lucas_fladzinski Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 OK, I'm broke. Do I sell my Mamiya RB67, 90mm lens, etc. for the 20D? I print large, often 30x40 inch urban landscape images. I'm not entirely worried about detail...I've used 400 speed film and have had OK results; I do alot of PS correction and balance and print digitally. Scanning and dusting takes forever. Also, I don't currently have a wide angle lens that I crave. So, do I put more money ($500) into a MF wide angle lens, spend umpteen hours scanning and dusting or do I sell and buy the Canon? I know the 20D isn't a cure-all but, I still need convincing.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 As you said the 20D is NOT a cure all or a substitute for an RB67 (the 1Ds MKII definitely IS) but, will get you on board and ready to go in no time at all. There are GREAT programs available that will allow you to up-sample your images to achieve GREAT looking 30x40 prints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 Are the Mamiya/Leaf digital backs available for the RB67? If they are that would be my choice. If you're using 400 asa film then the 1Ds II may come close but if you use Velvia 50 or 100 asa films then the RB67 with film will likely still be ahead. You obviously enjoy the larger format, so personally, I would stick it out for another 2 years until the next generation of DSLR is available at an even more reasonable price. Also be aware that a wideangle lens for the 20D with it's 1.6x factor could be prohibitively expensive depending on how wide you want to go. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buck_rogers1 Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 I like to use a normal lens on the DSLR and stitch multiple images together using panotools in order to get wide angle/hi-res landscapes. Since you're already knee deep in PS why not just add a few keystrokes and let the CPU give you big pics?<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 yeah! Stitching DOES rule ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert hague Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 Go digital, scanning is a nightmare, and just consider the money you will save in processing (I just bought the 20D, moving from film for the first time, so I may be biased). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg M Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 So, you're broke? Do you already own everything else you'll need to buy? Flash cards, lenses, software, etc, etc, because the body is just the start of what you'd need to buy & your RB67 & lens would just fall into the market place with all this other second hand medium format equipment that's selling for much less than it was 3-5 years ago or not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_biro Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 Have a look on ebay to see where prices are for medium format - they are dropping real fast! Search the medium format page for more insight than you'll prob get here. Borrow or rent the camera (a store will let you use it in the store at least) and compare it direcly with your rb67 to convince yourself you'll be happy with it. I dont miss scanning time anymore! There will soon be a canon 10-22mm and there's always the sigma for wide angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxdonny Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 I agree with Greg. The cost of a RB67 kit can barely cover the cost of Canon 20D body, even with add'l $500. Say you want to consider 20D with 2 primes and 1 or 2 GB compact flash, need to spend at least $2K upward. That's all my concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodolfo_negrete Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 No long ago I sold the same exsact camera to buy the 10D I was so stupid (sold it for $200.00 dsl with a brand new tripod and a light meter for $70.00 dls more. the reason I sold it was becuse the lab process was very very expensive (for color) But now I realize that I have not come across a camera that takes such a beatuful pictures with the medium perspective. what I should have done was to buy a sacanner and do all my work myself and maybe just shoot black adn white. Do not sell it! as soon as you get your other camera you are going to regret it.the tones,colors and perspective are super nice. just save up or buy yourself a sacanner and scan the negatives and start learning Photoshop. You might decide different but atlest give yourself the chance to own both at the same time then you will decide. Lots of photographers shoot everything with digital and for the important stuff the use medium format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_eaton Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 <I>As you said the 20D is NOT a cure all or a substitute for an RB67 (the 1Ds MKII definitely IS)</i><P>Sure, as long as you only shoot print film in your RB. The 1ds produces the same lifeless output for landscape work as any other digital sensor - just a higher rez version of it. This is the polarized result of the publishing industry: Either being subjected to endless garish and fake landscapes taken with Velvia, or lifeless images taken with dSLRs that make me think I'm exclusivelyusing Portra NC/VPS for landscapes. <P>I'm in the same dilema - no good wide angle for my RB and upgrading that route is expensive for a good 50mm. My 10D is hitting it's wall with enlargements, is worthless under overcast conditions, and Canon can't produce a good fixed 24mm lens. <P>The stiching idea works, but only if your lighting is still optimum for digital capture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_laufersweiler Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 Exposure latitude. Tonal Range. Resolution.