Switch from MF to D2X?

[thomas_breazeale1]

Lately I have been seriously thinking about selling my Hassie kit

and going to the D2X.I am a professional golf course photographer

and spend all of my time travelling around Asia and am tired of

packing my scanner,film plus trying to find competent labs to do the

processing for me...courier back and forth to the US is out of the

question.All of my clients demand high res files and I am frequently

asked to supply images for billboards.

 

My question to you is:Is the D2X a reasonable replacement for my

MF kit and will it be able to supply high enough res images for

decent billboard imagery?And...would the top of the line Canon with

the higher megapixals be a better choice?Please,just straight

forward answers,thanks in advance.

[gaius1]

Surely the logical thing to do is to add a digital back to your 'blad and continue as you are now? Good tho' the D2x is, even an entry-level PhaseOne is better...

[thomas_breazeale1]

Correct me if I am wrong but my camera is a 205FCC and I do not believe the digital backs work on these models properly and I was planning on using the money from the sale to buy the digital camera.Thanks for your response.

[mark newcombe www.mcnphoto]

don't you also have to be thethered with a digi back?

[gaius1]

Nope, check PhaseOne's website.

[marke_gilbert]

I considered this very switch a few months ago. Borrowed a firend's D2x and did some resolution tests, and found that, at 20x30, the D2x equalled, or bettered the resolution of a 6x6 at 20x20. I would think, with interpolation software, the D2x can hold its own, easily.

<P>BUT..

<P>As much as I loved the instant feedback, and streamelined workflow, I found the digital images to be a little.."plastic" for lack of a better word. Too smooth for my taste. And I mean precisely that, for MY taste.

<P>I really wanted to love the D2x, but it just didn't fit well with how I see things. Sure, I would expect that I could get the final image closer with PS, and I fully understand there is a learning curve...but for some reason the D2x and I just didn't work and play well together.

[gaius1]

Exactly. Once you are over a certain baseline in quality that can be quantified by MTF and similar tests, it becomes all about taste and workflow optimization, and that's where the serious shooters make their decisions. If the OP is happy with 'blad ergonomics, likes the look of 'blad lenses, etc, then a D2x is an awfully big jump from there. I mean, even viewfinder vs WLF is a big difference...

[bernard_frank]

I have the D2X, and from I have seen of MF lansdcape photography on tripod, with some

great Hassy or Zeiss lenses, for instance, I would also say the D2X can't compete, though

it's a great camera.

 

Now, you say you scan your so-so processed negs? Mmm... Then, maybe, the D2X WILL

compete with your MF SCANNED photos. What scanner do you use?

 

As for the top Canon DSLR, you don't think you're gonna get a straight answer on a NIKON

forum, do you ?

 

:)

 

My $0.02.

[thomas_breazeale1]

I sure appreciate your input guys,it means a lot.The ergonomic issue is a mute one for me since I already own various Nikon 35mm cameras plus a D70.I also own a Coolscan 8000 film scanner that I do all of my MF slides on with pretty damn good results in the fine mode.

 

Regarding the 'Look of the images'...Obviously I love Velvia with a passion but the inconvienance of packing the load and finding competent support really has become a heavy burden at least for my circumstances.So..I guess the only real issue is the quality of the images and does the extra 4mp of the Canon make that much difference?I am aware of the smaller sensor giving better DOF and for landscape DOF is everything all the time..so does this give an edge to the D2X?

[paul_sokal___dallas__tx]

D2X is a phenomenal camera. Why not rent one (or better yet borrow one from a friend) and see if it meets you needs. I've never shot MF but personally I love the look of the D2X images.

[ShunCheung]

I happen to use a D2X and Contax 645 medium format, mainly with Velvia film too. I haven't really compared the two carefully yet. Why not rent/borrow a D2X and compare them yourself. If you can't find a D2X, you can always find some RAW samples from the D2X and make some prints yourself to compare.

[desmond_kidman]

Interesting to see how far digital has come that folks who have both 35mm digital and MF film cameras do not universally say that MF is way better in answer to this question.

 

I just purchased a 1ds2 after using Hass, Mamiya RZ67, Linhof. I was going to rent, until I checked out the price for as long as it was going to take me to really get around and do the tests I wished to do. I realized that this was going to be nearly as much as the depreciation if I bought the camera and then resold it if I did not like it after a month or two. Now I can take the time to get the most out of the digital camera under different circumstances. I can say this, due to faster work flow I reshot some images that I would not have had time to for a website, and got an ad in under the deadline that I would not have had time to do with analog (since I use outside processing and scanning services) so I's sure I'll already be a couple of thousand $ ahead due to these things.

