Moving from Medium format to Canon digital for landscapes...does it compare?

[cimino55]

Hello,

 

I have an in-depth question about moving from Medium format Contax 645 to Canon 1DS MKII for

landscape and travel photography. Does it compare?

 

I am really looking to make a website in the next couple of years that compiles all of my travel

photography, weddings, and product shots. Right now, I have a Canon 5D, and I am happy with the

quality for weddings, but what about landscape photography?

 

I usually scan my Contax 645 chromes at 600MB 16-bit, and this produces huge files. I have printed 4x5

feet in the past. I don't have a Contax 645 any longer and plan to go back to Africa in 2009 for 6 months

or so. I'd like to move up to the Canon 1DS MKII, but will that compare with my Medium format quality

images? I mean, when I make a website and sell [Picture X] for [x] amount of dollars, will [Picture Y] be

worth the same if it was taken with a Canon 1DS MKII? The files will not nearly be as large. I generally sell

images that are 16x20". Will RAW files out of the Canon 1DS MKII be able to compare at 16x20" to my

prints made from my Contax 645?

 

I just want some advice before I go ahead and buy the 1DS MKII. I'd just like to use digital for everything,

but how many people selling fine art prints are using a 1DS MKII? How big are RAW files out of a Canon

1DS MKII? Can I print 16x20" with no problem?

 

It would be so much easier taking a 1DS MKII and 4 "L" lenses overseas then taking a Contax 645, 120

rolls of film, and 4 lenses. That weighed a ton. What's your advice? I'd like to shoot for stock as well, as I

am going on a 6 month trip. I just want to have a nice website and I've waited patiently to set up the best

website I could afford.

 

Regards,

 

Adam

[younes]

If I am not mistaken John Shaw shoots with a 12mp Nikon D2Xs and makes 20x30 prints...I think you'd have no problems with your 5D or a Mark II...

[John Crowe]

For all the obvious reasons, many of which you have listed, a DSLR is the way to go. As pointed out above, if you are successful selling your prints you will not have difficulty selling prints from a DSLR.

 

 

Having said that I doubt the 1DsII will reproduce what you achieved in medium format, especially if you were using fine grain films like Velvia 50. There are three things that close that gap though and they are, you were shooting 645 instead of 6x7 or 6x9, you were scanning films to print rather than making traditional prints, and by 2009 there will, or at least better, be a Canon 1Ds III. While many people accept that a 1DsII is just as good as medium format, I still believe that the right medium format system with the right films can easily beat it, but the future 1Ds III at about 22 MP would make me more comfortable with the idea of depending completely on a DSLR for landscapes.

 

 

For such a great trip though I would still be tempted to throw some Velvia 50 and a used Fuji 6x9 or used Hasselblad SWC into my camera bag. Have fun!

[cimino55]

John,

 

See, that is exactly what I am talking about... I certainly can't travel with a Canon 1DS

MKII and a Pentax 67II, but I WOULD have my bases covered. Pentax for landscapes, and

Canon 1DS MKII for everything else...

 

Adam

[gdanmitchell]

I lot of people are of the opinion that for many (but perhaps not all) uses, a high end full

frame DSLR can produce results comparable to those from medium format film.

 

In your case, I think it would be a great idea to rent such a camera and a few good lenses

and try them out before making a decision. If you have a colleague/friend who is expert

with the DSLR gear and post processing, it would also be helpful to have them oversee or

comment on your post processing to make sure you are getting the most out of the new

gear.

 

Dan

 

(Someone I know who has spoken with him about such things told me that Art Wolfe

shoots with the Canon 5D... )

[jacob_brown]

You might find this useful.

 

http://www.butzi.net/articles/5dprintsize.htm

[cimino55]

Dan,

 

I have a 5D right now...but I haven't used it for landscape applications...

 

Adam

[John Crowe]

Well, I didn't mean a huge chunk of metal like the Pentax 67. The plastic Fujis are very light and the SWC is about as small as MF can get.

[knweiss]

Adam, if you decide that the image quality/resolution of the 1Ds MKII

is not good enough: Phase One's digital backs and your Contax 645 camera are a popular combination (high-end quality up to 39 MP but also very expensive). As you already own the camera system this might be worth a thought.

 

Regarding the Canon: I would wait for the MKIII which is supposed to be release this year.

[gdanmitchell]

Adam replied: "I have a 5D right now...but I haven't used it for landscape applications..."

 

Give it a try. You can get a general idea of what a 1DsMII might do... a bit better than the

5D in terms of resolution but probably not better in terms of dynamic range. A lot of us

think that any forthcoming 1DsMIII might increase the differences between the 1 series

and the 5D.

 

The 5D works well for me for landscape photography, but I don't know how large you

might want to print, etc.

 

Dan

[digitmstr]

>>I have a 5D right now...but I haven't used it for landscape applications...<<

 

Why not?

