Canon D30 vs Nikon 35mm vs MF

[dean_munnell]

I am moving to Europe in 6 months and will have endless photgraphic

opportunites. I want to build a system that will satisfy my

photography needs. I want the ability to have digital images, good

quality prints, and good quality occasional 8X10 prints. "Good

quality is of course subjective" Reviewing pics in photo.net, I find

myself liking the MF shots and higher end digitals like the D30.

I have a Nikon F-100 (that I really like) and a crappy Sigma zoom

lens. It has been a satisfactory intro into photography so far but I

desire higher quality. I bought a Koni Omega MF camera a year ago

with very dissapointing results- no better than with 35mm.

I am considering three options:

1) Upgrading my Nikon system by adding a couple prime lenses and a

good zoom "D" type lens. Then after developing film in a lab, sending

negatives to be scanned into a photo CD. (+)least expensive option

(-)long wait & cost for developing and making CD's.

2) Selling the Nikon and buying a used Mamiya 6 with 3 lenses and

digitalizing as above for 35mm. (+) best possible image quality (-)

expensive processing and long wait.

3) Selling my Nikon and buying a D30 + "L" type zoom lens.

(+)immediate image feedback with no processing fees or waiting. (-)

loss of image quality.

I am currently leaning towards digital since the immediate feedback

might put some fun back into taking pictures. (my nikon is not used

much currently since it takes so long to get the prints/negatives and

then the results are dissapointing for their low quality- inherent in

35mm compared to MF, and also for having a poor zoom lens.)

Unfortunately, keeping the nikon and adding either the D30 or M6 is

cost prohibitive for me. I like to shoot special effects, landscapes,

and travel images.

Any recommendations for which way to go?

Thanks

[carl smith]

I think you said it yourself when you described your lens as a crappy Sigma. Consider trying a better lens. You can get great 8x10s easy out of 35mm, but you need a decent lens, and that can make all the difference in the world.

 

The D30 should make a good 8x10. I've heard a lot of good things about the 8x10s produced from its images. Going medium format is again just a huge jump in a different direction. You ought to borrow or try out a better lens for your Nikon before you jump in a different direction.

[alex_medeiros]

All 3 systems will deliver quality results but the process and requirements for each will differ substantially. When working with film there is a chain of elements that must be in place to deliver top quality. This includes using the right film for appropriate situations, quality developing and a quality lens. In addition there is the obvious factor of both technical skill and and artistic ability. I'm not sure how happy you might be with Photo-CD. You might want to test a roll now to see if you if find the quality acceptable. You might consider a quality film scanner in the $700-$900 price range to allow more flexibility and control. I am sure your current lens is capable of solid images when stopped down. A better lens will give you more flexibility and quality at wider apertures etc.

The Canon D-30 will clearly deliver images at 8x10 that will be of very high quality. This will require a sizeable investment. In addition to the camera, storage medium (I reccomend IBM microdrives to allow a suitable number of images in the RAW format) you will need to invest in a quality lens. Best case is probably a $4,000 investment. This assumes your computer is already capable enough and that you have a quality printer. Probably the main advantage here is more immediate feedback and an easier workflow in getting the images into the computer.

Going Medium Format is an entirely different animal. I have the Mamiya 7 II and I dearly love what it offers. However, I would never consider it a replacement for my 35mm gear. If you want to go digital with medium format negs you need to give consideration to whether an additional scanner is needed or again if Photo-CD will meet your needs.

As far as getting reasonably quick feedback there are labs readily available that will provide next day service for E-6 processing and slides will give very good feedback on compositional and metering skill for a reasonably low cost. Factor in the cost of a decent light table and a good loupe. If I was in your situation I would probably look at upgrading the lens or adding to the lens you already have for your 35mm gear. A tripod or monopod can do wonders for improving picture quality. Best wishes!

[andreas_carl]

"I am currently leaning towards digital since the immediate feedback might put some fun back into taking pictures."

I would consider this the most important aspect. Do something you actually enjoy doing!!! I suspect, you would hate MF cause it will slow you down and put you on the bottom of the learning curve. When I sold my Canon equipment 15 years ago and went Hasselblad, my initial results were WORSE than what I got out of my Canon!

 

My main suggestion would be to invest in something even simpler than the D30. I took a Coolpix 880 to Europe last Fall and had lots of fun! 128 MByte chip plus spare battery is enough for about 400 pictures (1 Megapixel size) which makes very nice 4x6 prints. If I wanted the best quality, I'd take my Hasselblad anytime over a digital camera though!

