thinking of jumping from medium format to digital

[saulzelan]

<p>Hello all, I am currently considering making the jump from medium format to digital! Big news I know... :)</p>

<p>So this is my current set up to give you a sense of where I'm coming from:</p>

<p>Rollei TLR 2.8 GX camera (usually) shooting iso 160 film (6x6 negs of course) in available light, then scanned on imacon drum scanner at 3200 dpi to print up to 22 inches square on epson 7600. </p>

<p>Main question--what maximum size "exhibition quality" (with the above experience in mind) prints could I expect to obtain from the following 2 cameras (I plan to shoot exclusively in highest res RAW mode):</p>

<p>canon rebel T2i or</p>

<p>canon 5d mark 2</p>

<p>2nd question -- i reviewed the reviews on the kit lens for the 5dm2 (24-105 zoom f/4 L with IS) and they seemed to favor this over a faster 28-70 f/2.8 lens. Any opinions on the 24-105 lens? (i'm asking because of my traditional aversion to "kit" lenses, however this one appears quite versatile so I'm tempted...).</p>

<p>Thanks so much! Photo.net rocks!</p>

[keith_anderson7]

<p>I don't know your criteria for exhibition quality, but I'd guess you'll be happier with the 5D mk2. The T2i is probably pushing it going up to 22" prints, but of course that's dependent on your asthetic.</p>

<p>There are a lot of reviews of the 24-105 f/4 IS lens, this one gives a good comparison to the other one you're considering as well (I think you meant 24-70 and not 28-70). It may be where you saw the favorable review of the 24-105.</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-24-105mm-f-4-l-is-usm-lens-review.aspx</p>

<p>Obviously, for good lenses like the L series, it really comes down to what type of shooting you're using. I think the slower glass in the 24-105 is probably made up for with it having IS (if it were me) since I don't typically shoot moving objects in low light (if I did, I'd go with the 24-70), the IS in my hands makes at least a 2 stop difference on my 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM. The 24-105 is lighter and doesn't extend at the widest focal length like the 24-70.</p>

<p>I've personally shot on the 24-105 for work, our group had a 1D series with that lens and I was really impressed by the lens. Too bad it wasn't mine to take home. :)</p>

<p>Unless you need the faster glass, I'd go with the 24-105 for the increased versatility. Seems like a good all around lens for a full frame body. If you go with the T2i, I would get something with a shorter focal length range due to the crop, something roughly 17-50... at least for my preferred type of shooting.</p>

<p>Good luck! Hope you enjoy your first step into digital.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>You don't say<br>

-type of subject<br>

-type of film used<br>

Most importantly: You really want to go from ultra-cool to looking like all those others?</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>You can get a 50MP digital back for an MF camera for less than the price of an Imacon scanner. Digital is inherently "sharper" than film, so one digital pixel is worth about three scanned from film. You can easily double the resolution by resampling for large prints. Small format digital is a lot more convenient and flexible than MFD, but for the ultimate image quality, MFD is the way to go. Since MFD backs have no anti-aliasing filter, they inherently get 50% more resolution than a DSLR with the same nominal resolution (with some risk of Moire).</p>

<p>Oh, and you can still look retro-cool. I get frequent comments when using my digital Hasselblad to the effect of "It's nice to see someone still using film." With the pro shade, it has passed for a view camera ;-)</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Saul, print size is really less of an issue than image detail. A nice looking photographic billboard can actually be of relatively low total resolution. Search for some full-resolution image samples, and open them up. Do the math, and blow them up on your monitor to whatever size you desire. (You may only be looking at a small fraction of the image.) The image should look the same (or better) in print.</p>

<p>You shouldn't be afraid of kit lenses. Usually there's a lot of good engineering in them that, combined with economy of scale and stingy profit margins, results in a excellent performance for a very good price. They can either be very cheaply made, but optically surprising lenses like the 50/1.8, the 18-55 IS, or the 28-135 IS, or they can be much more substantial, professional-grade lenses like the 24-105L. There's nothing shabby about the 24-105. It's my favorite lens, and I do own other L optics. The 24-70 is also an excellent lens, but you will be wasting money on it if you don't need apertures larger than f/4. You'll also be missing out on the extra reach of the 24-105 and the often indespensible feature of image stabilization. As Keith said, though, the 24-105 and 24-70 may not be the best lenses for a crop camera like the T2i.</p>

<p>As for choices of format, I'd probably recommend a full frame digital to anyone who is coming from medium format. I wrote a comprehensive comparison of formats here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/fullframe.htm">http://www.graphic-fusion.com/fullframe.htm</a></p>

<p>There are advantages and disadvantages to either format, of course, so you're going to need to weigh your options. Hopefully the article will help.</p>

[saulzelan]

<p>Scott -- I tend to use kodak portra nc 160 medium format (120) film. I tend to shoot landscapes and city scapes, occasional portraits, no action or sports. I print full frame almost exclusively no post negative cropping. And yes, I've asked myself that question in one form or another many times! The lure of no negative processing and scanning still brings me back every couple of years to the digital question, and especially now that I can get a full frame digital body for less than a guh-gillion dollars! I tried uploading some samples, but it didn't work so here are some url links:</p>