 

When I have some real-world comparisons I will post my findings here. Though it's a Canon, I dont' think the results will be significantly worse from this camera vs: D2X, so some may find the findings interesting.

[rick_beets]

Many photographers have gone the route of dropping the medium format cameras in favor

of the D2X and Canon cameras. I don't know how it is in asia but in the US it is getting

increasingly harder to get slide film processed. If you shoot a lot you can do it yourself,

but if you are on the road a lot that is a big hassle. I have been told by several key people

at pro labs that very few labs are printing from negs anymore, most labs now scan the

negs and print digitally rather than optically. PMA showcased no optical printers at the

last show. I buy and sell photo equipment and I can tell you that selling an enlarger is

nearly impossible, I gave away 2 nice 4X5 Omega color enlargers with lenses last year. If

this is the case, darkroom supplies will begin to dry up. All that being said, it made sense

to me to just go digital. Why go introduce another step into the process (scanning)? I use

a D2X and with practice and good work habits you will get the results you want. Just a

note to the "art" photographers, many are going back to large format to get the well

crafted look of that medium, they are finding great bargains! In the professional (I need to

make a living, pay my bills, send the kids to college) world, most have gone digital and

love it.

[ilkka_nissila]

Scanning and printing digitally yields better prints than optical enlargement in a conventional enlarger, and the minilabs use digital technology to print from color negs because they get better results that way. Of course, you can argue that digital capture yields good results without a second optical step. That is certainly true, but many people like the characteristics of film.

[walterh]

Thomas - if you are shooting while travelling a lot, then shooting and checking images on a laptop is just incredibly efficient. You can see results on the spot (at least in the evening in your hotel) and even though the lcd images are not the best way to judge quality you soon develop a feeling if the images are up to your standard or not. Scanned 6x6 film from an excellent development and using an excellent scanner can challenge and direct prints will surpass the smaller format, especially when negatives are shot in high contrast light that exceeds the digital sensors range. The price is long hours of scanning and high film cost. However, less than optimal development and simple scanning will not surpass the quality of a good gigital camera as the D2X. Flying back to a location for reshooting in case of unsatisfying images as seen after development at home is no fun either.

[ilkka_nissila]

You make it sound like people used local drugstores to do their E6 development. I've never lost images because of nonstandard development. One time in 11 years I had dark spots on my E100SW, probably because of old chemicals. As for the scanning, it's true you need a decent scanner or else even a D70 will beat medium format. But any film scanner able to scan 120 will do. Lab scans using drum or Imacons can give unbelievable amounts of detail out of 6x7 film.

[dean_tomasula1]

"And...would the top of the line Canon with the higher megapixals be a better choice?"

 

The question, I think, is not do the extra megapixels of the Canon make the MKIIs a better choice, it is are the images that the cameras produce uop to your liking.

 

Despite what many people think, there is little difference between 12 megapixels and 14 megapixels. The more imoportant issue, for me at least, is the quality of the images (i.e dynamic range, color fidelity, noise, etc). This is why I choose Nikon -- I think the images from Nikon look better than from Canon. Even at higher ISOs (where Canon supposedly beats Nikon) I like Nikon files, noise and all. Canon deals with high ISO noise by softening the image, Nikon doesn't. For me, Nikon produces images that are more to my liking.

 

Do a test for yourself. Get a 1DsMKII and a D2X and shoot some images. Then see which you like better.

 

A 12 megapixel Nikon and a 14 megapixel Canon will give you images of comparable size (the Canon will be a bit larger). But which image looks better to you? That should be one of your deciding factors. Also, if you already own a lot of Nikon glass (or Canon) that should factor into it too because selling all your stuff and building a new arsenal from a different camera manufacturer is expensive.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>All of my clients demand high res files and I am

frequently asked to supply images for billboards. --Thomas

Breazeale<br>

</em><br>

If you are talking about images for billboards along the highway

they are painted over with special attention to high acutance for

viewing from a distance. This is quite striking if you see the

billboard sections as they are printed. The image is more a

painting in a photographic style than a photograph.<br>

<br>

I would talk to those who do the pre-press work for the

billboards. The D2X is probably suitable but the people who know

are those who make the bill boards.<br>

<br>

If you switch I would not sell the Hassie until you are

successfully producing with the D2X. Id introduce it slowly.

The customer may balk at the change even if the results are fine.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[dean_tomasula1]

Oops! Make that 16 megapixel Canon (not 14). Sorry.