[clyde_rogers]

I have a D30 and Mamiya 7. Between the two of them given what

you want to do, the D30 is an easy winner. The estimate

someone gave of $4000 is reasonable once you have memory,

batteries, and one or two of the better (not necessarily most

expensive) Canon lenses. If you are a hundred roll a year or

more shooter, this large initial outlay will begin saving you

money rapidly. And, as a bonus, digitial cameras certainly are

fun.

 

If the initial outlay is excessive, or if you don't shoot tons of film

(or are going to print most everything you shoot anyway) your

existing camera makes the most sense. With the right film, the

difference between it and medium format at 8x10 is negligible (at

11x14, I'd go for the Mamiya, however).

 

Some Sigma lenses are very good. Despite that, it is likely that

your camera is capable of far better results than you're getting.

The way to get the best results for not so much money is to

select a good film, buy one or two or the better Nikkors for your

F100, and if you'll actually use it, to get decent tripod. That setup

would be capable of beautiful 8x10s.

 

Also, if I had to choose between an F100 with a couple of the

better Nikkors or my D30 with one or two Sigma lenses, I'd drop

the D30 like a hot rock. Lenses are key, in my opinion.

[josh_slocum]

I'm sorry, but I can't let this pass:

D30 image quality at 8x10 or 11x14 is only "negligibly" different from medium format? Huh? It's not even on par with 35mm. It's a 3 megapixel camera! Yes, I've seen the images. You know what gives them the apparent sharpness? The inherent binary "on/off" character of digital imaging: a line doesn't gradually taper off, it ends where the pixel boundary ends. This is not detail, or resolution, this is the same thing that makes people who watch the 11 o' clock news say "video is sharp, compared to soft, dreamy film." Ugh. If I have to listen to one more person tell me the Canon D30 makes more detailed pictures than a piece of 35mm film I'll scream. Comparing it to medium format is just plain hilarious.

[roy_ames]

Dean, I have a 1V and 4 L lenses ect. Just bought the D30 2 weeks ago,always obsessed with sharpness tripods B1 ball heads, got the lot, a real gearhead. I used to read all about lenses and equipment,shoot provia f100,Leica suppercolorplan projector etc.

Went out with D30 512microdrive(should have got 1gig) never had so much fun in my life. Been doing photography for years (Om4ti etc) notimproved much in all that time. To tight(mean) to shoot rolls and rolls of film, now that there is no cost (save to a CD) have not printed out yet ( no photo quality printer)improved overnight and now take photographs instead of playing with my gear.No smart arses offering to buy my redundant film gear please.

[lightcraftsman]

You may as well start screaming Josh. I'm not going to say the D-30 is as good

as a medium format original, but after comparing prints made from a D-30

original to prints made with 35mm film, I sold my 35mm film cameras and

bought two D-30s. Digital has surpassed 35mm film quality, despite what Josh

believes.

[anthony_harrison]

I don't know whether the photo-opportunities in Europe are any more "endless" than in the USA, where I guess you are based - the grass is always greener - but the camera alternatives you mention are confusingly disparate. I'd say if you're used to 35mm, stick to that, and forget Sigma and other off-brand stuff, get yourself a decent Nikkor or two. I am perplexed by your repeated references to long waits for colour neg film processing: do you live in a remote area? Here in UK I get colour neg film processed & printed in one hour, to a high standard, and for reversal film (which I use most) my local pro lab does E6 in 2 hours. These services should be found in any reasonably urban part of W.Europe.

The D30 has a very high reputation with those pros who've used it, and should prove more than adequate for hobbyist use; but you only get "instant results" if you have access to a computer and colour printer. Stick with your F100.

[david_henderson]

Any of the alternatives will meet what you say you want- so the ability to deliver along these criteria shouldn't be a primary decision factor.

 

The real difference between your options is a different photographic experience. Medium format is a much more contemplative, studied approach to photography than 35mm and the bigger image even in the viewfinder tends to promote a different style. Then there's the difference in format. Personally I find the angular shape of 35mm difficult to compose within, and love sqaure and 67 formats, but not everyone feels like that. If you relate to any or all of these things then maybe you should go MF. If not then I'd avoid it.

 

Digital capture meanwhile provides a mechanism some people find liberating because it frees them from the costs of film and processing, releases them from the vagaries of processing, and enables them to see if they've got what they want and if necessary do it again.

 

So the real question to you is what sort of photographer do you want to be?

 

Finally, as someone that uses MF SLR and rangefinder, I should say that the rangefinder approach has limitations which mean it's not as flexible as an SLR. Not seeing depth of field can be a problem with landscapes, not being able to use very long lenses might be an issue, as might increased difficulty in accuracy of framing. I like my Mamiya 7 very much, but I can't use it all the time.

