Medium format digital?

[jeff_enck]

I am considering moving to digital and was wondering if the benefits

medium format has over 35 mm apply to digital as well. I currently

use Canon 35 mm gear and Pentax 645N medium format. Will a medium

format digital produce better images assuming quality lenses are used?

Appreciate any comments.

[wayne_campbell]

Good questions Jeff, I was wondering the same things myself.

And if 6x6 is better digitally than 35mm, then how much better

will 4x5 and 8x10 be?

 

Wayne Campbell

[robert_kennedy]

Here we go again....

[andrew_schank]

Sure, a true medium format size chip would be capable of better quality than a smaller one found in a 35mm camera, all other things being equal. The cost is prohibitive at this point, however,-the technology just isn't there yet to produce an affordable full size 6X6 or even 645 chip.

[jeff_enck]

Bob,

Thanks for the input.

[kevin_kolosky]

There are many medium format backs in existence. Kodak makes a DCS back from which I have seen 30 x 40 prints that were absolutely exquisite. What does the word "affordable" mean. If you want it or need it you find a way to get it.

 

Kevin

[lucas_griego]

A while back I was in a guys studio in Manilla (Harvey Chua -

AdPhoto) and he is completely set up for digital on MF.

He had two different versions of the PhaseOne (Sinar?) back.

One was an older and somewhat slower back (multi pass

scanning?) and one was faster newer one.

 

Since he was using these primarily for ad shots he could burn

through as many shots as he wanted basically. It seemed ideal

for three reasons -

 

One: If the set up is messy or complicated (his was 'juice' tidal

wave shot set up in a custom built plexi-glass form) you can burn

enough digital shots to be able to composite.

 

Two: The client can see all of the shots right there on the monitor

and choose right then and there. (This could be a royal pain in

the neck as well though)

 

Three: You haven't got the wait to get chromes back from the lab

so no need to tear down and set up again.

 

But - all of this comes at a fairly hefty price. I don't know the latest

and not so greatest prices on MF digital backs but when I did

check - about two months ago - I could burn tons of film and

processing dollar before I'd even break even on a digital MF

back. Who knows maybe I just need better clients! ;-)

 

If your doing it as a hobby or as a serious amateur - wait until the

prices come down unless you've got money to burn. In that case

pick me one up as well. ;-)

 

If your a working pro with steady clients and figure you can make

the cost of the back in 6 months go for it.

 

Good luck.

[_____133]

"Two: The client can see all of the shots right there on the monitor and choose right then and there. (This could be a royal pain in the neck as well though)".

 

You said it, Lucas. This got so bad that I willingly gave digital after a spell and simply told clients: I don't shoot digital. Talk about armchair-quarterbacking, talk about rear-seating driving, talk about being micro-art-directed. I was losing my instinct for the moment; with digital clients don't have to trust you anymore. You become the monkey who pushes the button, the troll who moves the light.

 

Digital could be the bane of professionals who lose control of their shooting floor to the client. All because it is too damn convenient.

[john_bright]

Erik,

 

Sounds like it might be the end of professional photographers.

[audidudi]

I know of one instance where after buying a digital camera (and a very cheap one, at that) a company dumped the pro who did all their product shots and now has the marketing department do them in-house. Although the person who takes most of the photos doesn't have a clue about what he's doing, the results he comes up with aren't too bad, thanks to the instant feedback digital imaging provides and the fact that he can shoot an almost infinite number of test shots at no cost.

 

I suspect photographers who simply take photos and don't have a unique style or vision to offer prospective clients will soon find their days are numbered (and rightfully so, I might add).

[mediumformat]

Thuis exact same conversation has been going on at PDN for more than month. There are a growing number of ad agencies who think that because super hi quality digital is being used (16 megapixel backs) that they no longer need to hire professional photographers. Of course, the best ad agencies know this is baloney, but many are still bent on trying to do their own thing. What they end up with are super hi resolution crappy images.

 

MF digital backs do indeed yield amazing quality at this stage, but are outrageously expensive. Price will go down, as with all technology, but no piece of technology can substitute for knowledge, experience, or creative vision. Photography will always be more than the technology. Just look at the "great" or most memorable images of the 20th century: nearly all were achieved by an experienced photographer who was at the right place, at the right time, and produced a memorable image with impact because of skill and vision, not because of technology.

 

There's plenty of practical reasons why photojournalists/National Geographic/press in all genres tend to stick with basic cameras like an M6. The best images make the camera/technology irrelevant and invisible.

[Aoresteen]

What are the actual size of the chips in the MF backs? I thought that the current size was really more like 35mm (24 x 36mm) than say 56 x 56mm MF.

 

Thanks!

 

Tony

[bob_chong]

Are you concerned with resale value and/or the life cycle of the equipment? A thirty-year old MF camera is still worth something. A a good Yashica TLR is $200 these days. I would bet that the most digital cameras--no matter how good--will be paperweights within ten years, easily. Where will they be in thirty years?

 

BC

[jeffrey_abelson]

In the PR photo world, I used to see only 8x10 reflectives and 4x5 and 2 1/4 trannies. These were great images. Now everything comes in vai cheap digital; shot by PR flaks who have no idea what they're doing. The images mostly suck. The pros who shoot digital, though, produce good stuff. But it ain't cheap...

[brian walsh]

I wonder if the main advantage medium format has had in digital photography has been simply because of the ready availability of cameras with interchangeable backs. Clearly, there's no lack of quality lenses in small format, and it is, apparently, easier and less expensive to produce quality lenses for 35mm than for 6x6 or 6x7. Further, it seems to me that increased power at lower cost has been achieved by packing more and more into a given bit of silicon, rather than increasing chip size. It may be that the development of larger sensors suitable for closer-to-full-frame use of medium format cameras is analogous to the current efforts to develop full-frame digital 35mm SLRs: a stopgap, a bridge to an increasingly digital future when the equipment will be designed to maximize the utility of the capture medium, instead of the other way around.

