Anyone ever have to choose between LF or digital?

[joobass]

I don't if this posting will help you or not, but would like to tell you my experiance. I never used a LF camera before thus I can't help you with that, but I known Leica R8 and L9 with digital module-R and some lens. Digital is very convinient to use, and hasw imporved much since its early ages, to me I think it is still in its adolescent stage, but the film camera is in its prime of maturity, sometime in the future I guess it will be replaced completely by digital, but don't think it will happen in the near future. I have tried out my leica cameras with the digital Module R(DMR) and films, digital back gives me good results, and I am satisfied with it. However it still can't compare with the film camera in its detail and colour. Ofcourse pixel number of leice DMR is only aboout 65% of Canon IDs Mark II(I ahve never used canon camera so I can't comment on their quality, for japanese cameras, I've only used nikon system). Still the DMR give very good results especially in RAW format(Still film gives much better results). If you want very good results like the pictures in your gallery I would probably go for the LF, but if you want good quality convinient camera I'd say ID Mark IIsAs an alternative you could try out Leica R8 with DMR too.

[sumo_kun]

I don't know if I have much more to add to the above responses but I recently got myself an Ebony. My choice was between a really nice, small LF setup or a mid-range digital setup. I went with LF. Why? Well, I do like digital because it is so convenient and easy to hike around but for me, no affordable digital system gets me the results I want yet. I take landscapes and I enlarge to big sizes. I really do want a 5D as well but only for shots where I can't take my LF setup. For serious shots which I want to keep, then I will go for the LF because I trust that it has the quality I want. There's also an attachment I get to a camera which you need to concentrate on using. It's a lot more fun to take pictures where you are involved in all the adjustments of the camera.

 

My view on your question is that you should get both. LF can be had for cheap these days. I started with a Calumet Cadet and an old lens (which I still have and use) where the elements were separating. That was a test for me to see if I liked LF and I did. I would say get a nice digital system like the 5D (1DSII is nice too but expensive and not THAT much better, so I've heard...) and get a cheap LF system. Even if the LF system is cheap, it will still produce results like any other LF camera. It just takes a bit more care to keep it from flopping in the wind or whatever. Digital is a nice format and I think that it will complement LF nicely. It's just for me I can't afford both and so I went with the LF due to the fun and quality of using one.

[michael_briggs2]

"A bright focus on the GG and being able to take advantage of the camera's movements is important to me, especially for urban landscape. However, paying for extra performance that I will never use is simply a waste of money (which you didn't state explicitly but I get the point)." It's also a waste in other ways: these lenses are heavy, large and take large filters. You will be more likely to use your LF camera, and especially find travelling easier, if you select smaller lenses that still provide excellent performance including coverage.

 

"(the 150XL's 386mm image circle is MASSIVE)". I think that Schneider thinks of it mainly as a replacement for the Super-Angulon series in similar focal length and for use with 8x10.

 

"The conclusion I reached was if I used a combination of movements, such as significant rise + swing, I was going to need a large image circle to keep the corners bright and sharp. I'm not sure my logic on this is completely correct...." You just need the image circle to be large enough -- having a large reserve of coverage doesn't increase the brightness of the part that you are using. Here is a post that goes into these issues: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005gK2

 

"The 386mm image circle of the 150mm Super-Symmar XL is complete over-kill, but then look at the 150mm Apo-Symmar L which can't handle the max rise without any swing added. How often I'd need that rise and swing I'm not sure." Schneider has a chart on how much front rise/shift is possible with their Apo-Symmar-L line at http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/large_format_lenses/apo-symmar-L/pdf/ApoSymmarLSpecChart.pdf (which value is shift, which rise depends on the film orientation). For the 150 mm lens, the figures are 52 and 46 mm. I can imagine passing these, but only very rarely. To go to the Apo-Symmar-XL for more coverage is spending a lot of money and weight for a very rare need. In landscape use, you will find that you typically only use a couple of degrees of tilt.

 

Another way to get more coverage is to use a longer focal length, because the same lens design will have proportionally more coverage (see the Schneider chart). Many use 210 mm as their "normal" lens. I use 180. Here are two discussions of 180 mm lens which include searching my notes for the largest front rise that I had ever used, 53 mm: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Amlt and http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EOoL.

