DSLR or Medium Format?

[rdeanda]

I shoot lots of urban landscapes. I currently use an N80.

 

However I am fascinated with large prints (larger than 8x10).

I have been asked for posters of my shots, and unfortunately some

were shot with a 3MP Camera. I really hate to turn down these

requests. So, I now shoot only film (35mm) and my wife shoots

digital.

 

Will I be happy with a 6-8MP camera for landscapes or should I save

up for a Medium Format SLR System instead?

[rob_van_valkenburg]

Robert,

 

I've been using a Nikon D100 (6MP) for some time, with the best possible optics (AFS17-35,AF85-1.4,AF180-2.8)and I am very pleased with the results. But when it comes to wideangle landscape shots, with plenty of microdetail, my scanned 67 negs/chromes just are so much better. Even when they are scanned on a simple Epson 1640 flatbed scanner. So if larger prints are what you're after, I would say Medium format is still the way to go.

 

Regards,

 

Rob van Valkenburg

[John Crowe]

Well, a 35mm camera will beat a 3-4 MP camera no problem. A 6-8 MP camera is closer to 35mm. A medium format system will beat even a 12 MP DSLR and is far superior to 35mm.

 

 

I am not sure what you mean by "save up" for a medium format system. You can buy a tremendous used medium format film camera for the price of a 6-8 MP DSLR. Actually at 8 MP you can buy a new medium format camera.

 

 

Medium format film is amazing and will clearly be superior to 35mm film and the DSLR, but be prepared to slow down a lot and start using a tripod a lot. Also remember that although both DSLR bodies, and medium format bodies and lenses, will both depreciate fairly quickly, the DSLR lenses will not. What ever money you put into DSLR lenses will not be lost. A used MF camera system has already depreciated quite a bit though too. Oh, and don't rule out a medium format TLR (twin lens reflex) or even one of the dedicated rangefinder units if it has the field of view that you use a lot. Lots to think about, good luck!

[goemon]

Disclaimer: I shoot mostly black & white where the difference is even more noticeable.

 

I use a Nikon D100 (6MP) with good lenses, and a Bronica S2A with reasonable lenses.

The D100 is adequate for large enlargements if the focus is not on detail; great swathes of

color and all that. The S2A crushes the D100 out of hand any time smooth tonality (for

B&W) or fine detail is called for, just because of the sheer amount of film involved, plus

using a waist level finder on a tripod is IMHO a far superior shooting experience to looking

through a pentaprism.

 

That said I almost never shoot color 35mm film any more; the D100 is more than

adequate for that. It's less clear with B&W just because of the way the sensor array

works, and I must admit I like shooting film and so my idea of what's reasonable and what

isn't is probably suspect.

[rdeanda]

Thanks Rob. You echoed what my gut feeling tells me

 

John, I am saving for a DSLR. So "save up" would be for either format. I almost always use a tripod. I have a feeling however, that the current offering of "Digial Lenses" that are built around the sensor crop factors, will soon depreciate much faster once full-size sensor cameras hit the market.

 

Is there a particular medium format system that you would recommend. I have been studying the brochure for the Pentax 67II because I like the idea of portability. Is there another SLR type medium format system I should look at?

 

Graham, what's the largest size that you have enlarged to (with the D100), where the image is not still sharp and the detail rich?

[goemon]

I've printed 13x19s on my Epson from the D100 that look fine until I compare them to

other 13 inch prints from one of my MF cameras. The individual pixels from a D100 are

very clean and scale well; they're noticably better than the individual pixels I get from my

scanner. There just aren't enough of them: to make prints at the Epson's native resolution

requires uprezzing even for an 8x10, and for a 13x19 the fine detail goes a bit mushy. In

comparison, even my crappy scanner can put out four times as many pixels as I need to

make a 13x13.

[jamiew]

Ok, variantions of this question have been asked repeatedly. Ultimatly MF is still better than a 6-8mp digital camera. That being said you will not notice much of a diference in most situation, praticularly if you are good with photoshop. Add to that the freedom of digital and to me digital is a sure winner.

 

NOw if you are super picky with detail, and do nto want to take the time to understand digital go wit hthe MF film camera.

[dan_edwards]

Robert:

 

I just sold my Pentax 67II after a few years of ownership, and light use. It is a

wonderful system, but big and bulky (for an SLR, obviously it is quite portable

compared to a 4x5....)

 

Bottom line is this: unless you are willing to go to the EOS 1Ds, or even better the

new 1DsII, the medium format image will prove to be much better large print

maker, especially compared to the 6mp DSLRs. I can get good 8x10's from a 6mp

camera. But the 6x7 negative would be good for the next leap in print size.