[lex_jenkins]

Thomas, I also shoot film (35mm and 6x6cm) and digital and agree that my dSLR photos sometimes look a bit plasticky. For some uses, such as the action oriented stuff for which I mostly use the D2H, it doesn't really matter.

 

But in place of evenly distributed grain, there's a less even distribution of cross-shaped noise and blotchy reddish and greenish noise.

 

Noise reduction software that handles the reddish and greenish stuff works well and doesn't tend to make digital photos look plasticky. But reducing the more grain-like noise is tougher. I'd almost rather experiment with a program that substitutes more film-like grain for the digital noise, than try to remove the noise altogether.

 

However I expect the D2X images are far superior to those of my D2H and may not present these problems.

 

Another consideration is whether you need ultrawide angle lenses. Having full frame sensors the EOS 1Ds MarkII and more recent 5D will behave more like any 35mm film camera when used with wide angle lenses. With the D2X you might need a high quality zoom in the 10-24mm range (there are a few, more or less in that focal range), or one really good prime.

 

Good luck with your decision.

[KenPapai]

<i>"A 12 megapixel Nikon and a 14 megapixel Canon..."</i>

<p>

Hard to make a choice when some of the info you get here is so bad and wrong. Canon's 1Ds2 is obviously 16.x MP. It is full frame too. Nikon has not indicated much in a move to a top-of-the-line FF sensor body. I doubt anyone who does MF work would want to work witn a cropped sensor body. You already have one hand tied behind your back. The D2X (1.5 croop sensor) is an *excellent* camera, however it competes with Canon's new 5D (12MP, FF sensor) and 1D2 (8MP in a 1.3 crop sensor); it doesn't compete with the 1Ds2 by any means.

[KenPapai]

(and Dean you caught yourself, cool; I am sure you knew the difference anyway in 14 vs. 16)

[ilkka_nissila]

Ken, I know that you're a Canon loyalist but there are many tests published in magazines which put the D2X and 1Ds Mk II on par in terms of image quality, while the Canon is much more expensive. Obviously the smaller sensor of the Nikon increases its utility for tele users, so you actually get more for less money. The only advantages of the Canon are lower high ISO noise (which doesn't matter if you shoot to make large prints since then you're using the lowest ISO available anyway; especially if you come from a medium format background.) and larger viewfinder.

 

The "crop" is only in your mind, Nikon's DSLRs have always had the same sensor size. Most if not all medium format digital backs have "cropped" sensors compared to medium format film. So it's nothing new.

[fourfa]

"The only advantages of the Canon are lower high ISO noise (which doesn't matter if you shoot to make large prints since then you're using the lowest ISO available anyway; especially if you come from a medium format background.)"

 

I'd argue that the majority of long tele subjects (sports, wildlife, etc) would benefit from clean high ISOs and thus higher shutter speeds.

[ilkka_nissila]

That is correct, you can use good noise-free high iso for those applications but I've never seen application of high iso digital in wildlife photography where the crispness and saturation of colors were as good as they are at low ISOs. So I would avoid this in any case. Also, instead of 200/2.8 you can use 135/2, instead of 300/2.8 you can use 200/2, instead of 500/4 you can maybe use 300/2.8 etc. thanks to the higher pixel density. If you have money to burn, you can choose a faster tele than the FF users in many situations, which ought to compensate for the difference in pixel size. If you have good light, you can use 300/4, 500/4 or 200-400/4 and get more reach than similar sized lenses on a FF DSLR.

 

I've gotten MANY shots thanks to the quality of the small DX size sensor I couldn't have gotten on 35 mm film. These include in particular concert and other performance photography (but should apply to wildlife equally well). I'm sure wildlife photogs will be much happer to trek around in the wilderness with a D2X and 300/4 instead of a 1Ds Mk II and 500/4. The weight difference is quite considerable. I do admit I have a bias for shooting at the slowest possible ISO speeds and using the best possible light. Some photogs love high ISO digital but I remain unimpressed at anything above iso 400 that I've seen published. For me, the difference in walking around with a 180 instead of a 300 can make all the difference between being able to hand-hold the shot (thanks to weight and max aperture differences) and not being to get anything useful.

 

It is largely a matter of how you look at these things. I am sure good high ISO performance is loved by many, but I feel good light and low gets more beautiful results. In addition to color, the sharpness of the image drops rapidly as you increase ISO even on the Canons. So even though you get relatively noise-free large pixels, the result is blurred from what you would get at low ISOs. IMO not worth it.