MF or EOS

[andy_brehm]

This is probably not the best place to ask as Im sure I will get

biased answers but it would probably be good to ask anyway. I

currently own a Canon 20d and have a fair system built up in the EOS

line. I shoot landscapes and would love to get greater detail. I

will be looking to upgrade my system in the next year and I thought

that the 1DS MKII or its replacement would be a natural choice until I

thought about medium format. I have been doing some reading on the

net and there are a few out there that believe that the DSLR (namely

the 1ds MKII) is approaching or has approached MF image quality. I

have a hard time believing this but I thought I would ask you guys.

 

So my main question is, when I upgrade my system I will most

definately keep my 35mm setup, but should I just upgrade to Canon's

top of the line DSLR or invest in a Digital MF setup. The Mamiya ZD

looks appealing but Im not sure. What are your reccomendations?

 

Thanks

 

Andy

[brian_walton]

Most decent MF cameras produce a neg that will produce a print of finer quality than any 35mm or digital format. The 120 neg has to be scanned. In effect the scanner becomes the digital piece in the MF puzzle. Drum scanning is certainly good but the new versions of flatbed scanners will probably give you all you want at a very reasonable price. I like the neg as it is a perfect form of backup.

 

Hope this helps

 

Brian

[simonpg]

In the 35mm format arena, ther is no question that Canon's best DSLRs produce outstanding image quality - a mix of data quantity (resolution by pixels), file processing, individual pixel quality and Canon's L series glass.

 

BUT, when it comes to the ultimate in landscape imaging (if that's what you are after) IMHO no DSLR comes close to the finest MF 120 rollfilm (read Velvia or Provia). Together with the far greater film area (read quantity of data) compared to a digital sensor (read much more resolved detail - quality of data); a generally excellent optical standard among quality MF cameras (e.g. read Zeiss and Mamiya lenses); nothing matches it regardless of shooting 6x6, 6x7 or 6x9.

 

The facts that MF requires far less magnification; begins with far more detail (quality and quantity in the film structure - that's why all digital developements are measuread against film) sets large quality prints from MF film way apart from a digital image. The resolution of super fine details and tonality the best film provides is simply a joy.

 

Then, IMHO if superlative excellence is what you are after the world of large format is many steps ahead again.

 

And, like Brian said (horses for courses) basic good quality flatbed scanning of an MF neg enables superb printing if you want / need to avoid traditional wet darkroom printing. For the ultimate digital print a drum scan is the way to go.

 

Finally Andy, here's a tip. Have a look at magazines like the UK's Amateur Photographer and all the big landscapes you see resolving beautiful detail throughout, you'll find are taken with MF on film or even 4x5 or larget LF cameras. Each time I see these mags and an image really hits me I see they were taken with a Hasselblad, Mamiya, Rollei etc or a view camera!

 

Of course with techniques like stitching etc one can use a high end DSLR to good effect. But IMHO, why would you bother!

[philippartridge]

<p>Exactly what does <i>approaching or has approached MF image quality</i> mean? One of many peeves about the digital-film formats 'discussion' is that few ever state their criteria.</p>

 

<p> Well, here are mine, and keep in mind I mostly shoot landscapes: very low grain/noise, no need to 'upsample', realistic micro-contrast, a range of characteristics (tonality, palette, etc), a photo-realistic appearance, affordability, durability and repairability. I choose MF.</p>

 

<p>Is this bias? I don't believe so. Digital seems to satisfy many, but to be honest, the resolution is not overly important once you get past a certain threshold. Medium format is above that line, and with good technique, delivers in anyone's language.</p>

 

<p>But the real issue is the <i>look</i> of the output. I much prefer what Marc Williams calls <i>the emotional look</i> of film. I use Fujis, two 645 rangefinders and a GW690III. Go with what delivers <i>for you</i>, not a bunch of netheads. Best regards, Philip.</p>

[ben conover]

I use Fuji 69's because of the large rectangular negative size.

Scanners are improving all the time and a drum scan of a 69 frame will be outstanding. I don't need fast or high turnover of work, I do it for pleasure and quality, not quantity. I prefer to use film because it has a strong look in B+W, tonal range up 9 stops and an easy learning curve. Digital is constantly moving ahead and so you will always be upgrading if you want the best.

 

If you really want the 'best' then just buy a Linhof, lenses, and some slow sheet film, and a tripod, and a book on how to use it.

You can still call it medium format if you add a roll film back.

 

Cheers.

[dermot_conlan4]

You are on the MF forum so you'll get answers biased towards MF. My advice

as always is to take several weekends to rent various MF systems, if you are

in the US you can rent after 12 noon on Friday for the weekend for a one day

rental fee. MF is vastly different form your digital set up you need to see if it's

for you and which camera system is for you before plunking down cash....the

used market is great for buyers but it sucks if you are selling.