[steve_dunn2]

<p>That seems the obvious solution to me, too: try using the 5D for landscape applications. You will find that its resolution is enough, or close but not quite enough, or nowhere near enough. If it's enough, then you needn't buy a 1Ds II; you already have what you need. If it's close but not quite enough, then a 1Ds II should be enough. If it's nowhere near enough, then a 1Ds II won't be, either.</p>

 

<p>This assumes that your lens collection includes high-quality lenses of suitable focal lengths for landscape work. If not, then rent such a lens, if there's a rental outfit serving your neck of the woods.</p>

 

<p>Renting a 1Ds II would tell you whether it will do the job for you, but it won't tell you whether your existing 5D would do the job, and you might end up spending a pile of money on a new body to do a job that your existing body could do if you gave it the chance. Although, if you find that the 5D is good but aren't sure if it's good enough, renting a 1Ds II and doing a head-to-head competition between the two bodies could prove useful.</p>

 

<p>If you have time to wait, both the 5D and the 1Ds II are getting a bit long in the tooth; it is at least somewhat likely that one will be replaced by this fall and the other next spring. By waiting, you'd have the opportunity to evaluate whether the replacement bodies offer any improvements which would be worthwhile to you, and then either buy the new model or snap up an old model from a retailer anxious to move old inventory to make way for the new model.</p>

[John Crowe]

If you are like me you probably have some landscape shots in medium format that you have taken close to home. Revisit the scene possibly in similar lighting and rephotograph with your 5D. Then directly compare large prints and see what you think. Please let us know how you make out.

[zane_yau]

If it's good enough for Peter Eastway, it's good enough for me (and most people):)http://www.petereastway.com/

 

Peter uses 1Ds2, 16-35, 24 TSE, 85 1.2, 100-400.

[pbizarro]

You may want to pay a visit to the Luminous Landscape website. The site's publisher (Michael Reichmann) photographs with 1DSII and MF digital backs. He has many tutorials/comparisons/field reviews of all of them.

[howard_slavitt2]

Before buying a 5D, I used a 6cm x 9cm view camera with the latest Schneider and Rodenstock optics and scanned the slides on an Imacon. You said that you mostly print to 16" x 20". The 5D and 1DS II will be as good as, or better than the Contax 645 for that size print. Up to 24" x 16" the 5D rivals any medium format, and frankly large format, IMHO. Larger than that the quality quickly diminishes. 30" wide is the limit of top notch quality, UNLESS you want to flat stitch multiple images together with a 45mm TSE or 24mm TSE (or 90mm TSE), or, based on my initial experiments, with Photoshop CS3, you can in most instances use a good panoramic head and get some excellent high resolution images by stitching multiple images with a good prime (I'm getting excellent results with the 35mm f2 and 50mm f2.5 macro). With stitching, you can go up to about 40" on the long dimension with very high quality, or longer, depending on how many images you want to stitch together (though I find that after about 5 images being stitched the stitching software starts doing weird things). You will need to master post processing. One problem with many Canon lenses when printing with that much magnification is chromatic aberration. Easy enough to correct in most instances, but it's a bit of a kludge in post processing. Also, to be enlarging that much, you need a very steady tripod, and need excellent copies of the L zooms. There is a lot of sample variation in the zooms, in my experinece. I am using mostly primes. The new 16-35L II f2.8 is reputed to be very good. The 70-200mm f4Ls are also excellent.

[howard_slavitt2]

I just checked out the link to Peter Eastway's site. It looks to me like he's stitching with a panoramic head, and then doing A LOT of post processing. The link to Butzi's article on how large you can go with a 5D is excellent. I didn't see it before I wrote my response; I've read it before and Butzi is correct, based on my experience as well.

[zane_yau]

Not sure about stitching, but definitely a lot of post processing. Based on my own experience (I also use 1Ds2), I am happy with landscape prints up to 20" x 32". I haven't printed anything larger than that though.

[roger krueger]

If you were happy with mere 645, the 1dsII should be good enough. But do NOT leave for

Africa without being absolutely positive you feel the same way with more accessible

landscapes. Make sure you've got some mileage on the camera before you go too,

especially, check that the focusing is dead on with all lenses, Canon's had some real

trouble with focus QC.

 

I still prefer MF for really detailed shots, but I'm comparing my 1dsII to a 6x9 Mamiya

Universal, twice as much film as your Contax.

 

I take Reichmann's (Luminous Landscape) comparisons with a huge a grain of salt--he's

had some really serious flaws in some of his film vs. digital comparisons, and he admits

that the Phase One V.P. of Marketing is a shooting buddy.

 

Canon doesn't have any completely stellar wides, my favorite lens on my 1dsII is a latest-

glass Leica 19/2.8. As happy as I am with the image quality on this lens, I think I'm most

thrilled to have a useful focusing scale and good DOF markings, an area where ALL

autofocus lenses seriously suck.

[roger_smith4]

"I take Reichmann's (Luminous Landscape) comparisons with a huge a grain of salt--he's had some really serious flaws in some of his film vs. digital comparisons"

 

Can you offer any details about the flaws? Thanks.

[jp berger]

You can download the digital photo guidebook from Canon website : <a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/content/eos_guidebook/index.html">here</a><p>

There is an example p14-15 of the same picture, taken with an EOS-1Ds mark II and with a 645 film camera.... It's a canon borchure, so you don't know if the comparison is really fair, but the results seem comparable.

[mark_petrie]

"You might find this useful.

 

http://www.butzi.net/articles/5dprintsize.htm"

 

 

 

I use MF and a 5d and i find the article posted to be right on the mark-- highly recommended!