stick with digital or jump with medium format

[steve_tenggala]

Hi all,

 

I need some opinions from you that have been shooting dslr and medium format

concurrently. I have been shooting with dslr and wanting to get quality big

prints, thinking to get into medium formats (pro dslr, like d2x and 1ds mk2

are way out of my budget). Since big is the goal, I thought I may as well go

with the 6x7 format since that's the biggest common one used. But then I read

some people reviews that rave how 1ds mk2 or d2x almost match the details

produced by 6x7 format (these people even said that they already surpassed 645

format).

 

What do you guys think? Obviously, I can get better dynamic range with film

(at the expense of processing/developing cost) and may be able to get digital

back for even bigger print in the future when the price becomes reasonable

(though by that time, those digital backs may even require newer system). But

if the quality isn't that much better than 12-16mp dslr, wouldn't it be easier

if I just stick with digital, save some more money for better body, and work

with one system only?

 

One more thing, how big print can I expect from 6x7 format before I see a loss

in quality? What about 12/16mp digital slr?

 

You're opinion is very appreciated.

[wai_leong_lee]

Do you realise that 16 MP DSLR is actually not even equal to 35 mm in quality, from a resolution point of view? This is of course comparing against the finest films (like 25 or 50 ISO).

 

Where DSLR's win out over film is the clean ISO 1600 and above.

 

Clearly, a 6x7 medium format is far superior, from a resolution standpoint, than DSLR. And since you don't need to enlarge so much from a 6x7, noise is not an issue.

 

What is an issue is the slow lenses and slow focusing, which could drive you to a DSLR if you want to take action or sports pictures.

 

"How big print can I expect from 6x7 format before I see a loss in quality?"

 

There is no fixed answer to this question. It depends on how far you stand away from the print.

 

Whether you should use a DSLR or medium format is not just about the enlargements you can make but whether you can get the pictures you want in the first place. DSLR's have better autofocus, fast fps, faster lenses, lower weight, etc. which makes them suitable for certain types of fast photography. MF is suitable for slower photography.

 

What type of photography you enlarge in should drive your decision more than the size of the enlargement.

 

Lastly, it's not a DSLR vs MF thing. As indicated above, they are complementary to each other. I use both.

[mark_kay]

Steve.. I have been using dslrs since the original D30 by Canon. I had gone the other

route. I went to MF when I had the canon 1Dsmk2. I bought a used kodak digital back for

my contax 645---both were 16megapixels but clearly the density of pixels were different.

Nonetheless, my comparisons taught me the amount of detail I could get were very similar

on big prints (e.g. 16x24). However, the color was more accurate with the contax/kodak

and the dynamic range was much better. Nonetheless, when comparing the convience of

the DSLR vs MF, the former won hands down. THe other issue is that the high iso images

(even iso 200) with the contax were too noisy. In the end, there was not a big enough

advantage to keep both. Micheal Reichmann stated the contax MF lenses have reached

their resolution limit. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/digital-

view.shtml . I sold all my contax stuff and purchased an Aptus 65 back and a used 6x9

view camera. THe back should arrive at the end of the week and I will see what happens.

 

I also have a canon 5D. Unless you are really printing large, it is hard to see alot of

difference in resolution. At higher isos, the 5D images are cleaner. However, the AF

mechanism is unbeatable on the series 1D cameras... nice to have lots of choices. HOpe

this is alittle helpful.

[pics]

You will probably get lots of answers from diehards on either side regarding the superiority of one medium over the other complete with lots of crops and pixel/grain wars. If this is going to be a big financial commitment on your part, why not try to rent or borrow a MF camera and view the results for yourself. There are lots of variables with medium format film, so its not as simple as saying one has higher resolution than the other.

[pavelp]

I'm with Daniel. Try it yourself. You may even save some money by no renting but buying a cheap 6x7 system (the prices of Mamiya RB67 equipment are below outrageously low now).

[wai_leong_lee]

I find it odd that that people are asking about whether they should do MF or DSLR's.

 

Surely if you're shooting long enough to think about MF, you'll realise MF is no substitute for 35 mm?

 

The lenses are slow, the equipment is bigger, heavier and bulkier, and autofocus (if any) sucks. And if you use film, you get anything from 6-16 shots on one roll of 120 film.