 

Horesman currently makes it's Digiflex cameras to fit digital backs AND use quality small format lenses. You can get some idea of whether chip size may soon--or already--be "good enough" by checking some test shots posted here:

 

http://www.ashleymorrison.com/H20%20image/Test001.html

[andreas_carl]

Is a 4000x4000 pixel digital capture (DCS costing $20,000) really better than a 8000x8000 pixel scan from a Provia 6x6 slide (Nikon 8000 costing $3000)???

 

And why can't they make bigger CCDs? Why is it more difficult to manufacture a small 5 Megapixel sensor than it is to manufacture a large 5 Megapixel sensor that would take advantage of the existing lens coverage area?

[robert_kennedy]

The manufacturing issue has to do with quality control, interfacing, and a few other issues. Contrary to popular belief Moore's Law doesn't readily apply to imaging chips.

 

Oh, and in 30 years I bet most of these cameras will be useless. Unable to interface with PCs using whatever interface they will use then.

 

Don't believe me?

 

Go and find a CD-Rom drive from 1989....almost all of them used weird pseudo-SCSI interfaces. Ick.

[moses_sparks]

Jeff,

 

I shoot big projects for high end clients, and there is still no way I can justify the $20000 investment in a Kodak DCS or similar back for my RZ system. I am not a non-profit organization.

 

These clients have no qualms about paying rental for equipment, and I have used the DCS on that basis, but guess what...98% of them still want transparencies. Their designers and printers prefer the 6x7 original in most cases, which they then drum scan for all the pre-press work.

 

Which is fine by me.

 

I guess digital will rule the world someday, but I for one am just sick to death of hearing about it, and I have yet to meet the cyber geek who is posing any real threat to my client base...the people I work for understand and appreciate the value of knowing composition, lighting, exposure, expression, directing skills...you know, being a "photographer".

 

That will always be more important than the hardware.

 

I will switch to digital in MF when I have to in order to compete, that day is not here yet.

[pete_andrews]

<i>"And why can't they make bigger CCDs?"</i><br>I think the answer to this is basically, because the will isn't there to do it.<br>These things are developed by semiconductor engineers, and in the semiconductor world, smaller is always better. That's the mindset that these guys have. They're not photographers, and they just can't see our 'bigger is better' point of view. Plus, the millions of point'n'shoot users are their primary target market.<br>Just look at all the research that Kodak poured into 110, Disc and lately APS formats. All crap! But with a ready market of undiscerning snappers eagerly waiting to pay more for less.<p>There <i>are</i> good technical and economic reasons to keep the size of the sensor to a minimum, but consumer camera CCD chips are just too ridiculously small at the moment.<br>Actually, I don't really see any advantage in a chip any larger than a 35mm frame myself. The trade-off between control over depth-of-field, resolution, sensitivity, signal-to-noise, and optical constraints would appear to be pretty optimum around that size. But yes, even that size of chip is still grossly overpriced and undersold at present.<p>Perhaps one definite positive of the 'digital revolution' will be that we now have the opportunity to ask the question - 'what is the ideal format size' - without bothering about constraints of grain size or film cost.<br>Then we only have to convince the marketeers to 'make it so'.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Andreas,

 

You asked:

"Is a 4000x4000 pixel digital capture (DCS costing $20,000) really better than a 8000x8000 pixel scan from a Provia 6x6 slide (Nikon 8000 costing $3000)???"

 

No. Not at all.

But it is a lot (and that's the understatement of the year ;-))quicker using a digital back than going the film-scanner route.

 

I love everything about the Nikon 8000, but absolutely curse the time it takes to scan a film. And then there's the next film to scan. And the next...

[brian walsh]

<I>Perhaps one definite positive of the 'digital revolution' will be that we now have the opportunity to ask the question - 'what is the ideal format size' - without bothering about constraints of grain size or film cost.</I><P>

 

Exactly.<P>

 

The benefits of small format have included "good enough" quality, compact size, and the availability of longer (relatively) lightweight lenses. If the benefits of current 35mm technology can be achieved with smaller imaging chips, present equipment may be far heavier and bulkier than it's necessary to be "good enough". <P>

 

Olympus seems poised to introduce a more compact and lighter-weight form factor to small-format SLRs, according to <a href="http://www.photoreporter.com/2001/12-01/features/the_way_it_is.html">Photo Industry Reporter</a>, with "a sensationally new interchangeable lens digital AF SLR that uses a 4/3-inch CCD sensor, roughly half the size of that used by present pro digital cameras but right up with them in megapixels. . . . It will be far smaller and lighter than the lenses of any other digital AF SLR. These exclusively digital imaging lenses, it�s predicted, will deliver equal or better results than can be obtained by cameras now trying to span both silver halide and digital imaging with one series of lenses."<P>

 

If the high quality and relatively grainless images associated with present medium format work can be achieved using relatively modest chip sizes, will the necessarily larger lenses which cover today's large image circles become needlessly expensive to produce? Perhaps today's 35mm stuff will be tomorrow's "medium" format.

[p_l_jensen]

"Perhaps today's 35mm stuff will be tomorrow's "medium" format"

 

Or maybe, as suggested in the article, that 35mm digital will be swept away.

Perhaps MF will be MF also in digital form. 35mm may fall between two chairs.

[joseph_verdesca]

It doesn't sound like we need to start stockpiling roll film yet.