Noticeable mostly is the limited dynamic range of the digital images, one thing to

consider if you are used to print film. If all you ever shot was Velvia then the DSLR

will be no problem.

 

I used to have a Mamiya 6 too, which is much more carryable than the Pentax, but

the rangefinder limits the lens selection.

 

-dan

[kipling]

For urban landscapes with a very portable, easy to use MF camera, I'd suggest looking at

the Mamiya 7II Rangefinder. It's very similar to a Leica, just bigger. 6x7 Neg. Excellent

interchangeable lenses and a large bright viewfinder. It's very quiet, light and smooth

(practically no vibration) and for large prints it will blow a 35mm or 6-8MP DSLR out of the

water. The downside to this camera is that it doesn't have any fast lenses (faster than f4)

and no good macro possibilities. If you can live without that...

[John Crowe]

Sorry Robert, I forgot that I was in the Nikon forum and you're right if the world eventually chooses to go full frame then the smaller sensor lenses made by the manufacturers will not be worth much, like APS systems today.

 

 

I encourage you to check out some used MF equipment because MF is depreciating very quickly these days. IF you go new you may want to think about a MF camera that will take a digital back because as time goes by those too will become less expensive. I'm not sure how many systems support a digital back, just a thought.

[eugenio.demmenie]

I am contemplating MF myself, next to LF and 35 mm.<br>

The interesting thing is that Nikon made/makes lenses for all 3 formats.

<br><br>

They have produced MF Nikkor lenses for Bronica in the sixties/seventies. The Bronica S2A was considered to be the best Bronica, but make sure it has good back.

And the Plaubel Makina 67 had a great 80 mm Nikkor lens. They are not cheap though.

And Nikon has also produced LF lenses. You could use these on a Horseman or Linhof and use 6x9 or 6x7 back. But it works slower than MF.

<br><br>

If you leave Nikkor lenses, they are very (or even better) solutions, Mamiya (7II) has already been mentioned. There is also the Hasselblad XPAN.

<br><br>

Or if you want a digital camera (Nikon) you could make several shots and stitch these to one picture. On photo.net some results of this technique can be found in the work of <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=59285">Tony Dummett</a>. He also works/worked with MF format (Hasselblad XPAN and Pentax 67).

[jamiew]

Robert.

 

Another point. I have seen posters made from a 4mp Canon G3 and so long as you are not within 1 foot of them they look good. I have seem AMAZING 50" lightjet prints from 6mp DSLR's.

 

I totally understand your situation. I had a G3 and it was frustrating on many levels. I got a 10D and have not shot my G3 OR MY MF camera ever since. Ans the more I learn have to work with digital the more I do not miss MF.

[ky2]

I believe that by now the sharpness issue is really a non-issue. I get wonderful 11x14" made from my E1 and S2/Pro shots. Only at 13x19, my MF scans begin to show their true potential.

 

One thing that many photographers moving to digitla miss out, is that digital introduces a whole new workflow. Yes, the post-processing workflow is often discussed and is therefore quite known (along with all the added expenses and time).. but one that is often skipped is the workflow WHILE shooting.

 

Although there isn't much a difference in shooting between 35mm and DSLR cameras, there is immense difference between shooting MF and DSLR. MF forces you to slow down (you go LF, and you're S L O W E D down even more). This *DIRECTLY* translates into image quality. So often I hear Digital newbies proclaiming happily that they shot 2,000 frames in that weekend-- most if not all are garbage. Yes, you can burn through a gazzilion bytes pretty quickly, but bytes dont make photos, a photographer does.

 

Now, if you have a good sense of self-control, OR, when you get accustomed to the new tool, you may get better... But most DSLRs lack a decent viewfinder-- NONE can compare with a 6x6 ground glass screen, for example, and just because of that, MF cameras are simply more versatile-- by slowing you down, and forcing you TO SEE.

[rdeanda]

I am accustomed to the digital workflow. In fact, I actually started with digital (SLR Type Cameras). I got sick of turning down requests for large prints of my photos, and built a 35mm system based on my N80.

 

The post-processing will not be a learning curve, as I am already pretty proficient in it.

 

Thanks to all for their insight with this question. I will probably rent some MF and high end DSLR and make a few tests.

[jamiew]

Robert.

 

You mentioned you started with digital SLR and were forced to turn down requests for large prints. I dont know how long ago that was but digital has progressed tons in the last 2-3 years.

[jim mucklin]

Robert, I get great results at 11x14 with my N80, good glass, good film and a great lab. It amazing what a great lab can do. If you want the 16x20 and above go with MF.