[edward_c._nemergut]

I would encourage you to rent (or borrow) a D30 and spend a week (or weekend) giving the D30 a try. You may find that you like it more than your F100 and that the "loss of image quality" isn't so bad. You may even find the image quality better, as has been suggested. After that, consider renting (borrowing) a Mamiya 6 (or, if you can't find one, a 7 isn't *that* much different). Maybe you'll find that the "best possible image quailty" isn't worth the pain that can be MF and the $$$ it will eventually cost you to scan (digitize) the film. On the other hand, maybe you'll fall in love with the way those big Velvia trannies look on a light box (as I did).

 

Everyone here is giving good advice based on their experience. My advice is to create your own experience...

[vartan_grigorian]

It looks as though you are looking for excuses to change your camera equipment. Even the 'crappy' Sigma zoom will probably deliver a very acceptable 8x10 if stopped down to ~f11 and used on a tripod. I am not trying to criticise you, but changing your equipment will not automatically produce better results. If you want to experiment with digital imaging why not buy a filmscanner and print your own pictures? If you then find that the lens is inadequate for what you want to do then buy some good Nikkor prime or top of the range zoom (expensive) lenses. There is not much point in MF unless you are printing bigger than ~A4.

[robert_armas]

More than a response,this is another question.

I'm familiar with 35 mm and I'm in the "love me,love not"process with MF,reading as much as I can read,asking in shops,etc.

MF appeals to me in the sense of large negative area and,till a few posts read before lens quality.I'm more inclined to TLR(Rollei).

Now my doubt or question.Someone in this thread or another mentioned that an 8x10 amplification of a 35 mm will outdone an amplification of the same size of a 24mmx36mm area of a 6x6 negative,due to better lens quality on the 35mm format and also more flatness in the film.

It's this true?If so,what are then the advantages of MF?

To me it looks as a drastically change for nothing,lossing the automation of 35 mm and if the statements mentioned are correct,loosing also picture quality.

Please,somebody,clear my head.

[david_henderson]

Robert

 

If you use a 50mm lens on a 35mm system to capture a particular scene, you get a piece of film 35 x 24mm. If you use an 80mm lens on a 6x6 system you'll get a similar scene (ok, with a bit more top and bottom) but you'll get a piece of film 56 x 56mm- nearly 4x the area.

 

Now even though the smaller piece of film may be at least as high a quality per sq. mm as the larger one, the ability to produce a great print or projected transparency depends on size because you have to enlarge a big piece of film much less. This size advantage tends to translate into smoother transitions and more detail, because it's not just the piece of film that's bigger but the size of the objects in it. So a tree will be a lot bigger on a 6x6 transparency than it is on a 35mm, when lenses with equivalent angles of view are used.

 

I would expect to see clear superiority of MF vs. 35mm prints at 10" x 8" -other things being equal with the difference becoming more marked as you go bigger. Note. This is not the same as saying you can't produce decent prints from 35mm at 10" x 8" or larger.

[dean_munnell]

Hello everyone, thank you for all of your responses. I am grateful to have read so much good advice. I wish that I could have all three systems and enjoy the benefits that each of them offers, but alas, life has limitations. I am well aware that MF has the highest possible quality for image enlargement- in response to someone who thought I was arguing otherwise. I am actually only interested in the final product and don't care about types of cameras or brands, etc. I use photography as an artistic escape and to express the way I see the world through my photos.

A few of you have correct intuition that I seem to be making excuses or looking for a reason to switch formats. It is true. The reason for my discontent is that as I've grown as a photographer I have put high demands on myself to deliver better and better quality images over time. I get frustrated after coming up with something creative, working hard to get the composition the way I want it, and then waiting excitedly for the results only to be disapointed. Most of the time the potential is there but I just want more. I want to be able to enter into a new world when I look at an image. To feel like I am there. I mostly see that in other's MF shots and sometimes with 35mm. So, I was looking at MF as a way to reduce the number of wasted shots since the image neg. and quality is so much bigger/better, and with digital since you can shoot like crazy and delete the unwanted shots. Getting on average just 1 keeper out of a 36 roll irritates me but I guess that is probably about what others get.

I was also getting anxious since I will have the opportunity over the next 4 years in Europe to travel to many countries that I haven't been to yet. We are planning on travelling to a new country every 2 months- outside of Europe, in addition to weekend trips throughout Europe. My experience in the past revealed that investing in photography while travelling is very rewarding and also that photo's that don't live up to your expectations once home is something you have to deal with since the opportunity is gone- probably forever.