 

It's not about one vs the other.

[Jochen_S]

No answer just thoughts: Are you prepared for a MF workflow? - Film isn't that cheap anymore. Who'll soak it? - You yourself? - fine, go ahead. - A lab? - Mortgage your house... and sooner or later your MF gear will become just a paperweight.

 

What are you planning to do, digital or wet darkroom? Wet sucks somehow, while digital isn't cheap. Epson flatbed scanners are compromises for those who shoot faster film handheld. Perfection seekers might need more. A great MF scanner isn't cheaper than a pro-level DSLR.

 

If you already decided to lug a tripod around; why don't you go the way entirely to LF? - You could always slam in a rollholder to snap a few portraits using the rangemeter. What you'll safe on a scanner will buy you at least 1000 sheets of film. - BW-math; color is another story. Price differences in gear seem neglectable to me; maybe LF is still cheaper.

 

I can't say much about print sizes. I got good looking 8x10"s out of TMY 120 pushed to 1600 ISO. - I didn't try Pan F. Look at 35mm shooters work; you'll have 4times the real estate.

 

Homescanned MF should bring DIN A3 into your reach - (conservative math: 2000 ppi to 300 dpi / 150lpi with quality factor 2, while 1.4 might be good enough for offsetposters). To print DIN B2 I'd burn 4x5". - Affordable scan resolution seems a limiting factor. OTOH I don't know what kind of lenses your shoestring budget might allow.

 

A real world 2000ppi scanner wouldn't deliver significantly more pixels from a 6x7 neg than a 16MP DSLR. - I haven't compared the quality of them yet.

 

The future is surely digital, but if you happen to like shooting film, do it. It'll work fine for landscapes and maybe posed portraits. OTOH you'll feel comparably lost whenever the need to fire away arises. Carrying both; a DSLR kit + MF is a physical challenge, which I'd like to avoid, but paratroopers might laugh about it.

 

Investing in multiple system is a perfect way to prevent having the right gear for a certain job. - Don't get me wrong, of course it could be done in a intelligent way, but on a budget a basic MF lens kit will eat the money needed for fast DSLR primes, which might allow you to keep your ISO down.

[james_symington1]

I have a 1Ds II, 5D and a large Hasselblad 6X6 outfit. 6X6 slides scanned on a Coolscan 9000 very obviously show more detail than the best I can get from the 1Ds II shot using L lenses and converted from RAW. But to put it in perspective, the results from the digital cameras are amazingly good already and from the 6X6 a bit better.

 

Scans from the 9000 are of the order of 8300 pixels on each side for 6X6 so in theory you could print 28X28 inches at 300 dpi without re-sizing the image and obviously larger for 6X7. How far you can extend beyond that is hard to answer - it depends on how fussy you are about the quality / viewing distance etc.

 

But of course there are additional costs you have to bear going down the MF route such as a good scanner (and which one to get is an argument on its own!), film and the extra time you will spend on the film workflow.

 

I prefer to use the Hasselblads when I know the volumes are not going to be high. But if I am taking more than 50 rolls or so on a particular trip then I know I am going to bury myself in scanning for ever. That's when I switch to digital because of the convenience. So you should bear in mind the expected volume of your output too - as you are used to DSLR workflows you may find the transition to film scanning a painful one.

[mark liddell]

A point many people here have missed is that this isnﾒt just a film or digital question. 6x7 MF cameras and 1dsmkII/D2x are WILDLY DIFFERENT and the way of working worth them is too.

 

In 6x7 you have a choice of RB/RZ67, P67 all of which are (or close to) manual, no af, big and heavy and need a tripod. The other option is the mamiya 7 which is a rangefinder, again very different to a DSLR. You will also get 10 shots on a roll of film with 6x7, so depending on how much you shoot will drastically effect the economics of your decision. I love my RB but it is not suitible for some situations and a DSLR would be a better choice.

 

You didnﾒt mention what you shoot, in what conditions, colour or b&w. For colour will you scan the film? Do you have a (decent) scanner or send out to a lab? If b&w do you dev/print yourself?