I think you'd be crazy to spend $8k on a Canon 1Ds Mk11 unless you can

recoup some of the money in sales, even a lot of pros cannot justify it, many

use what you have a 20D...if you concetrate on your craft you can make great

landscapes with any camera.

You also need a good scanner or the link is broken in the chain, flatbeds are

OK but a dedicated MF film scanner is needed to get all the information from

your original.

Of course this is my opinion and I'm sure someone here will tell you they

make great scans form an Epson flatbed but it's like buting a Contax camera

and putting a Tamron lens on it.

[gluteal cleft]

The only way you'll get more detail from the Canon is to shoot a number of shots, and stitch them together - when you're talking about 100, 200, or 300+ megapixels, you can make some very impressively-sized prints. But you don't need the 1Ds for that, your 20d will do just as good of a job, albeit with more shots.

 

Of course, if there's movement (even a little wind in the trees), then you're out of luck. Stitching only works when you have both the time and proper subject matter.

 

steve

[andy_brehm]

Thank you all for your comments, I greatly appreciate them. I know most of you shoot film so I may be flamed if I ask ;) but what about digital MF? From the sounds of it, digital MF is really just getting started which inherently means huge prices for something that is still probably not as good as film, but still, I have a good "digital darkroom" which I am familiar with and have all the necessary tools to take a "digital negative" to print. So, with that said, I think I would like to try the digital MF arena. That is why the Mamiya ZD caught my eye.

 

I think that the digital counterpart to film MF would probably offer the same benefits over both digital and film 35mm format, probably just not up to the same standards as film MF, but I assume that will come with time. And from my understanding you can always upgrade the digital backs once you have the camera which makes upgrading easier.

 

I think I have been cursed slightly because of my age because when I got into photography everything was digital, my first camera was digital (though very crappy) and that is all I have shot since so I am very familiar with it. Its not that I dont want to experience something new, but I would like to stay with some familiarity when venturing off into a new format of camera. That and I already have the digital equipment.

 

I hope my ramblings make sense, but I was just wondering some of your thoughts on digital MF and what a good beginners setup would be. From the sounds of it I will most definately need a Tilt/shift lens for landscapes, which I understand not all MF cameras will accept. One other thing that bothered me with MF is I read somewhere that DOF would generally be less since you cant get as close to your subjects with MF and still have them in focus as you can with 35mm, is there any truth to this?

 

Thanks

 

Andy

[trw]

<blockquote>One other thing that bothered me with MF is I read somewhere that DOF would generally be less since you cant get as close to your subjects with MF and still have them in focus as you can with 35mm, is there any truth to this?</blockquote>

<p>The DOF is smaller at the same aperature, but not for that reason. With MF, you can get as close as your lens will allow. On my TLR, that's about 4cm because you can just keep racking out the bellows, provided you have a paramender and adjust the exposure to compensate.</p>

<p>The DOF is smaller because the sensor is larger.

[ben conover]

Why spend $10,000 on a MF digital camera back when you can buy a Linhof large format camera and lenses with roll film back for $3,000? Also have the option of buying into large format digital too. The movements on a LF camera with a sheet of film and good lenses will be a good investment. The Mamiya ZD has been in the news for a while but I have not seen anyone using one yet.

 

I would get a Linhof Bi-Kardan monorail with roll film back, three lenses and a good tripod.

 

You could even get an old speed graphic with lens for $400 and get better enlargements than Mamiya ZD.

 

It's your money, but if I had all that dough, I'd save it.

 

Cheers.

[pavelp]

Andy, you may want to consider an alternate route: upgrade your Canon and get film based MF rig for your landscapes. If you get say Mamiya RB67ProSD, you can get a digital back for it later.

 

See, there's much more to shooting MF than just bigger sensor or bigger negative. The workpace is completely different, the viewfinder picture is much bigger (allowing for good evaluation of composition without the tunnel-effect of eye-level finders), manual metering makes you think twice, three times, four times before you release the shutter (not mentioning the invaluable understanding of light that you will gain).

 

Don't be affraid to go completely manual and slow down (which is in my opinion the main benefit of the MF). Also if you do your own film scanning, you will work with every frame and get valuable feedback on your metering skills (if the shots are too thin or too thick, you know something went wrong).

 

Now, you will not need tilt-shift lens for landscapes. Most of the time can get around with just stopping down enough. Perspective corrections are however very handy when it comes to architecture and it that case you'll be better off getting a 4x5 view camera.

 

DOF does not increase as you get closer, it actually decreases. Yes, the lenses in MF are longer than in 35mm (50mm lens in 6x7 is equivalent to 24mm lens in 35mm) and that means less DOF but usually stopping down to 11/16/22 is enough to get a landscape all sharp. How close you can focus has nothing to do with focal length (it depends on the focusing mechanism, I can focus my RB67 with 50mm lens almost to 1:1 ratio (0.91x magnification to be precise).

