upgrading from 35mm to MF or digital

[prince.reyes]

I have been using 35mm for about 8 years now as a mountaineer and

lately as a wedding photographer. The DSLR is very tempting since the

prices these days are going low and i suppose capturing images is

unlimited in terms of money (no need for post processing and no

film). But then, I want to go for large prints like 16 x 20 and

probably bigger for wedding portraiture. My current system (zoom

lenses) has given quite decent enlargement, but I know i can do

better. Please advise which way to go : MF or DSLR. Just like most of

us, I am constrained with a little money (otherwise I'll just buy

everything I can think of). Is it still wise to go for TLR these days

(the one i can afford right now) or save the money and go for DSLR.

THanks in advise.

[hendrik]

Hi,

 

Save your money and invest in a MF system that can handle a digital back as well as film.

 

Contax645

Hasselblad H1

Mamiya 645 AFD

 

Regards

[conrad]

Let Google do the walking:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006VoN

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005JMD

 

Results from searching on "wedding photography dslr" turns up lots more.

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the latest trend for wedding photographers in the US has been to heavily rely on DLSR's for either all or a large portion of their work. Not because the resulting image quality is equal to or better than medium formet, but because it is good enough for the work they sell.

 

Specifically regarding a TLR, I don't know that it would be wise to buy one of those ancient things and then depend on it to earn an income. That is unless you're talking about one of those new Rolleis. I'd get one for personal work, but not for for shooting a high-pressure job like a wedding.

 

Here's something to consider. If you don't have the funds to afford a DSLR kit for weddings then you probably don't have enough to implement a reliable medium format system either. See what you can do to improve your 35mm capabilities. Like maybe some high-power monolights for the formal portraits so you can shoot them with with ISO 100 film instead of ISO 400. Maybe some better lenses too.

[sandro1]

I did the same upgrade recently, moving from Nikon F3 to Rollei 6008, bought from

Ctrades.

I decided not to go for a DSRL after 1 year use of Fuji S2 Pro (6 mpx), because even at

6 mpx the quality of the digital negative is not enought for 16 x 20 print I was looking

for.

I also tested the Kodak DCS 14n (14 mpx), but in the shades the level of noise is

unacceptable for the pictures I take.

Finally, the only DSRL option left (for that level of enlargments) was the Canon D1s, at

US$ 8,000.

With much less than that I bought a Rollei 6008AF, which will not become obsolete for

years to come; short term I returned to film (and scanner, since I don't have a

darkroom anymore), medium term I could upgrade to a digital back.

I'm buyng most lenses secondhand (there is a rich market on them).

My summary consideration is: with a good MF system, your investment is more

protected long term, and you still have all the digital options, now and in the future.

Mind though, I don't earn my living from wedding photos; a wedding business could

maybe justify and payback of a Canon D1s in the short term.

 

Sandro

[jonydirk]

I have both Contax 645 and DSLR systems. My DSLR is Nikon, with three cameras (bought over a period of time that has seen digital-evolution, of course): D1x, D100 (back-up), and recently the new D2h. With the D1x and D100, I have used a software interpolation program called Genuine Fractals (from LizardTech in Seattle) and have created full-bleed 24 x 36 posters with absolutely great results. The D2h is untested in this area, and is a camera that I purchased for its large buffer and fast write-to-card capabilities. One note on DSLRs: when you take a photo, the camera itself must write the file/info to a compact flash (CF) card of microdrive...and that takes time, just like it does on your computer. The camera's buffer is a temporary "storage" area that holds x-amount of information to write as you continue shooting. The Nikon D100, for example, can shoot about three uncompressed RAW (there are different file formats...much to much to explain for this short posting, but RAW is the camera's unique, unmanipulated photo-information from which you can save as .TIF or .jpg or what-have-you later on your desktop/laptop) before one must stop and wait. The Nikon D2h has a 25 photo capability (important because its can shoot 8 fps).

