Digital MF vs. DSLRs

[don_reitz]

My Mamiya 645AF (not AFD) is a tried and true friend. However, after using my

daughter's point and shoot digital camera this summer I'm convinced digital is in my

future. The immediate feedback digital affords is a revelation.

 

I'm not willing to give up my Mamiya, though. I got into MF because of its superior

ability to retain fine texture (leaf detail, tree bark, grains of sand and so forth) in large

prints when compared to 35mm photography. I won't switch if this advantage is lost.

 

In a perfect world I would obtain a digital back for my MF. But in my (admittedly

limited) experience, these are tremendously expensive ($9,000 and up) when

compared to the new DSLRs. Are there digital backs out there that non-professionals

can afford?

 

Related to this is the sensor size in digital backs. It is my understanding that sensors

in digital backs are not necessarily larger than those in DSLRs. The whole purpose of

moving from 35mm to MF is to get the larger negative. Do I retain or lose the MF

advantage over 35mm if a digital back is installed?

 

I'm fully prepared to pay a premium for digital MF if MF's resolution advantage over

35mm is maintained. Otherwise, I'll stick with the film version for now.

 

Your response is appreciated.

Don

[eric_perlberg]

Michael Reichmann at http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/mf-backs.shtml has been testing digital MF backs on his Mamiya 645 and has posted his experiences and compares these backs to his Canon 1D. If you haven't read through his reviews, you might find them interesting. My sense of what he's saying is that a) he thinks that a Canon 1D surpasses MF shot film in some ways and approaches it in others. On the question of MF digital backs compared to the Canon ID I think his attitude is that they are very close with different strengths and weaknesses.

[m_.]

right on, don. don't give up the film camera system yet. if you really need a digital, you might want to look into DSLR though as the digital back for a MF is still more expensive than a DSLR. but a better solution is to get a film scanner and continue to shoot films.

[guytal]

The prices are unfortunately a result of the expensive process to manufacture the huge CCD arrays. Note that the current stock of backs for 645 do not cover the enrire 6x4.5 frame, meaning you will lose some coverage if you like wide lenses. At the current state of technology the only cost-effective (relatively speaking) way to cover large frame sizes is with scanning backs that require a tethered computer and take a relatively long time to fully expose an image.<br>

Currently a good drum scan from film is still the way to go for maximum detail and tonality for a given format. Digital backs bring convenience and potentially a cost advantage to the table. Depending on your mode of work, you need to decide which is more important to you.<br>

<br>

Guy

[mark_tomalty]

FWIW,two of the current digital backs for medium format cover practically the entire 645 area,the Leaf Valeo 22 and PhaseOnes

H25.

Both are prohibitively expensive but the quality/detail/sharpness,

whatever you want to call it is unbelievable.

If it is generally accepted that the 1Ds approaches medium format

film in sharpness as seen in prints then these backs will rival

4 x 5 in the same comparisons.

The almost complete lack of noise in the Valeo22 facilitates huge

prints (with appropriate rezzing up techniques) and very aggressive

sharpening with no apparent lossof detail.

To say I was blown away last week by test files I shot with this

back on my contax 645 is an understatement.

 

Mark tomalty

[hendrik]

As digital gets better you WILL replace you DSLR, you can forever upgrade the right MF system. Even older systems that was not designed for digital will be acommodated with newer backs & inserts.

 

Now to get the prices down!!

 

Regards

[jim h1664876971]

The way I look at this question from the standpoint of a hobbiest is, an Canon 1Ds is

7 k usd, whereas a fuji medium format camera and a epson 3200 scanner is less than

2k. True you have to pay for film but I like the idea of having a box of film as

opposed to a box of disks. And for that special shot you can always go to a service

for a drum scan. Buying used medium format gear you can get your number under 1

k. Eventually prices will come down for high end digital gear I suppose.

[john_banister1]

I bought a used Imacon 3020 MF back for $5k. Every once in a while

you see them for sale on ebay. It isn't a scanning array, but it

does need a computer with scsi. I got it to work with my laptop with

a scsi pcmcia card, but I never could get it to work with a

scsi-firewire converter though I've heard that others have. The

firewire cable between the back & its controller box is nice & long,

though.