 

I talk too much, so let's try to conclude: try some of the film-based 6x7 or 6x9 rigs for your landscapes and see how you like it. Chances are they you will discover a totally new world of photography. You can always resell the cameras at pretty much what you paid for them, so you have nothing to lose and lots of to gain.

[ben conover]

DOF in MF is smaller because of lens design. 35mm lenses are a complex design that helps to utilize the pitifully small area of film used. Medium format lenses give a shallower depth of field becuase the lenses are of a simpler design and porportionally cheaper. Because there is more film to play with, the lenses don't have to be such complex designs as for 35mm. If a Medium format lens was designed to 35mm specs to give same relative DOF it would be HUGE and very very expensive.

[simon_platt1]

Andy

Digital in all forms is still evolving rapidly and todays bets possible quality is tomorrows also ran. Once the EOS1ds MK11 is superseeded it will be virtually worthless. Not sure who ever said that a Canon digital SLR with a measly 16million pixels is as good as MF. Obviously they haven't seen MF at its best. The best digital back for MF cameras delivers 39 million pixels which by any terms is a great deal more than 16 and if you go to large format then you can use digital backs that give 100 million.

Digital still has a long way to go before it can catch up with film in tonality and overall look. Once you look carefully you can always tell a digital image from a film one.

 

If I were you I would go for a medium format camera that can take both film and in the future a digital back. That way when digital backs drop far enough in price you can still use the same lenses and camera body.

 

This would narrow your choice down to

Hasselblad 500 series, 200 series, H1, H2,

Rollei 6000 series,

Mamiya 645 or RZ,

Contax 645.

 

As another contributor suggested to try to hire or borrow these as they are all very different. Personally I think the ZD looks like a good camera if you already have a large number of Mamiya Lenses but otherwise it is not such a good buy. Also no dealer seems to actually have one although Mamiya claim they are on the way.

[ben conover]

I agree with Pavel, get a Mamiya RB/RZ system unless you need movements. Not sure if the Fuji gx680 has movements, great camera system too.

[dglickstein]

Andy,

 

I just spent several weeks going through this decision process and so many people in this forum have helped. I own many L lenses and 2 EOS3 bodies and I just ordered an H2 with several lenses and film back. I will purchase a digital back when I replenish my savings. I am keeping my Canon gear too. There were a lot of other factors in my decision.

 

But there are many other great MF cameras out there with digital back options that will blow the Canon gear away because of the frame size alone.

 

Good luck.

 

dG

[dglickstein]

Andy,

 

I will also add (as someone did above), that when I rented an H1 to get the feel of it, it was a great benefit and learning experience--I recommend it too.

 

Here are my posts if you want to read what others told me:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Doog

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Ds8k

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Dt2A

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Dq3Y

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Dx2x

 

Good luck.

 

dG

[andy_brehm]

Derek, I too looked the h2 and h1. I think I would really like to make the jump to medium format for greater detail, but again I would like to stay digital as that is what I am comfortable with. I guess at this point I will be giving up some image quality, but Im sure I will gain alot coming from a 20d so not all is lost. It is also attractive that the camera and effictively be both film and digital, so maybe I will try my hand a film after all, though for me developing and scanning is less than a joy so I may view it as a hassle after shooting film for so long.

 

do digital backs compare well with film?

 

Thanks

 

Andy

[andy_brehm]

Also, I am starting to see what you guys are talking about when you say that MF has a smaller DOF due to larger negative size and that this can be overcome by stopping down. My next questions is, will image sharpness or quality degrade as a result of stopping down to smaller aperatures? I know on 35mm at least that much past f/16 prints start to look a little soft and I was wondering if MF has a similar drawback. The reason I ask is in many of my pictures I like to get within 12 inches or so of a object in the foreground and I would like to do the same with a MF system.

 

Thanks

 

andy

[ben conover]

My Fuji 69's work best between F11-F16, because the lenses are Tessar designs. Minimun focus distance of one metre.

[vespa]

ANDY,

I use the Canon 1Ds and the Pentax 645n AF. I am enamoured of digital, and looking at the Canon 5D (mo' pixels). However, the 645 uses a 75mm and a 45-85 zoom, and produces some wonderful pics. I always slow down when using the 645. Maybe it's because there more to think about, or because the result will be in my mind for a while before I actually see it printed, or as a negative. Digital has made my ability to wait wither. 645 feels more theatrical to shoot. the sound of the film transport is solid. Digital backs for medium format cameras have pixel ratings that can choke your pc or latop processor, software, printer buffer. If you shoot a lot, go digital 35. If it's the journey and not the destination, ...... 645, with an option for a d-back, ..... maybe.

