them away from that this year too.

 

I recently sold my MF system because I put less than 10 rolls of film through it in 2003.

 

Shooting film is just a pain in the ass to me now. Not being able to see what we're getting as we shoot it (I've shot a mountain of Polaroid in my career, and it doesn't approach digital), getting film to the lab, waiting for them to process and proof it, getting it back, dealing with negs, matching proofs to negs...no thanks. It just seems completely archaic to me now.

 

And one other thing that I think is certainly worth mentioning: digital imaging got me excited about the process of photographing again.

 

Shooting professionally can be very rewarding of course, but it can also get to be a "job" (and let's face it, don't most of us go into photography as an alternative to having a "job"?). So the digital thing has kind of made it fresh for me again, and I was at a point where I needed that. Enthusiasm for what you're doing makes all the difference.

 

So at any rate, I'm not trying to paint too rosy a picture for you, but I am trying to put a positive spin on it, bcause there definitely is one.

 

Good luck to you.

[paulrumohr]

I am looking into leasing a DSLR system with accessories and high end laptop. I think

this is the only way I can do it without charging up all my credit cards to the max. I

can ammortize the cost of the system over the period of time I plan to use it, and

make the lease payments tax deductible. And dump it when the lease is done and the

system is worthless.

 

I think this is a good idea. From my personal experience with the plummeting price

on the Nikon D1X I use to own, I have no illusions that the EOS 1DS system I'm about

to get into will be worth anything at all in 3 years.

 

It's so strange. I always thought that one of the rewards of making it in photography

was to own a system (or systems) outright that you had put together over time.

 

If the process of making images changes in step with Moore's law, I may never own a

camera again.

 

I will just have a lease payment in perpetuity.

[._._z]

<i> I am looking into leasing a DSLR system with accessories and high end laptop. I

think this is the only way I can do it without charging up all my credit cards to the

max. </i><p>

 

You don't necessarily need a high-end laptop, just one with enough RAM to handle

big Photoshop images. As for other photographers working this way, you might want

to peruse: <p>

 

http://www.apple.com/za/creative/toselli/ <p>

 

http://www.apple.com/pro/photo/kirkland/ <p>

 

http://www.apple.com/pro/photo/nachtwey/ <p>

 

http://www.apple.com/creative/videophoto/vertis/ <p>