Medium Format Quality

[andrew_sacco]

OK, a new spin on others questions, and similar to other questions I've

posted. I am still moving to digital in phases. I have a Fuji 6x7 I love. I

had posted about purchasing a film scanner previously. Looks like a flatbed

is out, the Nikon 9000 is the one. However, with the gap closing in quality,

am I better seeking "medium format quality" with a higher megapixel 35mm SLR?

I now have a Nikon D70. I want to stay with Nikon, as I have all Nikon stuff

and am partial to that brand. Their flagship is over $4K...ouch. I had a

scan of a 6x7 slide done at a local lab (very nice indeed), but that can get

expensive. And shooting, developing, scanning, printing is pretty tedious for

an amateur who does this as a hobby only. I do not have a huge backlog of

slides/neg's to scan, maybe a few hundred so I can always rent a scanner or

send them out in batches. Any thoughts? I'd like to use the 6x7, but if I

could get the tonality and size prints (20x30 are desired at least) with a

digital SLR I would probably sell the Fuji, with a tear in my eye. Most work

is landscapes. Thanks.

[pico]

Your frustration is understandable, and pretty common. Photography is still on the tipping point between film and digital for the kind of quality one would expect from properly made 6x* film.

 

On the one hand, a top-of-the-line full-frame (nominal 35mm) camera can make utterly stunning images, easily compared to MF, but spending $7,000 and more for one is daunting. If you want it, you will have to pay for it. You won't be disappointed (except for some wide-angle work, IMHO.)

 

Price? I look back to the purely film days and a very good, reliable and versatile MF system was comperable in price to the top Nikon digital today.

 

Reading your post I see that you really want to stay with film, so do that and suffer out the expense of the few frames you want to have scanned. Overall it will be less expensive, and you can spend the savings on travel... and more good film hardware as their prices come down.

 

Future price of digital cameras? I suspect the prices will remain high and top off around $6000 and rather than spending less for one with each new generation, you will get more for your money in terms of robust builds, more adaptable lenses, faster media, better wireless connectivity.

[howard_slavitt2]

The quality I obtain from my Canon 5D and prime lenses is comparable to the quality I obtained from my 6cm x 9cm view camera with top quality Schneider and Rodenstock lenses. Quality is better in some ways, not as good in others. Much more convenient and versatile. I was scanning (an Imacon) and sold my scanner to get the 5D and prime lenses. I wouldn't buy a scanner if I were you at this point in time. For 4 x 5 and larger it still makes sense to shoot film,otherwise not.

[stan_belyaev]

6x7 is equal to about 30mp. Get hasselblad H3.

[robert_martin5]

I suggest you rent a digital camera of the type you would purchase, take pictures with it and your medium format. Have the medium format scanned and compare to see which one you like better.

 

I have used medium format film for 40 years, have a Nikon 9000 scanner to scan both 35mm and medium format. I now have a Nikon D200 and have not used the medium format since I purchased the Nikon D200. My wife shoots film with a Nikon 8008S and I scan the film. We have excellent 16x20 inch prints from scanned 35mm film using the Nikon 9000. I also get excellent prints from scanned medium format - better than enlarger prints. Scanning takes a lot of time and I like the ease of using the digital camera.

[steven_moseley1]

Hi,

 

Many, many pro landscape shooters here in the UK are still using film simply because NONE of the digital cameras, including the medium format digitals are giving them the results they demand. I would suggest that it is not all to do with the numbers game of megapixels and that other factors are involved here.

 

cheers Steve.

[rconey]

I have gone down the same road you are considering. Currently, I have a Mamiya 7 for 6x7 film. I use this on backpacking trips, shooting Velvia 100 mostly. I have a Nikon 9000 scanner the last year. I used an Epson 4870 for a year or two before that. My productivity is such that scanning is not a huge burden in time. Film processing gets more and more annoying.