[simon_platt1]

Andy

I think you may be getting confused between minimum focusing distance and depth of field.

 

If you use extension tubes or bellows a Medium format camera will focus as close as a 35mm one. Some cameras can focus very close without any need for additional tubes such as the Fuji GX680, Rollei SL66 and Mamiya TLRs and RZ.

 

When you focus very close the depth of field drops dramatically so you need to stop down. When you stop down a 35mm lens diffraction around the aperture blades reduces the resolution and you can see it in the pictures because you are enlarging the small negative to a significant degree. With a medium format lens you are not working it as hard because you have a larger negative so the effect of reduced resolution is not so significant (unless you make big enlargements).

Moving up to the next step large format users rountinly use F64, the reduction in resolution is not very important for them because the negative is so large anyway.

 

One final point some people will tell you that Medium format lenses have a lower overall resolution than 35mm. This is simply not true.

The top medium format lenses from people like Zeiss exceed the resolution of many 35mm lenses. Also remember that resoltuion is not everything, you wouldn't by a car based solely on its 0-60 time. Lenses also have differing contrast and differing abberations that make them appeal to some people for some uses and not for others.

 

You may very well prefer the look of an image made with a Mamiya lens to that from a Zeiss lens.

[dglickstein]

Andy,

 

Since you are already digital (not you, your camera) then I can understand going back to film is tough. However, you don't need to do MF and film, digital backs are a solution--albeit very very expensive.

 

I just came back from my camera store and purchased a Nikon Coolscan 9000 (actually traded in my 5000 for it and paid the difference). I did so to be able to scan 645 transparencies. Think about it, 645 at 4000 dpi--you're not going to get better with any digital camera or digital back, that's like 8000+ pixels!

 

It directly equates to print size. Plus with Canon and Nikon digital gear--you'll always be replacing the entire body about every 2 years (since every year a new body will be developed).

 

An important point was made above, MF slows you down and that's a good thing--a very good thing. Think more, shoot less, achieve better results.

 

This was a tough decision for me but I'm looking forward to the switch. Keep us posted!

 

dG

[tim_drake]

For Landscape? Jump up to 4x5 and as a backup for when seconds count, Pentax 67II. Velvia is the standard and use digital to scan it. Have Fun!

[john_bellenis]

Andy,

 

Your question is very specific in that you are looking to upgrade

from your 20d for "greater detail". Obviously a 5d or 1Ds Mk II

would accomplish this due to the higher pixel count and larger

CCD (OK, CMOS chip). You don't however say how large you

want to print, so it's impossible to know if this resulting increase

in resolution would solve your problem.

 

If you enjoy and are invested in a digital darkroom and workflow ,

and if the increased resolution of the 12 / 16 MP cameras suits

your print sizes, just upgrade and forget about MF and film. You

will be faced with buying film (and the frustrations of watching

specific types being phased out), you will be taking film to a lab

for processing (time, gas and money), and then passing over

control to them for prints (or investing in, and setting up a wet

darkroom, with all the hassle, mess and space that it involves).

Or you'll be scanning your negs (not easy, or free from new

problems) and adding substantially to your digital workflow and

your time spent at a computer...

 

I shoot mostly 4x5 & MF for my work and scan with an Imacon

Flextight at very high res - scanning is an art and a science, and

a bad scan negates all the advantages of using film in the first

place. I also shoot digital and realize that I will eventually be

switching totally to digital due to the rapid pace of development

and the demands of my clients. I will not miss film one bit (after

25 years of using it professionally), life is a one way street and I

am excited about the new challenges and opportunities afforded

by this astonishing new medium...

 

Whatever you decide to do, just remember that photography is

about images, not equipment and that most of the progress is

your own creative journey, not advances in technology...

 

Have fun,

 

John - www.johnbellenis.com

[david carver]

I went through the same analysis. I have a D70 and was not happy with it for my landscapes. I bought a Mamiya 7 with a 65mm lens. I also bit the bullet and bought a Nikon 9000 ED scanner. I also have a canon 9950f and I also had an Epson 4990. The results are OK with a flatbed but it takes a lot of effort and I didnt' think that I was getting the films potential. At first I was happy with the results of the flatbed but after doing comparisons with the Nikon scanner, particularly with Velvia and Provia I am back to just using the Nikon.

 

With the Mamiya 7 and the Nikon 9000 the results are amazing. The details are incredible. I spent 1400 on the camera and lens and 1800 on the scanner. I have not compared it to the high end canon digitals. I personally am happy with the hard copy chromes.

 

I can say that differences between the same picture taken with the Mamiya and the D70 are like night and day to me. Everyone that sees them side by side remarks about how much better the MF picture is.

 

I am finally content, at least for a little while.