Medium Format digital vs DSLR

[terence_meeks]

Hi guys, I've been out of the game for a few years now. A few years back I

picked up a D70 nikon and used it off and on for past several years. I know

they've came out with some new models now with improvements. I also have a

bronica SQAi system with a full compliment of lenses for it that I've shelved

past 5 years due to going to digital full time. I'd like to continue along

the digital line but am considering getting a medium format back for the

bronica. Does such a back exist at a reasonable price comparable to a mid

level DSLR? I'm thinking of upgrading from the D70 to a newer model which

would probably be the D200. How would a medium format back compare to a D200

in terms of resolution and ability to blow up to large sizes. How would the

images appear to my eye on my computer? Appreciate any input you can

provide. I don't check this site that often but will try to, if you could

please send response to steelhead97@yahoo.com thank you

[Ed_Ingold]

"Reasonable price" for a digital MF back is probably on the order of $5000 for a 12MP to 16MP sensor with external memory and power. Apart from resolution, the image quality of an MF back is an order of magnitude better than that of even high-end, small format DSLRs. Resolution tends to be better for the same pixel count due to a better match of lens and sensor. The greater bit depth contributes to a wide dynamic range. Both highlights and shadows are handled better in an MF system.

 

Look here for some examples... http://www.hasselbladinfo.com/discus/messages/4/26201.html

[thomas_hardy1]

$5000 is not really too bad for a MF digital back. It would certainly breath life back into my

MF gear!

[graham_mitchell]

I wouldn't really recommend anything less than a 22MP 48x36mm sensor, such as the Sinar eMotion22 or Phase One P25, and even used they are priced north of $10K.

 

There are unsupported third party adapters for the Bronica system which are more than $1K.

[Ed_Ingold]

A rectangular sensor is difficult to use on a square-format camera, simply because it is not easy to tilt the camera for vertical shots. 645 cameras like the Mamiya 645 or Hasselblad H3 are configured to be used at eye level like a 35mm camera.

[fotografz]

"How would a medium format back compare to a D200 in terms of resolution and ability to

blow up to large sizes."

 

They wouldn't compare. Like with film, it's an apples to watermelons comparison.

 

Same for the price.

 

Rectangular MF sensors, like the near 645 ones, use a "dual mount" adapter for use on

square format MF cameras, requiring the removal and rotation of the digital back. On

Rollei cameras (and Mamiya RZ) removing the back isn't necessary as the camera features

a revolving back built-in mechanism ... so it's no different than when using a film back.

 

To consider a more affordable used back, I do not know which older backs were adaptable

to your camera. Most digital back manufacturers provided a list of compatible cameras

and the adapter required.

[User_502260]

If your volume isn't too high, consider shooting color negative film and scanning it. A good scanner should cost less than a digital back and also be useful for other formats and old negatives or slides you have.

[terence_meeks]

Thanks for response guys, I do still keep a bw darkroom and when it comes to bw i still do shoot film but i like the ease of being able to see the image immediately after shooting in color so that's why i'm considering the digital back option. It sounds like the going rate for these backs are still very high compared to the dslr. If the 12 to 16MP back is going for 5000K and the quality is better than any dslr i can get is there a need for the 22MP back?

[kmcgrew]

Keep in mind that do double your 6MP resolution with the D70 you'll need to have four times the pixel count, or 24MP. It's the same rule as for light fall-off.

 

Here's an article which discusses some MF digital backs:

 

http://shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/medium_large_format/0106medium/

 

I understand the value of the immediate feedback loop, but I've chosen to stick with film and scan it, using my digicams for p-n-s and travel stuff. You don't mention what your subject is, but if it's action oriented you're better off with the D200, which we should see at a reduced price after the first of the year, when the D300 has some takers.

[Ed_Ingold]

Kelly,

 

You are simply counting pixels and neglecting the combined effect of lens and sensor and normal cropping. A 16MP MF back can easily be enlarged to 24x24 inches (with resampling). Pixel-peeping aside, not all pixels are equal - the larger pixels, higher bit-depth and greater dynamic range of the MF back make a striking improvement over an otherwise very good small-format camera, a Nikon D2x.

 

The net resolution depends on the resolution of the lens and sensor, and is less than either taken by itself. To a first approximation, the errors (inverse of the resolution) combine as the root-sum-square of the components.

 

If the lens has a resolution of 150 lp/mm, not unreasonable for a high-quality Nikon or Hasselblad lens, it works like this...

 

The resolution of a D2x is 90 lp/mm, based on the pixel spacing. This decreases to 77 lp/mm when you combine the effect of the lens. The resolution of a 16MP CFV back is 55 lp/mm based on pixel spacing, which decreases to 52 lp/mm combined with the lens.

 

In practical terms, the full height of a D2x sensor is 4288 pixels, which decreases to an effective 3680 pixels with the lens. The raw CFV height is 4080 pixels, which decreases to an effective 3860 pixels considering the lens effect.

 

If the image is cropped to fit 8x10 inch proportions, the D2x is affected more than the CFV back. Instead of 3680 pixels, we are left with a vertical resolution of only 3070 pixels, compared to 3860 for the CFV back, which uses the full height of the image. In this example, the CFV back has more than 25% greater resolution than a D2x (which has more than twice the resolution of a 6MP camera).

 

This is only part of the story. I find that the CFV back is highly resistant to overexposure, yet brings out great shadow detail. This example of a white marble building (actually, concrete with marble aggregate) in bright sunlight provides a good illustration. It was taken with a CFV back at ISO 50, with a Hasselblad 205TCC and a 100/3.5 lens.<div></div>

[raystofberg]

I would advise you to also look at changing to the Hasselblad V system.

 

Sorry to say but I think reviving your Bronica equipment might not be a very good idea. The adapter plate for the Bronica (to use a V-Mount back on your Bronica) costs more than a 2nd hand 503CW nowadays.

 

Same for 2nd hand CF lenses, these can be bought fairly cheap as well.

 

Anyway when you do want to buy a back for the Bronica. One party that sells the Bronica adapterplate is Kapturegroup (http://www.kapturegroup.com/).

 

Goodluck,

 

Ray

[stan_blevins]

Hi Terence, I know this is an old discussion, so by now you may have done something. In my case I use both

Hasselblad and 4x5 film cameras, but I do like the immediate feedback of digital. So I take my D200 along with my

film cameras, and use it for both metering and feedback. Then I shoot the same photographic subject on film, and

later scan it if I want a digital file. It's a little more trouble, but a lot less money. Stan