 

I bought a D200 about 4 months ago since I have lots of Nikon lenses from my F3 days (still have that, never use it). I love the workflow of digital; shoot, download, view, edit, print. I print at home to 13x19, and in labs up to 20x30.

 

I don't find 10 mp to be equivalent to medium format, although i am trying to convince myself otherwise. I am going back to places I have shot on MF and shooting digital to see how they compare. I am slowly doing a few dual shoots to see which I like better. Printing at 13x19 I have not been able to get the resolution of the Mamiya 7 from the D200.

 

My major hesitation is archival quality. I can't get excited about every few years having to move the archive forward to whatever new storage medium is out there. I have 15-20 year old slides that still scan very well, and have not degraded. I have not had to put any work into their maintenence. I am not sure I see that ease of storage in digital at this time.

 

The D200 is a great camera, and I use it a lot. When I go on trips, I still take the Mamiya.

[Ed_Ingold]

I find that a 12.4MP D2x, with good glass, is essentially equal to quality I get from my Hasselblad - to the extent that I've only shot two or three rolls through the Hasselblad in the last year. Both make an excellent 16x20 inch print, and conceivably a reasonable 20x24 inch print. The D2x performs as well or better than the Canon 1dsMkII in every respect except field of view (q.v., http://www.naturfotograf.com).

 

A 6x7 raises the bar a bit. The only digital camera I would trust to do as well would be a 16MP or possibly 22MP digital back on a 6x6 camera. That's the only thing that will get my Hasselblad system back into use, if I can justify the expense.

[doug grosjean]

<<<< My major hesitation is archival quality. I can't get excited about every few years having to move the archive forward to whatever new storage medium is out there. I have 15-20 year old slides that still scan very well, and have not degraded. I have not had to put any work into their maintenence. I am not sure I see that ease of storage in digital at this time. >>>>

 

+1

 

I have a low-end digital and a modern $200 Nikon P&S digi, and several 35mm, MF TLRs and rangefinders, and a single 4x5 camera.

 

Family photos and vaca photos go on film. Other stuff, just depends on the use expected. For webshots, digi is fine / adequete, and cheap.

 

Plus the thrill of pulling freshly-processed negs out the final rinse hasn't left me yet.

 

All that aside, if quality of the final photo is the *only* factor, I'd either use my 50 y/o Rolleicord or my 70 y/o 4x5 press camera.

[deepak_kumar5]

I think that most high end dSLR are catching up with 35mm film.Yet post production consume your all spare time as you wish to edit everyshot of your.

 

This simply means that you devoting more time of your life on computer than photographing. If you like spending time on computer more that other things than Digital photography is for you,

 

otherwise good old days when you used to shoot and give your slides for developing and your result was with you within a few hours is something that is good idea.

 

If you add the cost of high end computer and sowtware too you will find film to be cheaper option.BTY medium format still can boast of superior quality to digital SLR.

[Ed_Ingold]

The tried and true way to archive images to be independent of changing technology is to print them. Of your family photos, how many negatives remain? Most of Matthew Brady's glass plates ended up glazing greenhouses.

 

For now, CDs and DVDs are the best electronic media, and readers should be available for as long as it matters to me.

[doug grosjean]

<< The tried and true way to archive images to be independent of changing technology is to print them. >>

 

D'oh! That's so obvious, yet I somehow print only a sliver. But now that you put it on screen, I recall my SO's late father shot with her childhood with a TLR, souped the negs and made the prints himself. We have the prints and his camera (was a Ciro-Flex, the first MF I ever used), but not a single neg has ever turned up. Sigh... I'd love to scan them, if found.

 

 

<< Of your family photos, how many negatives remain? >>

 

Bingo, see above.

 

 

<< Most of Matthew Brady's glass plates ended up glazing greenhouses. >>

 

Ouch...