 

So in my (honest) opinion, you should take a LONG VIEW of where you will be going in your photography pursuits when making a decision between MF and DSLR. Camera bodies can change, but your lenses will be the anchor-bed of investment (as well as accessories). It seems if your mountaineering, weight is a considerable factor...and DSLR (Nikon or Canon are the real leaders in the pro-DSLR area) is lighter and smaller than MF. In terms of image quality, the argument goes round and round on film vs. digital, but that argument is like which bicycle or which snow ski is the very best.....few people can actually milk the most out of the very top (no offense meant to the vast majority, but I've seen arguments about film vs. digital forget the basics of photography: lighting and composition and "moment-captured").

 

One note: MF digital backs, as you may already know, are $8,000 - $22,000. Just the money for a digital back can get you a long ways into a full DSLR system.

 

In my book, I'd advise DSLR (Nikon or Canon). Especially if you already have some lenses...

 

Good luck.

 

Cheers,

John

[lex_jenkins]

I've seen some pretty darned sharp 11x14s produced by the Fuji FinePix DSLRs. Haven't seen any larger prints, tho'.

 

However, if I were considering a camera for wedding photography I'd much rather shoot film and have a lab do the processing and proofs. Digital post-processing is very time consuming. A full-time pro wedding photographer makes money through production, not by sitting at a computer. Unless I could afford an assistant to handle digital post-processing (to prep the proofs, albums, etc.) I wouldn't want to go that route.

 

I'm biased but I tend to believe that MF will still hold an edge in potential apparent sharpness over digital (other, perhaps, than the 11 megapixel Canon DSLR) for some time to come. That, of course, depends on film and processing.

[p._neil_ralley]

Quite apart from the quality aspect, if you do go the MF route you can probably leverage it from a marketing perspective. Prints fade, CDs deteriorate and hard drives can crash - wouldn't it be comforting for the happy couple to know that there is a set of negs or slides kept in a fire-proof safe somewhere? There has never been a better time to upgrade to MF - there are bargains to be had in Bronica and Mamiya equipment that would have been undreamed of a few years ago. Also, forget TLR, if DSLR is an option then so are MF SLR systems.

[jay_.]

For the short haul get a MF system. They're cheap and for a couple years film and processing shouldn't be too bad. You'll buy time until they make an affordable digital back with a full-frame sensor. If not, then you'll pick up a used EOS 1Ds by then for $2000.

[bacsa]

<i>"I have been using 35mm for about 8 years now as a mountaineer and lately as a wedding photographer. "</i><p>

 

As a "mountaineer"? Sorry if i misunderstand the expression, i see nobody mentioned this... but I don't think you would find a TLR convenient when mountaineering.<p>

 

Feel free to correct me if there's another meaning of the "mountaineer".<p>

 

On the other hand, you don't really have to sell your 35mm equipment if you want a TLR "for wedding portraiture".

<p>

I wonder if all i wrote makes sense:) cheers

[patricks]

A 35mm SLR/DSLR has the ability to produce very sharp and large printable phots, however, in my experience a DSLR print doesn't compete easily with a large sized print from a good MF system. It will take significant post-processing work in PS and programs like Gen.Frac in order to come close to what you can produce with MF. And I think one come closer with color than with mono.

 

In order for you to produce the type of images with a 35mm SLR you will need top glass like e.g. Canon's L series, which are as expenisve as any MF glass you can find.

 

For a DSLR investment, please keep in mind that you will need at powerful PC/Mac ($3K), Photoshop CS ($700), couple of GB's of memory cards ($500-1,000), a good DVD burner ($300), plus back up in the form of DVDs and 1-2 external HDs ($500+). Add lots of time infront of the computer and also a steep learning curve to master the workflow & software applications.

 

Having said that, the world will be all digital sooner or later (like it or not). Perhaps now is a good time for you to start getting your feet wet, and perhaps you the DSLR or MF equipment you buy are tax deductable.

 

If you really want to compete with MF, the Canon 1Ds is the way to go, and that will set you back $8K. if you are pro you will need some sort of back-up body as wel...

