Change to Rebel XSI DSLR or Medium format?

[kari v]

"Isn't the 5D a little dated to be recomended so much in this colum ?What about the Nikon 700?"

 

With ~$1000 budget..?

[kim_morrison]

Keeping in mind the 800 - 1000 budget, the xsi will serve you well..

Assuming that you shoot using a tripod the possibilites for len's interchange

outside (is) stabilized is awesome...since the rebel line of lenses are interchangeable

an avid photographer on a budget can purchase older model lenses at great prices.

[robert lee]

". . . they use 135 format, but perhaps she might want to play with my 645..."

 

Excellent idea. I'm sure the school can provide access to both high quality enlargers and professional quality

scanners to make 645 really shine.

 

For 120, I most often use a pair of RB-67's. I think about buying 645 equipment every once in awhile. The thing

that's always stopped me cold is that I can't justify another $2.5k for a Nikon 9000. It just doesn't make a

whole lot of sense when current DSLR's around this price range has gotten so damn good.

[William Michael]

> ``Isn't the 5D a little dated to be [recommended] so much in this [column] ?What about the Nikon 700?`` < (MMcC)

 

Perhaps this, from the question, is relevant: `I currently have 2 Elan II 35mms . . . I have (all Canon USM) two zooms

and a 100mm macro.`

 

And also this column header, in which the header was placed: Community > Forums > Canon EOS > EOS Digital

SLR Bodies.

 

The D700 seems a good camera, there are many mentions of it here:

 

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/

 

 

:)

 

WW

[musubi1000]

Isn't the 5D a little dated to be recomended so much in this colum ?What about the Nikon 700?

 

So does this mean that the pictures from a 5D will look inferior to a newer camera?

[bradey]

I'm going to have to go with a 6x7 camera for this one. Considering you enjoy b/w and like big enlargements, i think it's the natural choice. Plus, should you decide you would occasionally like to go larger than 16x20, it will not require a new camera, and you will still have stunning enlargements. You could also shoot slides, and scan them into photoshop to get the hang of digital, should you later decide to buy a dslr.

Braden

[thomas_hardy1]

I had 4 photos printed to 16"x16" to be placed in a gallery. Three were from a Hasselblad and Zeiss lens, tripod mounted

mirror lock up and all that.. One was from a Canon xTi, and all were printed at a pro lab. Remember the xti is just 10MP

and the photo had to be cropped to match the square of the medium format.

 

The photo from the digital camera compared favorably to the 6x6, especially hanging on the wall.

[marc_bergman1]

Well I have a XSi and really like it. It produces excellent 13x19s.

 

But we shoot different things. How many shots do you usually take in an outing or at a portrait shoot?

 

My thought would be to go for a used large format outfit if it fits your style. A 4x5 and one lens would be a good starter. Some 4x5s are lighter than some medium format cameras.

 

You have a large enough negative to check for sharpness and composition. You have the perfect format for enlarging to 16x20. You have movements.

[richard_kriz]

Hi there! Richard Kriz again. Thank you so much to all who have taken the time for input. I believe my choices

now will be between the Canon 5D (because of my current lenses) and a 6x7 MF. I'm leaning very hard towards the

MF due to the things I shoot. I'm about to take a refresher darkroom class (my B/W darkroom experience is 25

years ago), so I'll run my own B/W negs...be it 35mm or 6x7. There is a great pro photo lab in the next city to

help with all else. Again, thanks so much for pointing me towards two great choices!

[William Michael]

Hi Richard . . .

 

Do not forget to take a trip upstairs to that other room, with lots of goodies . . .

 

http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00PqMr

 

:)

 

WW

[jack_welsh]

Richard, I would get the RZ. It is a great camera! The revolving back is great. And, you could get several film backs. Has a built in bellows for closeups, too.

[chrisjb]

Just my 02, Have you a good lab nearby that d&p MF?. Where I live closest is 120k away. But I have always done my own and both colour and B&W is simple to process. If you have a good scanner, images can be sent to a pro lab via internet and posted back no probs. I use Hasselblad in 6x6 and 645 but recently on a job, shot a 20d alongside for a commercial client, annoyingly they chose 20x30 from the digital because it was a quicker turnaround. If you want to spend time and don`t mind the slow ways fine, I rarely touch film now and agree with some the 5D (or similar) will win in the end:)

[PeterKrenek]

Richard, you say that you are not too confident in the resolution of 35 mm film. Have you actually tried printed that size ? What emulsions are you using ? It may matter very much. I shoot mostly Velvia 100F (35 mm) scan it at 4000 dpi and regularly print 12x18 at 300 dpi (about 20 MPx). Printing with the same amount of data at lower dpi (bit less than 240) after upscaling to 16x24 does not result in a significant deterioration (at least with this film). Bear in mind that the viewing distance is a bit longer for larger prints. To come back to your question, if you do want to produce highest quality 16x24 prints at 300 dpi without interpolation, you need 4800x7200 resolution (35 Mpx). If you scan your 6x7 slides at 4000 dpi, you get about 100 MPx. Of course, this is a theoretical figure, but the actual resolution with a good film and lenses shall be superior to what a 5D would provide you with. On the other hand, a 5D would enable you to use your old lenses and give you extra flexibility. You have to know what matters more for you. Best wishes. Peter

[mikem77]

Richard,

 

I'm very happy with my Canon XSI and it has exceeded my expectations even with the 18-55mm IS kit

lens. It is my first dSLR camera and I come from 35mm, 6x6, and 4x5 photography. I can't say it is

better than a high-quality 6x6 scan, but it sure is convenient and the results are better than I expected.