 

John

[kelly_hicks1]

FWIW I think the writing is on the wall for the digital back. Both Hassy and Contax are driving the fact that their cameras accept digital backs. However, I think there will be few companies involved in the manufacture of backs, and for this reason, digital backs will maintain a higher price ratio over their DSLR counterparts. Soon the resolution and availability of mass marketed DLSR�s will increase to the point where they are a match for MF film cameras.

 

IMHO at this point, only a select few companies will be willing to spend more for R&D on a digital back. Until that time shoot film, or go for the instant gratification of digital. You should try and make the choice on what is more important to you. Would you shoot less with a film camera and more with digital?

[dick roadnight cotswolds]

This is being discussed on ProDig.

[don_reitz]

Thanks to one and all for your answers. Pointing me to the luminous landscape web

site was very helpful. From what I gleaned from Michael Reichmann and those

posting here, I conclude that a digital back for my Mamiya probably doesn't make

sense given the relatively similar performance of professional DSLRs. An added

disincentive is the huge difference in (new purchase) cost between digital backs and

even the most expensive DSLRs. It also appears that the rate of technological

improvement favors the DSLRs, the quality gap between digital backs and DSLRs,

where it exists, will only lessen over time.

 

Of course, none of this suggests I should give up my MF and film. I suspect I will at

some point purchase a DSLR. Given what I've learned here, I will probably end up

using one or the other, but not both.

 

Thanks again.

Don

[steve_larese1]

Spend $2,000 on a Nikon 9000 and have the best of both worlds,

better than any DSLR. The $4000-plus you'll save should buy

years and years of film and processing. Unless you're shooting

MF for a newspaper (quick turnaround) for some reason, there's

no need for a digital back, I don't see. We all sleep better

knowing that our gear *can* take digital, but fact of the matter,

film makes more sense in the real world in quality, weight,

reliability and work flow for most applications, I see. I can edit

200 slides in a matter of minutes, doing that with 20mb files

takes the whole day if not longer. So can my editors, who perfer

film still because they can hold a sleeve up to a window and

know instantly what they have and let production do the

scanning. I have 35, I have medium format, I have digital, I have

my cake and I eat it, too ;)

[q.g._de_bakker]

It's now or never for the manufacturers of digital backs for MF cameras.<br>They will never be able to produce backs that can rival the results obtained using a good scanner and film. That, coupled with the advent of relatively cheap 14 MP 35 mm format camera based digital cameras, makes using backs with only a few more MP costing 4 or 5 times as much something only people with way too much money and not enough sense will do.<br>So they will have to recognize and acknowledge the competition, and present their digital MF backs at price levels far lower than current, or else go bust very soon.<br>This year we have the Photokina again. Last chance...

[q.g._de_bakker]

One addition to my previous post:<br>There *is* a huge market for affordable digital MF backs. Large enough to make offering backs at prices able to compete with "similar-MP" 35 mm format camera based products economically viable. After all, it's not as if there is much of a difference in sensors and peripheral electronics used in both market segments.<br>This market however will vanish very rapidly once people decide that it makes no sense waiting for the MF back's manufacturers to see the light, and thus switch to 35 mm format based digital products instead.

[fotografz]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand where the idea that a current 24X36 11meg or 14 meg

CMOS sensor can outperform a 4X4, 16 meg., or 645, 22 meg sensor CCD... even in single

shot mode, let alone multi-shot. I use a 1Ds and a couple of DCS ProBacks. 16 bit Canon

RAW files produce 64 meg tiff files, and the DCS back RAW files produce 94 meg tiff files

with less noise and smoother tonal transitions. A used DCS MF back can be had now for

less than a Canon 1Ds body. For weddings or faster paced work, I use the 1Ds. For

commercial jobs like outdoor boards and posters, the MF Digital Backs. Different tools for

different jobs.

 

The 35mm DSLRs are stuck at the threshold of 24X36, MF backs are not. All things being

equal, pixel to pixel, sensor to sensor, size wins just like with film.