 

The altertive IMO would be to take a look at a 645 system. Mamiya's 645AFD kit now comes w/ a digital back for less than $7K (that is body, lens and digital back!).

 

At the end, I think you need to select the system that fits your shooting style.

[wim_van_velzen]

A medium format camera helps to convince people you are a professional. Of course, a real photographer with whatever camera will get better results than a monkey with a Rollei, but you get the point.

<p>

As far as I can see, most wedding photographers here in the Netherlands are still working on film, because of the amount of time digital needs.

<p>

Of course, if the price of a 1Ds would come down to about � 3000,-, some might change their minds.<br />

This also depends on the amount of film you are using each year.

<p>

<a href="httP://WWW.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl">Wim</a>

[magumi]

If you are a mountaineer, I advise you to have a look at photographs by Ladislav Kamarád (www.horolezec.cz) . He is the only photographer I know, who climbs the Himalayas with a Hasselblad kit. He scans the film and prints the pictures himself on Epson 9600 inkjet. I saw his prints in person and they are fabulous.

 

Martin

[fp1]

Greetings, Prince.

A year ago, I never would have believed I would be saying this,

but, here goes:

 

If you are even remotely as anal retentive as am I with regard to

image quality, I would suggest that you forget the dslr. Get the

medium format film camera. I am now a very happy wielder of

the Blad of Hassel. The dslr was fast, relatively easy to use and

carry, and provided for immediate feedback. The Blad is

heavier, clunkier, requires actual thought and a great deal more

physical effort to use.

 

I am however, am more interested in image quality as opposed

to whether or not I " got the shot." I had a D100 and several very

good, fast prime lenses. Negatives from a Pentax 4x5, scanned

on a low end flatbed scanner, simply obliterated raw files from

the dslr. I am now the owner of a Blad, an 80mm T* along with

an Omega View 4x5 with a 90mm Angulon. The only regret I

have with respect to equipment is that I didn't initially spend all

that money I paid for the Nikon gear on MF equipment.

 

Mind you that I am speaking from the perspective of an artist. I

am obsessed with image quality as well as composition and

subject matter. Many (most, I dare say) photographers are not

fine artists. Your proverbial mileage, to coin a phrase, may vary.

 

I don't mind taking 45 minutes to compose and make an image.

But then again, I am not opposed to waiting a year or more for an

oil painting to dry completely.

 

In my view, digital capture is to film capture (with a high end dslr)

as acrylic paint is to oil paint. Each is a legitimate artistic

medium. But I find that often, when viewing one of my more

succesful paintings done with acrylic paint, I find myself wishing I

had taken the time to complete the same using Winsor and

Newton oil paint. I am wishing I was shooting with the blad two

years ago. Go figure.

 

F.

[m_p2]

Martin, thanks for the link. Today was an ordinary day, went to work, came home, and thought about upgrading to medium format or going digital. When I saw Ladislav Kamarad's pictures, I felt as if I had been to the top of the world. I'm moving closer to entry level medium format, based on what I have been reading in the MF forums. I thought I read that the Cannon 10D cannot autofocus at f8, which I don't think would be good for sports photography. I often shoot at 400mm, f8 or higher if I can get it. Thanks to everyone for education us 35mms. Manuel

[dale_strumpell]

Analog capture then digital post-processing is the ideal. Best of both worlds.

 

Get a used hassy/whatever & one lens. Rent more lenses when needed.

 

Buy a great MF film scanner, computer/photoshop and the biggest Epson printer you

can afford. That new model 4000 does 16 X 20...

 

Don't let people talk you out of digitally printing your photos. It's a lot of fun and

once up the learning curve, pretty fast too.

[danny_liao]

i recently purchased a canon 1d and it was a great camera but had to return it

because the quality is just not there yet. don't get me wrong, the image quality is

great, but compare to film, it's just not the same. if i were you, i would wait another

year or so to get one. i predict by than, it will definitely be cheaper and perform

much better.