<br>Get the 20D, it's wonderful, but keep your RB. It does best what a DSLR does poorly. If budget is an issue, spend a couple more monts to save up. A little delay is hardly too high a price to pay to get the best of both worlds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panos_voudouris Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 I can get a RB67 with a 90 for 550gbp from ebay. That is less than half the cost of a 20D or just about enough to buy a 20mm (which is not that wide on the 20D) and a 35/2 or just a 17-40L. So I think you'll have to wait, unless you have a very large amount of money hidden somewhere. You can always get an Epson scanner with ICE and stitch two frames for a wide view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 I'd consider the 300D instead as it's much cheaper. I'd opt for the 10-22 when it comes out to give you the wide angle you crave for. The 300D is as good as the 20D as far as picture quality is concerned and almost as good when features are concerned. Both are the only bodies which can take the 10-22. Happy shooting , Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkv Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 I've gone mainly digital because of scanning...<br> Still, I much prefer MF when I have the time and will to do the scans.<br> Otherwise, the 10D (and I am sure the 20D) is a very good camera, far from being build like a Mamiya, but good enough for what you want.<br> Then, you can produce a lot more for less $$$...<br> Lenny<br> <a href="http://afimage.com">AFimage Photographe</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaius1 Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 Even with Canon's latest sensors, ISO 400 on a 23x15mm sensor is very different from ISO 400 on that huge piece of 120 film our RB67 is exposing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 If you're broke - get a well paid job instead of worrying about camera gear. The 20D is a completely different tool that your RB67. Starting up costs for going all digital are MUCH higher than people expect. You need a powerful PC to proces you images = $2K++, you need/want Photoshop CS = $600, external Hard-drive for backup = $300+, you might need/want a DVD burner = $250, a couple of 1GB CF cards = $500, and the list goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splat Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 "Starting up costs for going all digital are MUCH higher than people expect. You need a powerful PC to proces you images = $2K++, you need/want Photoshop CS = $600, external Hard-drive for backup = $300+, you might need/want a DVD burner = $250, a couple of 1GB CF cards = $500, and the list goes on" Ok maybe higher then people realize but this is a bit much. Processing the 6-8 MP images does not take a high powered computer. The average computer that people are buying today for wordprocessing can handle it. I paid $800 canadian for my computer and don't find it to be lacking at all. Photoshop elements which comes with the camera is good enough for most people, still others download CS for free. Unless you are doing comercial work you probably dont need to pay for CS. A dvd burner can be had for less then $100 canadian and because dvd-r are so cheep (less the .50 each) you don't really need the external HD. Just burn two disks of everything. A 1GB cf card is only $99 US from B&H. Most people don't need the "Extream" and the "Ultra II" is excelent and cheep. I'm not denying that going digital is expensive but the prices mentioned by the other poster are a little out of touch with reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 exactly how can PSCS be had/downloaded for free w/o braking the law and ignoring international IP regualations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leonard_richmond7 Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 "ISO 400 on a 23x15mm sensor is very different from ISO 400 on that huge piece of 120 film our RB67 is exposing." Ah, but the depth of field of the 23x15mm sensor is at least 3 stops greater than the RB67. ISO 100 on the 20D and a stop FASTER shutter speed gives the depth of field of ISO 400 with the RB67. Prime lenses for the 20D are faster than for the RB67, so even if you're not worried about depth of field and are shooting wide open for speed, you can still use ISO 100 on the 20D where you use ISO 400 with the RB67. Let's face it - you really need to SEE results to know what you want to do. And for $2 plus borrowing a 300D or 10D for a few minutes, you can. Shoot a sample image with a borrowed 10D or 300D (tripod mounted with an excellent lens, of course). Sharpen it up in PS. Crop a 623x779 pixel rectangle out and get that printed at 8x10 - that's the same as an 8x10 crop from a 30x40 print from a 20D. Get someone to hold it up against a 30x40 print, and stand back and compare. (Costco with their Noritsu digital printers will be just fine - an 8x10 is only $1.89 at mine.) Then you'll know much more than by listening to all our advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 Ooooops, we all know who Patrick works for, shhhhh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erol_a. Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 Keep the RB. MF systems don't sell for anything these days compared to what they're capable of. I shoot a 1DmkII and an RZ67; big prints from the RZ are much better to my eye than the digital files - there's a lot more to a good print than sharpness and lack of noise/grain, and the subtle gradations, textured look, and rich color of film definitely play a part in that equation for me. It's a matter of personal preference, but I like the look of my film images more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucas_fladzinski Posted September 28, 2004 Author Share Posted September 28, 2004 Thanks for the advice all. I'm running a G4Power book, PS CS and all the goodies I need to be outputting MF and/or Digital. I wanted to dump the RB now but, I think I'm going to hang onto it...and my 4x5 and still get the damn 20D. I'm not too terribly excited about the 20D or for that matter, 35mm format...like the 6x7 format and 4x5 large format...but, I can get used to it as I play with it more. I hate spending hours on end dusting my film in PS but, to replace MF or LF right now w/ competative and affordable digital is out of the question. Thanks again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_strahammer Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Dunno if this will help to make a decision Link from 30.9.2004 http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04092902mamiya_zd.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herman_hiel Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 You know the saying: in case of doubt, don't. You could rent a DSLR for a w-e and find out how much you like or don't like this. HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now