nathan_cenower Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 I'm currently shooting with a Mamiya 645 afd and then scanning my negatives through the Nikon Super Coolscan9000. I shoot primarily landscapes, city-street scenes, and portraits (not professionally). The scanningprocess is obviously very time consuming on a medium format file, even on an up to date computer. I've beenlooking into purchasing a refurbished Phase One P30 digital back, although even if I purchased one I will stillcontinue to also shoot film. The crop factor of the digital back is not an issue to me as the frame size isstill substantially larger than my Canon 5D, which presently seems to be gathering dust. Has anyone had a chanceto compare the quality of the scanner to the back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark liddell Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 A 31MP digital back is going to blow away scanned 645 and even 6x7. Probably closer to 4x5 in quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff.grant Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 I'd be willing to bet that you won't shoot a lot of film once you get a digital back. I went from film to 16MP and now 39MP. It's a no brainer. With the gear you are looking at the images are wonderful with a lot less work. My Imacon doesn't get much use these days. Comparing 39MP to 5x4 film is line ball. I have made a few comparisons between the two and it is very close as far as detail is concerned and no grain to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Depends on what you're after. IMO film has a specific character and all the attempts to make digital files look like film ... when printed ... fall short. I keep hearing how MF Digital is as good or better than 4X5 film, but I don't see that even in 6X6 shots. Smoother and grainless, yes ... more depth and character ... no. Scanning on a Nikon Coolscan is tedious, scanning on an Imacon 949 is not. (BTW, I use a 949 scanner ... and a 31 meg digital back ... and a 39 meg digital back.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathan_cenower Posted June 27, 2008 Author Share Posted June 27, 2008 BTW, I use a 949 scanner ... and a 31 meg digital back ... and a 39 meg digital back. Marc- In a perfect world (at least my perfect world) I'd be doing what you're doing. I switched back to film precisely for the reason that you state. Do you have any opinion regarding the 848 or 646? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick_wilson2 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 "My Imacon doesn't get much use these days" Well, Jeff, if you want someone to take it off your hands, let me know...free of charge for you, too. "Smoother and grainless, yes ... more depth and character ... no." Marc says it...In my very humble opinion, the 'smoother and grainless' of digital backs/bodies very readily drifts into an waxy look that doesn't appeal. TOO smooth, in other words. Perhaps this is less so for some MF digital backs than smaller format DSLRs, but it is something to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankfitz Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 I use an Epson Perfection 4870 and scan 6x7 trannies from a Mamiya 7. It only takes about 4 minutes per scan and the quality is amazing (assuming the original is good!). I also have a Nikon DSLR but will not part with the Mamiya as the quality is far in excess of digital. Hope that this is helps, good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff.grant Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 I don't see 'waxy' on my H3D but I guess one man's wax is another man's whatever. Marc and I are both shooting with H3Ds but our subject matter is different. What I was referring to was resolving power of digital vs film not any aesthetic quality. Nick, I have just bought a film back to take the very long exposures that I can't do digitally so I'm not planning on donating it to a worthy recipient for a while yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 I haven't seen a digital image I would call "waxy" since my first 1MP Kodak camera nearly ten years ago, and then only if overexposed. Medium format digital is a long way from even modern DSLRs. To describe the appearance as featureless can only derive from never using an MF back or even seeing an image produced by one. My CFV (16MP) reproduces fine gradients and textures flawlessly, and has shadow detail that doesn't seem to quit. Hasselblad claims true 16 bits/channel and 12 stops of dynamic range (far better than any color film). Everything I've seen supports that claim. I reserve the privilege of using film at any time, if only for wide-angle effects (a 40mm is not that wide with a 1.5x cropping factor), long exposures, about twice the resolution or true black-and-white photography. IMO, 35mm film was no longer relevant once the D1x (5.5MP) was released but roll film has a somewhat shrinking place in the craft. If you do use film, then a Nikon LS-9000 is a good choice - far better than any flatbed and not that expensive on top of a digital back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 I have and use a CFV-II on a 203FE and 503CW ... and a CFV prior to that ... so I know perfectly well what that back is capable of. BTW, I am not the one that used the word "waxy", although I have seen my share of it from so called up-to-date DSLRs ... both Canon MKIIIs are prone to this due to an aggressive AA filter for example. To my eye, there is some of that inherent in all digital capture no matter how one tries to disguise it. And to be clear, these subjective evaluations are not made from viewing sub one meg images on the internet ... but from looking at finished prints. I just scanned a package of films sent to me by a friend from Australia that were shot with a 503 and Zeiss lenses. Lots of depth to images ... beautiful actually. Refreshing to see printed. The 949 is amazing in what it can yank out of a piece of film. So, IMO, film has a strong relevance IF one enjoys the character and diversity it can bring to the party. I just reverted back myself a bit. Picked up a H2F because I had all the other modular parts including 2 H film backs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carsten_ranke Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Jeff, it would be very interesting to see one of your comparisons of 39MP versus 5x4 film. I had the opportunity to shoot a roll of Velvia with Pentax 67 / 45 mm lens (used gear, from my local dealer). I must say, I was blown away by the slides, compared to my 5D. 5x4" to 6x7 film is about the same ratio as 39MP to 12MP. Re grain, I give you right but detail and tonality ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff.grant Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Carsten, Michael Reichmann and co did a comparison on LL a while back. The comparison that I did was a detail out of a tree that Leigh had also taken on Velvia and then scanned on my Imacon. There was nothing between them. I haven't bothered since. It is fun being able to bang off 5x4 quality at the rate of 1 a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now