[squareframe]

thank you F HARRELL

 

it has always annoyed me when others call my beloved Hasselblad a 'Hassie' .. but 'Blad of Hassel' is just too good.

[patricks]

i forgot to add one thing, which might or might not be important to you when selecting gear - the dynamic range of the digital sensors is less than that of film. it is quite easy to blow the highlights on a given scene, and there is no way to reverse that. on the other hand, it is possible to dig out very good details in the shadows.

 

my choise has been made. after 6+ months with a Canon 10D I sold it last week and I'm returning full time to film, at least for now.

[michael_dimarzio]

Hey man, I am shooting with a C645 and had an M645, if I had an extra 800 bucks I'd buy an old Rollei, the 6x6 format is so cool. Sell your SLR stuff and buy a Leica M6 for a backup to MF. The M645Pro witth no light meter tought me more about exposure then when I was a flasher on the NYC Subway.

 

 

 

Cheers bro!

[prince.reyes]

Thank you guys for all the advise. I suppose most of you wants and recommends the MF over digital. Quality-wise I also prefer film, I just thought that everybody seems to be going to digital these days. We'll I guess i'll just sit out and wait 'till i can afford the upgrade to MF SLR and DSLR. Honestly, I would need both system in my photo work today. I just don't have the money to buy them at the same time. Happy shooting everybody !!!

[peeter_vissak]

Come on, guys! Professional gear will never be cheap. You may wait, but there will always be new features, readily (and often unnecessarily) incorporated to the new gear.

Yes, the low-end consumer line will probably get cheaper, but who cares!?

Just remember the computer boom, when it was predicted (according to the diagrams), that due to megarapid development there will soon come the day, when the price of a 'normal' computer will be below the zero.

 

More precisely on the topic - when and if I have time and no burning need, then I shoot with different 6x6 cameras. But as I live about 100 km away from the nearest town with a professional lab; and as I like to sketch my subjects in a luxuriant 'Nat.Geo' shooter way, the digital solution keeps me up-the-date with my images (no time lag between button-pressing and the visible result) and also avoids me going bankrobbing (after a year of digital shooting I've shot about 12 times more, than usually, while the rejected part of the material hasn't increased much).

 

So - I'd prefer shoot both and shoot now.

 

Cheerio,

 

Peeter Vissak

Matsalu Nature Reserve

Estonia

[kevin_riggs]

Prince,

 

I moved into DSLR (Canon 10D) from 35mm much the way you're considering. I'm interested in getting into medium format, too, and the Mamiya 645 systems look like something I'd like to try. Having said that I would like to point out a couple of positives of using the DSLR system as a stepping stone.

When I moved from 35mm to digital I immediate cut the ongoing costs of shooting. I could shoot 160 frames (RAW) or almost 400 frames in the highest JPEG setting and then pick and choose which I wanted to edit as well as testing with how I processed those images. This put some power into my hands rather than waiting for some person to sit at a 35mm print machine and "tweak" my shots. Now I admit that 6x4.5 MF prints are generally cleaner, deeper and ready for blowing up sooner right out of the camera but I have produced some 20x30 prints with my little 6mp camera that I have up and people stop by to comment on how impressive they look. I would tend to think that if you want to just go for the gusto and shoot only the highest quality then save up and go MF. If you want to get more involved in your photos while giving yourself the ability to make poster-sized prints while still keeping some of the ease of use and portability of a 35mm body then either Canon (10D/1Ds) or Nikon (D100/D2H) equipment would be a good step. As for any problems with autofocusing on the Canon equipment at or above f/8 I've never noticed it either with Canon glass or any other mfg's lenses. I haven't shot one of the 400mm or larger, though so there may be something that you'd need to look into (if you have the $3000+ USD for that lens).

Its probably worth mentioning that I have dropped well over $3,000 USD for all my equipment: body, lenses, lighting, flash, flash bracket, etc. For that cost I could have afforded one of the Mamiya 645AF systems from B&H but then again, I really didn't expect to enjoy the work aspect of it as much as I do.

 

Kevin