So, I am going to take some of the recommendations to heart. I think it is foolish of me to have a good camera that I like- married to another manufacturer's lens and throw the whole system out without giving it a chance with nikkor lenses. Especially since the sharpest lens in Nikon's arsenal is the inexpensive 50mm f1.8.

In a year or two I can look into buying digital or MF and still be able to keep 35mm. Maybe by then it won't cost the same as for a small car.

Thanks so much for all of your input.

Happy shooting!

[raymond_valois]

Hi Robert ...

I totally agree with David ... he's correct.

 

Having said that, one thing you have to learn is NOT to believe everything that gets written on this forum. I believe that anyone posting on this site believes what he is saying, but then, we all SEE things with different eyes.

 

So do test: On a piece of paper, draw a 36mm x 24mm rectangle. Next to this rectangle, draw another one 60 mm x 45 mm. Arithmetic yields that the area covered by the 60mm x 45 mm rectangle is 312% larger than the 36mm x 24mm drawing. The actual physical size of the negative is just slightly smaller than these drawings.

 

Now take a regular lead pencil (or any colored pencil) and in each rectangle, shade from the lightest to the darkest that that particular pencil can provide.

 

You conclude rather quickly that there are more shades and more transitions in the larger rectangle. The same applies when the film gets exposed: more shades, more subtle, easier transitions, etc ... etc ...

 

But you don't have to believe this. Take a nice close-up of a person under exactly the SAME lighting conditions with each type of camera, and get yourself an 8x10 and 11x14 enlargement of each. Let YOUR eyes determine which is superior.

 

Personally, I was completely blown away by the sharpness, color saturation, continuity of colors, etc ... etc ... of the larger neg. And so I simply do not believe ANYONE who tells me differently. People will talk about resolving more lines per millimmeter with 35mm lenses than MF. I simply don't care ... MY eyes tell me differently!

 

Prove it to yourself. If you don't feel it's sufficiently superior, then you've saved yourself a wad of hard earned dollars.

 

Ray

[robert_armas]

Thank you Ray.

You're definitelly right,I was in the same kind of beliefs when I just started my curiosity on MF,but I have not seen any MF print so far(I mean in my hands,plenty on books),that's why I doubted for a moment.The lens quality issue was hard to believe,the thing about film flatness had me thinking.But at the end your statement stand true:I have to try for myself and draw conclusions.Thanks a lot.

[hal_bissinger]

<i>...Someone in this thread or another mentioned that an 8x10 amplification of a 35 mm will outdone an amplification of the same size of a 24mmx36mm area of a 6x6 negative,due to better lens quality on the 35mm format and also more flatness in the film...</i><p>

Robert, I was a contributor to that thread.<p>

<i>...one thing you have to learn is NOT to believe everything that gets written on this forum...</i><p>

Raymond, I might sometimes agree with you but I find that most advice (not opinion) given on photo.net is pretty accurate. That said, I would urge YOU to reread Robert's question above.<p>

The question WAS NOT whether a 35mm enlargement would be superior to a medium format enlargement of the same size (Duh!) but rather would an enlargement OF AN AREA EQUAL TO A 35mm FRAME of a medium format neg or tranny be superior to an equal size enlargement of a 35mm image taken (with the same emulsion) OF THAT SAME PART OF THE SCENE as in the medium format image.<p>

The answer is that they will be the same or that the 35mm may even have a slight edge given better film flatness and optics. <p>

The reason is that for any given emulsion, the formulation, for all intents and purposes is the same. Whether you are using 135, 120 or sheet, you just get more real estate as the format increases. Grain size, resolving power and everything else are the same across the formats. If you shot an image on 35mm film and then cut a piece from a piece of sheet film, stick it in the back of your camera and expose it the results will be the same.

[raymond_valois]

Hi Hal ...

 

Thank you for correcting me ... I plead guilty on both counts: not having read Robert's question exactly as stated, and secondly, technical advice on this board is accurate most of the time (hey, maybe ALL the time), opinions, well that's another story, as you well know.

 

I still maintain my response to Robert, however, while I was writing it, I had a cropping example from one of my weddings in mind. The crop represented approx. 3/4 in x 1/2 in from a 6x4.5 neg and enlarged to 8x10. Turned out just lovely and sold well. I could not have cropped the small 35mm neg and have achieved the same quality results.

 

Thanks for straightening me out, Hal, I feely rightfully and appropriately chastised <;-)))))).