 

--Mike

[mvw photo]

>>>Isn't the 5D a little dated to be recomended so much in this colum ?What about the Nikon 700?<<<

 

Not dated, if by datyed you mean bad. My main camera is a 1D3, but as a backup I bought a 5D last month - my third 5D in a row, and I don't think it is dated yet at all. Sure, there will be a MkII or whatever they call it, but that does not in any way dimish the 5D, which is still great.

[john_frie]

Well Richard, I bet you're really clear on what's the best camera to get now. LOL. One of the problems is if you went to a

Nikon, Pentax, Sony etc etc. forum the questions answers would be EXACTLY the same. " My camera is the best and

the one you want is an entry level camera. Get this one because it's the best and someone says I have the entry level

one and it's great and someone says why don't you get this one and on and on and they begin arguing between

themselves. I believe your question was regarding the XSI? Wow talk about getting off track. The questions and

arguments like this have been exactly the same for as long as I remember. I remember when the 6 x 7 format hit the

market and the people who had the 2 1/4 squares said that the 6 x 7s would never give good results because they

cropped too much off the square image. Blah Blah Blah.

 

Look for some of the really good photographers in this forum and see what they're using for equipment. Anything from

good point and shoot cameras on up. You'll be amazed at what the ENTRY LEVEL CAMERAS can do.

 

It seems like you know enough about cameras to realize that the best camera for you is the one that feels the best in

your hands. Small, medium and large format photography are all separate worlds of their own. Just as are the differences

between film and digital.

 

Listen to your own good reasoning and don't let yourself get confused with so many very biased opinions.

 

 

Hope your decision is your decision.

 

J

[William Michael]

> I believe your question was regarding the XSI? Wow talk about getting off track. The questions and arguments like this have been exactly the same for as long as I remember. <

 

Actually I thought the question was about OUTPUTS:

 

``My shooting usually includes portraits, fine art and found still lifes...in either color or B/W. I'd like to produce high quality prints up towards the 16x20 range``

 

And thereafter it was a request for comment of the two options under consideration:

 

``I'm teetering on the fence between 2 things: utilizing my current lenses and getting my first DSLR (Rebel XSI) or be an old fashioned purist and get a Mamiya 645 or RZ67.``

 

IMO a good forum would actively suggest OTHER options if it believed such were viable. IMO this thread did a reasonable job at achieving that and most of the time was addressing the two points (outlined above) as I read to be THE question.

 

It seems we read the question differently or have a different purpose for a FORUM, or both?

 

 

WW

[john_frie]

Ok William since we're quoting,

 

"my first DSLR (Rebel XSI) or be an old fashioned purist and get a Mamiya 645 or RZ67."

 

Output? Ok

 

:)

[William Michael]

John, I think you are either missing my point, or having a joke with me by making a pun with my words and quotes, I don`t know which. I am not very good at reading nuances like that without previous interaction.

 

I`ll play it straight, and assume you are missing my point.

 

If you are having a joke with me, then the joke is on me, and that is OK.

 

***

 

Yes, Richard asked a question and the `outputs` he restricted himself to, (to answer his output needs) were those three cameras you have quoted.

 

BUT

 

This is a forum: a place to discuss ideas. It is good that other solutions were suggested, that is all I was saying.

 

I was disagreeing with you where you said that this thread wandered off into a `get this one because it is the best because I have that model type of gab feast . . . I though that most of the answers either addressed the three cameras mentioned, OR introduced another optionally solution sincerely thought to be a better solution.

 

I quite agree that many threads go wandering off: I do not think this was one of them.

 

WW

[john_frie]

Ok William if that's what you heard from this thread that's great.

 

Have a great day.

 

J

[bob_osullivan]

Richard, I agree with Peter, perhaps the problem is the film you are using.

 

I'm not convinced it's a lack of resolutions but maybe too much grain you are seeing.

 

For the type of work you are doing, you could use very flow film. For B&W try PanF 50. For color I find you have to stay below ISO 400 for any negative film. Chromes are even better for less grain.

 

I get acceptable 16x20 and 20x24 prints from 135 doing mural prints with a modified enlarger pointed across my dark room at the wall. I use a minolta 50 1.4 lens from an SRT on the enlarger. What I'm saying is the right film and the right process might make this work for you.

 

Tell us what films you currently use. When I go to the bronica (which I use for model/ portrait) or the RB (which I use for stills/studio/landscape) I can get much larger mural prints. And I use 4x5 for very large mural, wallpaper and billboard work. I find there's a time and place for all of it.

 

Also, you can get a very decent scanner for $500 if you don't want to go the wet print rout anymore. I can get a 100mb file from 135 on my microteck which scans all formats I just mentioned.

 

Lastly, in the end, the XSi will produce fine results for you with probably less effort. You may in fact upgrade that sooner than later, but who cares. It will make a fine backup to keep in your car at all times. Thats' what I do with my XTi now.

Just make sure you get an additional super wide lens to go with it. You'll need a Canon or Sigma 10-20/22 to get your wide back.