 

Quality is very important but the right tool for the job to start with is still paramount. Shooting sports with an RB isn't going to work too well. Try these cameras out before you decide. There is a lot to think about.

[jerry_friedman]

I am with Daniel and Pavel. Pavel is right about Mamiya RB67 being cheap right now. Listen to this: I collect gold/special edition cameras. Very recently I purchased a Mamiya RB 67 "gold brown lizard" version because it is lovely and because it fits into my collection. I am embarrassed to say that I only paid $370 for it, without box etc etc.. Ounce for ounce, inch for inch, that has to be the best deal around. Now, non-commemorative editions are going to have to be less than that. Quite honestly, if the Mamiya had a soul, I would feel the need to apologize to it because all that wonderul, versatile and beautifully built and lovely to look at camera does all day is sit on my shelf. Somehow, this does not seem right. Just a few years ago this was the most versatile premium 6x7 camera available because IT DOES EVERYTHING. But Mark is also right about using the RB. It is big and will not work for sports etc. But if I were to list all its virtues which include 1:1 close-ups with standard lens, revolving backs, absolute mechanical solidity, etc. I would be here for an hour. For my personal use, I prefer using a Rollei TLR which is lighter and faster to use. But, in terms of features there is no comparison and in terms of features per dollar, the RB is a barking bargain.

 

Regards, Jerry

[david_henderson]

It isn't really useful to try and resolve the digital vs Medium format debate down to resolution/sharpness issues, which is the way many people try and compare them. Frankly you can get excellent images with either, and good prints too.

 

But the thing is that the prints are likely to look different- have a different feel about them. You really need to see some prints side by side and see which you prefer. On the one hand, shooting medium format film creates the possibility of using print processes you can't replicate all that well on digital capture. Examples would include Ilfochrome; B&W fibre; and so on. If you prefer these routes for your printing then it would seem smart to use film. Now its also the case though that the best ( my view) and certainly the biggest/most detailed colour prints from film are made from a scan and print route- using in essence the same range of printers that you'd use for digitally captured photographs. Personally I can still persuade myself that there's a difference in character between a film and digital original , but maybe I'm imagining it, and indeed it doesn't matter what I think- its your judgment that counts.

 

From a 6x7 original, sharp and well exposed, I'd be happy with a 20" x 16" print if enlarging traditionally/optically. With a drum scan and output on a LightJet or Chromira, then 40" x 32" would be easy and bigger than this possible.

 

The other thing you need to think about is how you want to spend your time- since film and digital workflows are different in this respect.

[zapata_espinoza]

The end justifies the means. Both can get you there it is rather a decision on the working procedure and your willingness to really learn one or the other method. Concerning colour digital is the way to get in control. Concerning b/w, for me film is the preferable method.

[marty_sanborn]

I don't see any mention of what size enlargements you've made with the DSLR. Obviously, there are things you can do to help sharpen your photos on the DSLR for larger prints (e.g., always using a tripod). There's also no mention of your subjects, and if the subject doesn't require everything to be pinpoint sharp, then the size of the enlargement is not at issue.

 

Regarding the jump into medium format, you have a number of options at the $350 and below level. The RB is silly inexpensive right now, Mamiya and Yashica TLRs are cheap, and there's the Bronica SQ as well. Keep in mind that access to film and finishing is important, and if there isn't a place nearby, it could get expensive.

 

I would discount picking up a MF digital back for reasonable prices anytime soon. There isn't enough demand to get the economies of scale you need for consumer level prices.

 

As far as the MF camera becoming a useless brick, well, 4x5 and 8x10 film is still readily available, so it's hard to see 120 film disappearing anytime soon (not to say it won't increase in price, though). And let's face it, the turnover in digital cameras is so quick that your DSLR will be a useless brick compared to the Next Great Thing at half the price in a couple years.

[troyammons]

Long sorry. Dont forget the scanner.

 

Not an easy answer. Its a system with film so you have to work the camera, lens, film and scanner into the equation.

 

Also depends on what you shoot. MF is definitely crippled for telephoto and shooting anything over portrait length with 6x7 is pretty much too difficult for me. IMO forget 6x7 if you shoot serious telephoto. I used to have a P67II and a 300mm F4 EDIF and that combo is a beast. That is equal to a 135mm lens on a full frame dslr or around 90mm on a cropped dslr camera.