 

Ray

[rick_falck]

I just traveled all over Europe for 7 months. I bought a Nikon F100, 20-35 2.8, 28-105, and 70-300ED lenses. I also got a SB-28 and various filters. All of this fit nicely in my Lowepro hip pack, which enabled me to hike and travel all over the place with relative ease. I brought a cheapo slik tripod and eventually tossed it for the new Bogen carbon fiber one with a ball head. I bought a slik shoulder bag to carry it in. All together I was carrying around 22 pounds. I had the whole focal range covered that I needed and got several thousand great shots. I started with Kodak and Fuji 200 print films and got disgusted with the developing results. I switched to E100VS slides and had no trouble finding places to develop for around $6-$8 a roll in 1 to 2 days (un-mounted). I bought a Hamma DSR slide mounting kit to mount them myself and a small slide viewer to see them.

 

I bought a Pentax 645 outfit with 35mm, 45-85, and 80-160 lenses for a US Southwestern adventure (35mm equivalent of 21mm-110). With the Bogen tripod I was now carrying around 30 pounds (no flash!). This setup was great for scenics, but with Europe you will want to take pics of buildings and people too (not to mention the occasional macro). Imagine getting a pic of the horse guards in London with that setup (no fill in flash). NOT!

 

Naturally, it took me a while with the Nikon gear to get to the point that I could hike 6+ miles a day, especially in places like rugged Norway. THe max I hiked in the Southwest with the Pentax stuff was 5 miles (Bryce canyon). Ouch.

 

I would LOVE to do Europe again with the Pentax, but would then limit myself to what it could do (scenics on a tripod). But I would ONLY do this for some wonderful 16X20 enlargments. For 8X10, the Nikon cannot be beat for size, weight, options. There is no way I would do the 13 mile hike I did in Bergen Norway with all that Pentax stuff!

 

Digital was not an option for me, since I would have needed a computer to store the images. As it was, I mailed the pics/slides home ever month or so, so I would not have to lug them around with me.

 

I am now scanning all the European pics with a Nikon LS-4000ED scanner. So, I now have digital too.

 

Good luck!

[patrick_drennon]

You'll use digital immediately, it WILL be fun, you'll shoot alot, get

better, want more, THEN move on and include MF. Huge

point........have FUN. Then you too will write run-on sentences.

[boris_vinnik1]

Hello,

Firstly, let�s say that MF definitely superior to 35mm in the term of big enlargements and 35mm again far superior to ANY digital camera. Here�s nothing to discuss about. If somebody tries to justify their expensive market experiments it is their problem.

If you ready to go with MF camera, just take it. In the term of quality nothing come close as well as your personal satisfactory of photographing process. Yes, the 35mm far faster and in the more ways more capable format. But there�s not perfection in the photography, only compromises. If you like to feel you more tourist take 35mm, if you like to be more traveled photographer take MF. Here the strong financial question involved. MF is mostly more expensive but if you discuss D30, that approach 3000-4000$ I believe you can afford the modern MF camera like the glorious Contax645 or even Mamiya 645AFD. By the way with this new Mamiya you can take the digital back. Both of them are convenient and modern but terribly expensive. I cannot afford those cameras. And the image quality will be incomparable. Again here the MONEY is the main factor. I personally use Bronica etrsi and like it very much, but I also own 35mm Minolta 7 and thing it is the outstanding, perfect camera. I use Minolta if go walk and/or some fast action may be predicated, otherwise I take Bronica. Bronica accepts the 35mm back (the normal and the panoramic), so theoretically it may be used like 35 substitute, but again it is only theoretically. The 35mm camera is capable of the fast AF, small sizes,fast film transportation and superior lightweight lenses of any kind. The picture quality of 35mm may be very high and the difference with good film may be noticeable if you print larger than 8x12. But again it doesn�t mean that those pictures will look ugly or low quality. Not at all. They will look very well not only 16x20 but also 20x30 if you need. But the same picture from MF will be better, sharper and show more and better details in the shadows. Everything depends of what kinds of photography are you prefer. If you like candids, spontaneous shots take 35mm camera it will serve you just perfect. If you this kind of photographer who will wait for 4 hours to catch some fantastic sunrise or for hours walk in some italian country to find better viewpoint so take MF.

The digital camera is more toy than photography tool. If you don�t want be involved in the non end story of bodies, storage, batteries, backups and other computer related crap witch will hide from you the real photography, avoid it. For the money you can get perfect lenses instead cheap quality crap, which will become outdated in the next year.

Please take to consideration that usually people remain with the same brand for many, many years, just because they keep a lot of compatible equipment (mostly lenses keep you loyal to specific brand).

I DO NOT recommend any digital camera for your needs. There are lot of reasons, from basic image quality to fundamental technical problems and here the not place to discuss. Just don�t do it.