[._._z]

<i> There *is* a huge market for affordable digital MF backs. </i><p>

 

Define 'huge.' Huge compared to what? The current MF market is tiny compared to 35mm,

and we already know that pros have been migrating to 35mm DSLRs, so the MF market

(film and digital) is decreasing further still. Combine that with the fact that most research is

applied toward the far larger, more competitive 35mm/APS-sensor market, and it seems

that MF backs will remain a niche product. More likely is that full-frame 35mm sensors will

come down in price and up in quality and that pros will take advantage of the greater

variety and lower prices of 35mm lenses.

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>Define 'huge.' Huge compared to what?</i><br><br>Huge compared to the current MF digital back market. People are indeed migrating from to 35 mm DSLRs for the reasons i mentioned earlier. The MF market is indeed decreasing because of that. It need not: every user of MF would love to use 20+ MP digital backs on their MF cameras, if only they would not costs the ridiculous sums they cost now. That, nothing else, is why people are indeed migrating from MF to 35 mm DSLRs.<br>And i'm convinced that indeed *every* user of MF would buy a digital back, even those die-hard film user, as long as the price is right. That may not constitute a large market, compared to the 35 mm market. But it definitely is a huge market compared to the MF market... ;-)<br>But the price is still very wrong. And if they do not change that in a hurry, MF digital backs will be something of the past very soon. People not switching to 35 mm DSLRs will keep using MF and film, and scanners, because they need the extra MP neither 35 mm DSLRs or too-expensive MF digital backs can deliver. But i'm repeating myself.

[._._z]

<i> Huge compared to the current MF digital back marke </i><p>

 

That doesn't say too much. Most backs are tethered, expensive and most useful to studio

pros. Even if prices were to plummet tomorrow, most amateurs would think thrice before

blowing a couple of grand on a back which can't easily be used outdoors. The product

needs to be changed as well as be cheaper. By the time that happens 35mm DSLRs (which,

due to more competition and much higher sales see greater, faster technological

investment and lower prices) will probably overtake most of the MF market. When will the

$2,000 back arrie that matches the quality of today's 22MP back? Years off, yes? <p>

 

If MF cameramakers don't offer more compelling reasons to stay in MF today, they may lose

the war for the format tomorrow.

[beepy]

I assume that Reichmann's original comments of Canon camera compared to digital

back is for the Canon EOS 1Ds (not 1D) - as I remember it.

<p>

After inspecting the lint in my navel, and reading Reichmann's comments, looking at

medium format backs, etc. I decided to (1) keep my insanely great Canon EOS 1Ds.

Just absolutely phenomenal - and my forearms are getting huge holding it all the

time. And (2) picked up a 4x5" Arca-Swiss view camera. Part of the logic was - I

wanted a camera that generated more pixels than the 1Ds and film medium format

was getting pressured there - and if I was going to be weighed down by a digital back

- go for lots of resolution with film with flexible movements.

<p>

Part of the view camera direction was reaction against the speed and immediacy of

digital. It's been fun. Still trying.

<p>

I recently found out that the Canon EOS 1Ds make a <strong>great pinhole

</strong>

camera too!

[q.g._de_bakker]

�[� Z remarked:<br><i>That doesn't say too much.</i><br><br>Well, it means that manufacturers of digital backs now (and only now) have the opportunity to increase their sales figures by a factor of, what? 10x, 20x? More?<br>Or do nothing and have to seek for different employ in a year or two.<br>Now or never, it's up to them.

[niloy_hil2]

I doo't understand why it's so hard to scan a film to match the image quality of the DSLR with the same pixels & color-depth. I'm not saying it can't match or beat the DSLR, but it does take quite an expert to get there.

 

Any digital point-and-shoot can be easily plugged-and-printed to satisfy almost any mom and grand-mom, no brainer, but I have to tune it nights and nights for any scanned film file for a OK print. Why a film scanner can't be just like a 1-hr photo lab for the majority?

 

As a MF user, I'm expecting either MF digital back to price down quick, or MF digital scanner be printer-friendly like a DLSR. But I don't think it is happening.

 

Check around the webs, more and more highly regarded photographers are moving from MF to 35mm styled DSLRs, and the wedding/family portrait industry has moved even earlier faster into the 35mm-whatever format. I can't see much of future in front of medium format.