 

I also recently owned a Pentax 645II and a Kodak slr/c at the same time. 90% of the time shooting E100G the actual photo quality and resolving power was about the same, except I got more keepers out of the slr/c. BTW a cheaper alternative to a 1dsmkII although not a pro camera. That was shooting a pentax 300mm, 400mm both with a 1.4x tc off and on and a 600mm lens for a while on the P645. IMO the problems I had were the lenses were not quite at the Zeiss level and probably more film flatness and stability. Compare that to hand held slr/c tele shots with a 400mm lens.

 

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/kodak_slrc

 

For telephoto work a crop dslr camera is highly advantageous too and what i prefer. For landscape that might be a different story. A Mamiya 7 or similar super sharp MF camera and velvia should beat all the dslrs with a drum scan. It can actually be pretty close to 4x5 depending. A Rollei, or a hasselblad or a gx680 also should be on that superb level.

 

MF lenses and scanners are the big equalizers. To me most of the MF lenses out there are just not sharp enough. The Mamiya 7, Rollei planar and Hasselblad lenses are up there as are the Fuji GX680 lenses but the Mamiya RZ RB C lenses are just not quite at that same level. I will say the RB camera is cheap and probably a good starter though but I would start off with a KL lens if you go that route. Very heavy.

 

Case in point, if you shoot an 80lp/mm film like Velvia and a 60 lp/mm lens the system rez to the film is 48 lp/mm. That will buy you a 12x enlargement. You could almost resolve that with a 3000 dpi drum scan.

 

If you use a 120lp/mm lens, that returns 66 lp/mm with the same film. that buys you a 16.5x enlargement. You would need a 4000 dpi drum scan for that.

 

A 60lp/mm film like acros and a 60lp/mm lens and you end up with 42 lp/mm or you can do a 10x enlargement. Compared to a slrc at non interpolated print at 204 on a lightjet, you end up with 14" x 21" for the slr/c vs 22" x 26" for 6x7.

 

A Nikon 9000 would also be good enough for either, but not quite at the drum scan level. Another 2G.

 

Now if you go back to 35mm for a second, I just shot some bluefire B+W film with a Contax and the end result was a very sharp file scanned at 5400 dpi with a 5400II scanner.

 

I was floored. The edge sharpness at 5400 dpi is almost identical to a dslr file. If you work that out I can print that un-interpolated to 24" x 36" and it will be almost as sharp in print as a slr/c printed at 14" x 21".

 

In the last example 35mm B+W film comes close or beats everything except for the sharpest MF system and film.

 

You might even be able to get close to that level of sharpness with velvia or E100G with a Leica lens or one of the new Zeiss lenses.

 

That pretty much wraps up my view of lenses and film. Highly dependent on the system as to what can beat what. Dont know if that helps.

 

Scanners. Another ball and chain and a real sticky point.

 

Forget the Epsons, for anything critical. They are not even close. They resolve around 24-32 lp/mm and IMO its almost like dropping a format when scanning. If you figure 24 lp/mm you can enlarge 6x which is a good number for the Epsons. That buys you a 13" x 15" enlargement from 6x7 film. A slr/c would beat it in that case or even sharp 35mm and a top scan.

 

So considering all that, to beat a slr/c or a 1dsmkII, you need a MF camera system that cost a small fortune, A drum scanner or at least a Nikon 9000 that cost 2G and some super sharp film like E100G, Velvia or Efke 25. I figured one time that if you bought a new Mamiya 7II and all the lenses new it would cost something like $12,000. You can really bend over if you want a Rollei 6008.

 

The film cost is a definite factor. I added up my film cost a while back, shooting 645, I could save enough $ in one year to pay for a demo slr/c.

 

For me what I really enjoy, is shooting cropped digital telephoto so I dont have to use such a huge lens, super sharp leica type 35mm rangefinder for B+W and mixed lightweight shooting but more than either what I really love is shooting a flip up chimney viewfinder medium format camera.

