phineas_tarbolde1 Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 I suspect that a medium format image still is superior to a digital image off say the 16 meg Canon pro SLR, but is it a SIGNIFICANT difference. Does the convenience of using a digital SLR far outweigh using a film Medium format ...especial large onces like the Mamiya RZ67? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randall cherry Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 The ease of digital does dramatically outweigh that of medium format film. However, the cost of the Canon EOS-1DS Mark II ($6,700 at B&H) also dramatically outweighs the cost of a good film body ($1400 for a Mamiya 7II at Robert White, for example). Equal, if not better image quality for a fifth the costs - the choice is an easy one for this amature photog: film! IMHO, YMMV, FWIW, blabla, get a life, etc. --Randall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbing Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 I wouldn't take the exaggerated claims of the digital camp too seriously. They were claiming parity with 35mm back when the best they could produce was a 2Mp image. The hype is always several years ahead of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phong Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 "Does the convenience of using a digital SLR far outweigh using a film Medium format ...especial large onces like the Mamiya RZ67? " I actually like the RZ67 better for certain things. If you are into formal composition, it is much easier to compose with the waist level finder than with eye-level finder. I also prefer the waist-level finder for certain kind of portraits (posed, formal). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Well a couple of things come to mind: What are you going to use either for? What is the professional lab situation like in your immediate vicinity? What size of medium format? Your question is sort of like asking which is the superior fruit: pineapples or tangerines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phineas_tarbolde1 Posted May 22, 2006 Author Share Posted May 22, 2006 Ellis Vener , may 22, 2006; 10:02 p.m. Well a couple of things come to mind: What are you going to use either for? WEDDINGS (FORMAL PORTRAITS)/ GENERAL PORTRAITURE What is the professional lab situation like in your immediate vicinity? GOOD LABS AVAILABLE What size of medium format? 6X7 Generally I would like to know if image quality of Digital SLR (e.g. Canon) is significanlty inferior to images from a Medium format film camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 I think Ellis is gently trying to point out that the question as stated is pointless. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_hall1 Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Considering raw digital files, digital has no characteristics but must be given characteristics in post processing. With film, the film brings fundamental characteristics to the endeavor. To change the characteristics of a film camera just change the film. The reason to use a film camera is to plunk down a set of desired characteristics all in one swoop... And multi-pass scanning likely has advantage over one-shot digital... Finally, C prints made from a laser printer using a digital file has to be outsourced while C prints made optically from film can be made with home affordable equipment... Finally again, if the digital shooter considers both raw processing and print-making then the digital workload is significant...but convenient multi-tasking. Also, many digital shooters just move the sharpness slider but a few digital artists know how to make digital look like large format... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie_caswell Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 Only you can answer the specified need. But even the hectic pace of formals at a wedding, I would choose my D200 over my (recently sold)Bronica gs1. PLus I wouldn't want to carry an extra bag just for formals. Portraiture on the other hand is where MF should shine. 6X7 is going to cost $2 per image. Not saying you couldn't specialize, and offer a niche, but reality is sadly in the favor of digital. Digital offers alot of freedom in so many different aspects, that as one venerable Pnet pro once stated... you are reverse commuting. Sad, really sad... but true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poul Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 whenever i shoot action, i use canon 5d. but for studio shots and/or portraits, i feel that medium format is vastly superior, even when scanned on flatbed. i usually take twice as many studio shoots with canon as with mamiya 645 or rolleiflex, and almost all the keepers are from film. fwiw/ymmv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin_pritchett Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 My Canon D60 is a far cry from a 1DSMKII but it has it's place. If you shoot a variety of types of photographs like me it is nice to have a MF camera for portraits. (I only shoot B&W film)But MF cannot compete with a DSLR for any kind of action shots without taking out a loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wai_leong_lee Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 Answer is simple. How much do you value convenience over quality? We can't answer that question for you, because we aren't you. The superiority can be quantified, perhaps in pixels, lpm, contrast, exposure latitude, dynamic range, etc. although people may argue over the numbers. The convenience aspect is much harder. How inconvenient is it to send film to a lab vs post-processing a RAW file. That depends on your ability to get to a lab vs how you do post-processing, and how much time you need to turn around your work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_graham3 Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 " I suspect that a medium format image still is superior to a digital image off say the 16 meg Canon pro SLR, but is it a SIGNIFICANT difference." You say "suspect" but I suspect you mean "steadfastly maintain" so there's probably no chance of a meaningful discussion. However, the fact is that you are correct ONLY if you are printing either with an enlarger or a professional scanner (and by that I do NOT mean a Nikon 8000/9000/Artixscan-120/Minolta Multi-Pro, I mean a Tango or other six-figure drum scanner). With those consumer film scanners, the best you can hope for is to equal the 1DS-MarkII, and only if you're a real wiz at scanning. Use an Epson 4990 or Canon 9950 and your MF negs won't even be as good as a 10D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poul Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 "Use an Epson 4990 or Canon 9950 and your MF negs won't even be as good as a 10D." - my experience is just the opposite. my scans of MF film on epson 4990 are significantly better than my photos shot in raw format from 5d, which is in turn significantly better than 10d. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 John, I've had a bit scanning time with the 4990 (I normally use an old Imacon 343). MF Astia scanned on the 4990 from my RB67 leaves the 10D in the dust, and easily outperforms even my 1Ds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_graham3 Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 "my scans of MF film on epson 4990 are significantly better than my photos shot in raw format from 5d" "MF Astia scanned on the 4990 from my RB67 leaves the 10D in the dust, and easily outperforms even my 1Ds." That's not something I would brag about because all it means is your RAW workflow with the Canons leaves a lot to be desired...and learned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_graham3 Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 BTW, this and the question a couple notches farther up are pointless. If someone asks "which is better, medium format or 35mm digital" on a MEDIUM FORMAT FORUM, they are either very, very naively expecting a contemplative and objective answer, or just wanting to hear their own preconceived conclusions echoed back...or just trolling for another nauseating film vs digital debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 John, I do this for a living. My RAW workflow involves Capture One and Photoshop CS2. I run through thousands of images a month of wedding and portrait work. I am completly able of obtaining everything from a RAW file that there is. That however, has nothing to do with the fact that there is more detail in a MF scan than from a 5D. I've tested the 4990 at about 2200ppi. Let's say for sake of arguement, that it's 2000 ppi. This is significantly below the thresehold of grain....thus, we are extracting only detail from the film prior to grain aliasing. For the RB67, that means about 5300 pixels of information on the horizontal. I'd say the problem is not with my RAW workflow....as even the worst workflow using Capture One is going to extract most of the detail in the RAW image. Presharpening in CS2 will take care of the AA filter. Color, etc, is another matter....but the detail is all there. I'd say the problem probably lies in the fact that you don't know how to scan and sharpen film scans. I find this to be the largest problem with digital users....they seem to think that scanning and sharpening film is the same as a digital workflow. Scanning is a talent that takes a long time to master. When I run through one of my scanning workshops with people, they are often surprised at what can come out of a film scan. But in the end, it is not relevant. I've found the same results from my RAW workflow and other photographers in the area compared to MF scans. The 16x24 prints I have in my studio as a comparison say you're wrong. Nuff said! 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