 

<< For now, CDs and DVDs are the best electronic media, and readers should be available for as long as it matters to me. >>

 

I'm perhaps more of an optimist regarding outlasting my CDs, or maybe younger than you. ;);)

[harryo]

Andrew, I have both a Pentax 6x7 system and a Canon 20D digital camera. I use the 20D for photos that require speed ( soccer / speed skating etc... ) and don't require fine detail. For all my landscape work, I use the 6x7 scanned on a Nikon 8000. The 6x7 produces images with much more fine detail than the 20D. Yes, you can blow up a 20D photo to 13x19...but the detail is just not there. Blow up an exact same shot with a 6x7 and you'll know your answer. I've done that and I am sticking with 6x7 for any fine detail work. The rest is digital.

[andrew_sacco]

Harry, and others. I see the 8000 on ebay and elsewhere for less than the 9000. Is it worth the cost savings? Thanks for the feedback.

[troyammons]

Get your hands on a Kodak slr/n and try that out.

 

It captures as much detail as the 1dsmkII and its a lot cheaper, but the body is not so great (n80). Its not at the 6x7 drumscan level, but it is a match for 645 most of the time. It does very nice at around 16x20. 20x30 is a bit stretch but it still should look okay if its a very sharp image. A lightjet print at 204 dpi (4lp/mm) at native rez works out to 14.7"x22". 20x30 on a lightjet would be a 136% interpolation up.

 

There are better bodies with more functions, but the Kodak slr camera should be worth a look for sure especially for landscape. These cameras got a bad rep carried over from the 14n. They are vastly improved and shooting in raw you can recover a good 2 stops in blown highlights which is nice.

 

They should be shot only in raw or raw jpeg combo imo, and require a good 3rd party raw processor.

 

Should be perfect for landscape. Go ask around over at dpreview in the kodak slr forum for some sample shots.

[Ed_Ingold]

I get outstanding results with the Nikon LS-8000. I suspect it will be the last film scanner I need to buy. There are reports of banding with high-contrast scenes. I have only once experienced banding, but it is easily remedied by using high-resolution mode (single-row rather than 3-row scanning). If I had 10K for an Imacon, I'd get a digital back instead.

[harryo]

Andrew, I've never used a Nikon 9000, but I am very happy with the results I get from the 8000 and I picked it up for $750. I never experienced any banding and the slower scan times ( don't really know how much faster the 9000 is ) does not bother me as I only scan the slides I want to make photos from.

 

I would recommend you keep your eyes open for a used 8000 and I'm sure you can get it for less than $1000. You will be very happy with the results of 6x7 slides scanned on the 8000. I also get very good results scanning Fuji NPS negative film which I am use for landscape shots that require more dynamic range.

[Uhooru]

The D200 might be a good compromise in quality. But really, as good as high end Dslr full frame camera's are If someone claims they gets "view camera quality" on the 5D as on a view camera, then I really would cast a suspect eye on their technique assuming their equipment is good. Maybe if you were comparing 8 x 10'on a computer screen. But that is such a crock, even when scanning a 4 X 5 or even bigger negative the amount of detail is mindblowing, and not matched by any 35 mm digital camera. Of course a digital back on a MF is fabulous but still really expensive and not totally "easy and convienant" like a DSLR. Given my rant, you can get great quality on these Digicams, even such famous photographers as David Alan Harvey is shooting with a D70 and loves it though he's talking about getting a D200 for a bigger file.

[asher_kelman]

There's another factor:stitching.

 

Using a digital camera in Manual exposure setting, it's easy to even handhold to overlap

adjacent parts of a landscape and then stitch the resulting frames.

 

Either manually in CS2 or using stitching software, this is fast.

 

So if one has any decent DSLR, there is no absolute need for MF film to match the film

resolution. Now one might love the NPS or Provia look, but for many situations, one

camera is all one needs.

 

For me, with an M8 and a 28mm lens or a 5D with a 50mm lens one can do almost

anything (but not sports, birds or the moon!)

 

Asher Kelman

 

Openphotographyforums.com