 

If you want to get your feet wet without spending a small fortune try out a Kowa super 66, but find one that is mint with a return policy. Abused kowa cameras have a tendency to lock up. They are fairly sharp and you should be able to find a kit for $300-400.

 

Here are some Kowa 66 shots. Check out the kids. There are some 4000 dpi drum scan crops in there too. Also comparing a drum scan to the 4870.

 

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/drum_comparisons&page=2

 

 

 

[arthuryeo]

I'm sure, by now, you have read that MF cannot subsitutue DSLR and the reverse is not true either. I think they complement each other.

 

The convenience and the portability of a DSLR is beyond any film-based MF. As a user of LF, MF, 35mm SLR and DSLR, I tell you that it's just simply incomparable in this area.

 

Now, your question speaks of large print. There 2 highly related topics: scanner & printer. As you may already, the weakest link in your workflow to produce the print is the one that will break your print. So, you have to consider carefully, that you will need a pretty high-end scanner or pay for scanning service to obtain a good digital image. And, you will need to think about whether you intend to send the edited image to a lab or are you intending to purchase a large format printer.

 

Having said all these, I have also upsized a 4Mpix (from a Nikon D2H image) to print it on 16x20". It's still hanging on my wall and you cannot tell the difference from a Hasselblad or 4x5" if you view it at a reasonable distance (usually, it's 2X the diagonal of the frame). You can tell the difference if you look at it from 6"-9" but you're not supposed to look at art pieces from that distance.

[Aoresteen]

Steve,

 

I'm a long time MF user. A year and half ago we bought an Olympus C5060 digital camera. We used it a little but prefered to use an OM-1 SLR when we travel. Recently we have spent time using the 5060 to see just what it can do. The 5060 is a 5 megapixel camera.

 

We use it set to one of the highest resolution possible, HQ 2592 x 1728 JPEG with file sizes about 1 mb in size. I took a typical scenic travel shot and had 4x6, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, and 16x20 prints made by the same lab. My expectation was that I would be able to see a difference in the 8x10 and 11x14 prints and the 16x20 would be terrible.

 

Surprise! The 16x20 was outstanding! As good as the 8x10. I have a bunch of people look at it and they were all amazed that it was a digital shot.

 

We bought a 1 gig XD card and a 4 gig CF card forthe 5060 and now shoot it an even higher resolution of SHQ Enlarge size of 3264 x 2448 low compression JPEG which yeilds a 4.6 mb file size. With the cost of media so low now, why not shoot at the highest resolution you can?

 

Given our satisfaction with the 5 megapixal 5060 we bought an Olympus E-1 body which are on a fire sale by Cameta Camera on ebay. We got ours for $427 plus $19 shipping. The E-1 is a 5 Megapixel camera. We plan to use it with our OM lenes to get shots the 5060 can't.

 

So now when we travel it will be digital for color shots and I will still use the MF gear for B&W. Why? Because I have a darkromm and I like making 11x14 or 16x20 prints by hand. The digital shots will be mostly printed as 4x6 to be put in an album with an ocassional 11x14 for the wall.

[marty_sanborn]

Now that I've seen a number of comments on scanners, I'll add the question: do you do much post-processing of your images? If you're constantly tweaking the files from your DSLR, you will need to add in the cost of scanning. I don't tweak and have the images printed directly from the chromes, so there wasn't that additional cost for me.

 

Regarding the sharpness of the RB lenses, both the C 90mm and 180mm that I have are very, very sharp. I have no direct experience with the K/L lenses, so if they are a significant improvement over the older C, they will give fantastic results.

[troyammons]

I have had 3 different RZ/RB systems, and I did not think the lenses were all that hot, but I am very picky. They are right there with most of the other MF lenses like pentax and the like, but I usually look for 35mm type sharpness from MF. Definately not at the mamiya 7 or Zeiss planar level. I know thats partly unrealistic to expect that type of sharpness, but thats just me and probably the reason I just bought a rollei sl66 and plan to set it up with one of the new schneider digitar lenses.

 

Tweaking images is another issue that was passed over. I feel that a properly profiled film scan is better color balanced and requires less computer work, but then again you have to process film set it up and scan it.

 

As mentioned above I think both systems have their place.