[van_camper]

Each camera suits a different need. For commercial guys digital cameras are great, they save $25k in film in just a year (assuming 10 rolls per day inc processing). They don't have to wait around for a lab to process, can confirm their shot, and have it to a client in non time. But they also are not worried about long life, which film offers. So film is the choice for landscape artists. It offers tilts allowing shots you can not normally get. Also there are no one shot digital backs for large format, they are slow scanning backs. So film is here for at least another decade (Why? -see www.Kenrockwell.com ). If you want top quality, you can't get it with a dslr. I'd get both systems, one for grab shots, one for grand landscapes when you want a larger print.

[mike ortega]

I use both. I use the digital 20-1 to the LF. after a while loading film holders is too time consuming. IF you shoot once a week- no big deal, if you shoot everyday- big pain in the Ass. After awhile, working with LF is very time consuming and heavy. I used to be a film purist and have evolved with the times. Yes LF gear is cheap these days but a buck is still a buck. If you shoot for what ever reason, think about why you have chosen that camera and the advantages over the others. That is what it is all about. Obviously you did not feel your MF gear was your cup of tea, but it might be the middle of the road solution you trying to get to. Think about this: The MF negative will give you great enlargement and (don't know what kind you had) but you could have shot polaroids to check shots. I know you have herd all this before but it comes down to what camera are you going to use and not get tired of packing around. If size is no object......get a leica and be amazed at the results and comfort. Try both and sell the other.

 

Happy shooting.

[brian_ellis16]

I haven't read all the responses so I apologize if I'm being repetitive but based on what you've said here I don't see why you can't have both. The sole digital alternative you propose is the most expensive digital camera there is. There are several digital cameras that cost far less than the 1Ds Mark II ($7000-$8000) and that will do 95% or more of what it will do (e.g. Canon 5D for $2,700, Nikon D200 for $1,700, or even Nikon D2x for $4,000). What is it you photograph that requires the other 5%? Very very few photographs really need the Mark II. Maybe you're one of them but nothing in your message indicates why you need that digital camera and only that digital camera if you choose digital.

 

If you drop your sights down just a tiny bit on the digital side in terms of performance you'll get a huge decrease in terms of price and then perhaps both would become feasible, thereby relieving you of your difficult decision. Not that it matters much but FWIW I use both, a Linhof Master Technika for LF and a Nikon D100 (to be replaced with a Canon 5D that hopefully will arrive next week) for things for which the Linhof isn't suited.

[sh]

Michael B: Thanks so much for responding, you've been so helpful with the lens issues. For

example, it is very interesting to me to know the largest front rise you've use with your

180mm lens is 53mm. I followed the threads/links you provided (and the links inside

those as well), I recommend them to other readers. The light falloff and image circle size

discussion helped a lot. I was thinking having the extra coverage was going to lessen the

falloff and thus might be worth the expense and the weight. I've never encountered these

concepts in my 35mm and 645 lens selections. The Apo-Symmar L Spec Chart closely

matches my diagrams. The Apo-Symmar L 5.6/150 with 233mm of coverage and 52/

46mm lens displacements might be a good choice for me given what I've learned so far.

The 180mm looks good too, it offers 77/70mm displacement, but is heavier, more

expensive and I now know I may not need that extra coverage. Something to think about.

 

Van: I shoot digital at work 95-99% of the time, I use a Leaf digital back and clients love

digital for all the obvious reasons, one being some clients art direct while I'm working and

we can see the shots as they come up on the monitor and then they know what they are

getting - they don't have to visualize. Then we tweak the lighting or the angle or adjust for

the reflections in metallic surfaces etc. But that's work. I'm looking for something for me

personally that's where the LF enters the scene!

 

Mike: Thanks for the input. I do have a 5mp DSLR with several lenses for just shooting

around. And I still have complete access to the MF gear (which I sold to the company I

work for) and it's an excellent cup of tea BTW. But the resolution and controlled (if labored)

use of the LF continues to appeal to me. I just have so much to learn and consider as I get

into it.

 

Brian E: I agree, whether the performance and endurance of the Canon 1Ds MkII over the

5D would be justifible for my use is doubtful. There are very happy users of both those

cameras.

[jackbrauer]

Lots of good advice here... I'll give you my experience. I've always used digital and this

year I got into LF (4x5) because I mainly do landscapes and I wanted the high resolution,

because my goal is to be able to make huge prints.

 

Using the LF camera in the field is a pain compared to dSLRs. The biggest problem for me

arises when the foreground light is not what I expected, so I have to move the camera,

compose and refocus at the last second, which is very stressful with LF.

 

I take much less photos now, and even miss shots that I would have gotten with the dSLR,

but the photos I do get are much more valuable in my mind than the same dSLR shot

would be. When you capture something on a 4x5 slide it's really something special.

[discpad]

Seth, my answer revolves around this question: Do you develop your own film?

 

 

Printing is a whole separate matter, but if you develop your own film and scan, then having a nice LF field camera is a blast: People stop dead in their tracks when they see you with one! Let me `splain...

 

This past Saturday night, I shot my cousin's Bar Mitzvah. Since I'm building a portfolio of event photography work, I brought along three cameras, which I shot in this sequence:

 

1) Mamiya 645AFd with 55/110mm f/4.5 & six 220 rolls of Fuji Pro400H (NPH replacement) C41 film, at the synagogue receiving line & start of reception. I'll be souping the film tonight in one of my Jobo ATL-3 processors;

 

2) Fuji S2 Pro CCD-RAW (most all), with Nikon AF-G f/3.5 & Metz 54MZ-3. See:

http://users.snip.net/~joe/austin/index.html

 

3) 1956 Pacemaker Speed Graphic with Norman 200B flash, with two Grafmatic's loaded with TMY (TMax 400) and 20 holders loaded with TXP (Tri-X 320), all being souped in Diafine this afternoon -- I'm taking a break watching the NASCAR circle-jerk at Atlanta & typing this.

 

[We have a simple rule: We don't do business with family members. My cousin brought in a good wedding/Bar photographer who handled the rehearsal, the kid getting ready, (no photos during the actual ceremony), and the reception, all with an assistant; plus Josh will be handling the album. Looking at his website, I'm sure he'll do a very nice job.]

 

[However, when I rolled out my fully-restored 1956 Pacemaker Speed Graphic, heads turned. In fact, after Josh told me his father used one to shoot weddings 40 years ago, he snapped a photo of me me holding it on his camera phone, with his father on the other end seeing it!]

 

 

If you develop your own film, then definitely go for a large format field camera! But, I would forget the Canon stuff, since the images look like a cartoon: Instead, go with the Fuji S3 Pro (the replacement for my S2 Pro), which has the R+S pixels for incredible dynamic range: Fuji has their technology wrapped up tightly in patents; and not even a $32k PhaseOne digi-back can come close.

 

 

Cheers! Dan<div></div>

[david_senesac]

A DSLR of which I own none is just another more involved and tedious machine to take smaller pictures that is squeezing a small zone above our old reliable 35mm to bulky but easy to use MF. For me LF is mainly about making large landscape prints. There are many other photographic pursuits and subjects where large prints are rarely the end creation. So much out there looks best in small sized prints no larger than say 10x15 or 8x10. Sure people will sometimes print just about everything large, even images without much detail, but I just wince when seeing such. And I'm not just talking about smaller format images printed large but also talking about LF images that simply are not subjects where a lot of fine detail jumps out like so many of the murky dim sunrise and sunset shots many seem obsessed with. Such images can be taken much easier with a digital setup with the difference between MF, LF, or such a big DSLR inconsequential in the final print regardless of size. A LF photographer today that uses that cumbersome slow tedious setup for both their images printed large and small is not being efficient with the later. Heck each 4x5 sheet is pricy whereas digital is simply review delete reshoot! And it is nonsense to think one will always only be going out to shoot a few images only to be printed large because there are way way more reasons to shoot smaller images than large ones. So the multiple format setup is the only sensible way to think as long as one can afford to.

 

Now I don't personally own a DSLR because I find the newer compact digital cameras like my 7mp Coopix 7900 capable of making amazing images for such a tiny thing that is always available in a coat pocket for a quick shot or at the end of a Benbo for any matter of closeup and even minor macro work. And there is a minor gray area below 4x5 sized images where I'll grab my 6x7 and shoot a roll of film when the subject isn't a landscape and a print deserves more than the 7mp can deliver.

 

...David

 

www.davidsenesac.com