 

My camera setup, some of which I own and some I am working towards is a digital P+S just for bumping around and work, a cropped dslr for telephoto work or when I dont want to bother with film, a contax aria or maybe a rtsIII later and contax lenses (I can also use those on my dslr), A minolta cle (leica mount) with a few of the newest Zeiss lenses that are resolving into the 300-400 range, either that or a hexar RF, a super sharp MF slr camera, and that will be a Rollei sl66 when it arrives, also a Rollei 6008, mamiya 7, GX680 would all be nice, and a 5x7 or 8x10 LF camera. Working on a 8x10 camera right now, but I do have a 4x5.

 

To match on the scanner end I have an Epson 4870 for quick scans for the internet and such, a minolta 5400II for fast super sharp 5400 dpi scans, and a drum scanner for larger high end stuff.

 

I guess I could shoot MF all the time, but its big, bulky and expensive and limited for telephoto. 35mm film is very easy to scan where drum scans can be a PIA. At times I want super rez so out comes large format but sometimes nothing else will do.

 

All in all I use the P+S camera the most followed by my dslr 35mm rangefinder, followed bt MF and then LF film. I expect I will be shooting more MF film with the addition of the sl66.

[mark liddell]

Also I hope you have a fast PC if you edit film scan yourself. 6x7 scanned @ 4000dpi at 16bit is around 600mb! I have .psd files that are ~3Gb with layers...

[b_hall1]

It has been said that those considering DSLR for the same amount of money might just switch to medium format...and the idea being that medium format quality would be way ahead of current digital.

 

Those that advocate digital just pull out the print size based on file size of the DSLR, define the result as perfect, and then go on to say that film enlargements of the same size are not very good...Actually, film has a set of characteristics. To change the characteristics of the camera just change the film. Also, with film there is a look or style to begin with rather than some look or style to try and achieve with digital. And film has greater dynamic range. Then for scanning the scanner can process the film image in a way that a one-shot digital camera capture can't...

 

But here's another idea. Medium format users impressed with the convenience of digital decide to stay with film but move to 35mm...More images per roll, smaller lighter equipment, less cost, and so on. But this depends on high-end scanning and laser printing of 35mm and how it compares...

[matt_needham]

You can go here to see examples from a Canon MkII 1Ds compared to 6x4.5 Velvia.

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml

 

In the close-ups 6x4.5 film still beats the DSLRs, although the medium format digital backs are smoking!

 

I shoot 6x6 and 6x7, as well as with a DSLR. I have no doubt that someday (probably pretty soon) I'll have a DSLR that is better than than 6x7 film, but it seems obvious to me that isn't today.

 

Of course, the potential information capturing ability of film won't mean a hill of beans if you can't get good procesing and printing. I'm still shooting medium format BW, which I'm processing and printing myself, but I've given up on medium format E6 and C41 in favor of digital, because it's gotten a lot harder to find good color film processing locally, and I don't have much interest in mailing my film.

[troyammons]

I think there is some film enjoyment factor that is also being missed here. Film is tactile and carries a certain satisfaction level that digital does not.

 

I find myself saying more wows with film on a light table than I do looking at a comuter screen, more so with LF film. LF slide film especially 8x10 is a mind blower on a light table.

[simonpg]

Steve I think it's a simple matter - 35mm film was never a match for 120 MF. Today only one or two DSLR cameras are a match for 35mm film. Hence DSLR is no match for MF film.

 

While MF digital is to a very high standard, it still is not a match for MF film - easily determined since there is no full frame (even 6x4.5) MF sensor on the market today.

 

If you are looking for top end quality images for whatever reason MF (if not LF) will provide that better than any form of "small format" camera - film or digital.

[ilkka_nissila]

I don't think resolving power etc really is the issue: the prints made using different methods will look different. You choose the look you want for a particular picture and use the methods that get you there easiest.

[andrewlamb]

I like my 6x7. I my 5x4. I like my 5D. It's all horses for courses.

 

You would get a very different set of answers if you had posted this question on another

forum.

 

Maybe it's more pertinent to ask why kind of photography you do and then work out what

kind of camera would help you take the most interesting and creative pictures? You might

crave 10x8 quality, for instance, but that's a bit silly if you photograph formula one grand

prix racing.