<p>http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/867449/display/20150643<br>

http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/867449/display/13081629<br>

http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/867449/display/7457800</p>

<p>Edward, I didn't realize that a 50 MP back is in the "afforable" range now, that would certainly draw my attention! Can you send along some info about the where, what, how and how much for such a back? (BTW, I got my Imacon used from a friend/photographer who gave me a great deal, so perhaps I'm "spoiled" by that experience...I think it was probably the chance of a lifetime, glad I took it. My walls are filled with 22 inch prints now thanks to him!...) </p>

<p> </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Hasselblad recently announced a CVV 50MP back for "V" type bodies, priced at about US$13,000. You can assemble a 500cm kit with an 80mm lens for under $1200. The older, CFV 16MP back (like I have) goes for under $9K and is starting to appear on the used market. I can get a very good 24x24 print from the CFV-16 with resampling. By comparison, the 50MP back would challenge 4x5 quality (see the comparisons for yourself at <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com">www.luminous-landscape.com</a>).</p>

<p>Hasselblad also has a complete H4D 31MP kit (including finder and 80mm lens) for about $13K. The H series are based on the 645 format and handle much like a 35mm camera, including auto exposure and auto focus.</p>

<p>The CFV backs are completely self-contained, using a Sony NP-Fxxx battery and a CF card.</p>

<p>A new Imacon scanner goes for between $12K and $20K. The Hasselblad backs are not exactly cheap, but only about twice the price of a top of the line DSLR. If you like the results from medium format, you won't be happy with much less.</p><div></div>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I chipped the return key early. The caption should read, "Turkey Run, Indiana - Hasselblad CFV-16 - CF40/4 - 8 seconds at f/11."</p>

[m_dawg]

<p>Print size is subjective (either digital camera should look sharper from a distance than 6x6 film, but pixelation may be more apparent up close, imo), but get the 5DII if you can afford it. The image quality is awesome, better than just the increase in pixels over the 7D/T2i would indicate. Never used either lens, though.</p>

<p>Then again, nothing is cooler than the Rollei TLR.</p>

[keith_anderson7]

<p>Well, since you brought up digital backs, why don't you switch to 4x5 and get one of these "backs"</p>

<p>http://www.betterlight.com/eModels.html</p>

<p>If you don't want one, can you buy me one? I hate loading 4x5 film. ;)</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Betterlight? A scanning back can take 10 minutes or more to complete one shot, not to mention the time it takes to set up and compose with a 4x5 camera. Just how "contemplative" do you need to be for a satisfying experience in photography?</p>

[saulzelan]

<p>many thanks to everyone for your replies, your online articles (I found Sarah's very informative) and helpful links (I'd not heard of the betterlight large format digital backs!). You've given me a lot to think about. I'm beginning to think I should stay with the TLR for a few more years and watch the MF digital market...I also found some local stores renting the 5dmii, so might try that for a weekend as well...<br>

thanks to all! </p>

[sf_photo1]

<p>Hey Saul,<br>

I am going to suggest an EOS 5D - the original, with whatever your fav focal length is with your 6x6 Rollei.<br>

The orig. 5D with a prime lens will easily print to the size you mention - cost will be nominal and if you do decide to take the digital plunge you can simply expand the system.<br>

Others have mentioned the 'look' of your current output. I would also suggest outputting the 5D files to a Lightjet, the 'look' will be different than inkjet.</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

SF</p>

[saulzelan]

<p>btw, Edward, the CFV-50 body is very tempting, however the best price i could find was more like $17,000, do you know a cheaper source?</p>

[keith_anderson7]

<p>Edward, although I mentioned the 4x5 scanning back in jest, I must admit that some of my favorite shooting ever has been done with MF and LF using film at night with exposures of 30min to several hours. I think part of it was just being in a cool location for hours all alone with plenty of time to absorb the beauty. Of course street photography is like that too, you just take a lot more shots during your time on location.</p>

[dan_south]

Assuming that you use good lenses and good technique and shoot raw, 5d2 files should look amazing at 20x30, very good

at 24x36, and reasonably good a little larger up to about 40 inches or so on the long side. If you want to crop down to a

20x20 inch square, the output should be excellent.

[dan_south]

The 24-105 is a very good general purpose lens. It is not as sharp as my sharpest Canon lens, but it's pretty darned

close. The IS is a great feature that you will appreciate as you use it more and more. The lens is also rugged and well-

built.

 

The only complaint that I have about the 24-105 is a minor one. Distortion is noticeable at most focal lengths. This used to

annoy me, but Lightroom 3 corrects it beautifully.

 

I am very happy with the 24-105 f/4. It's my most frequently used lens because of it's versatility.

[dan_south]

I would forget about scanning backs for anything other than still life. They produce very strange results with moving

subjects. Also, I have read that parts are no longer available for some models due to Kodak halting production of them.

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Saul,</p>

<p>The CFV-50 has yet to hit the street, and I was unclear on the pricing. The CFV-39 is in that price range and still available. The difference in resolution between 39MP and 50MP is trivial (5%), but there may be other features.</p>

<p>Also in the $13K range is the H3D-31 kit - body, finder, lens and 31MP back. All of the digital backs, other than the CFV-16 and P25, are rectangular. The 35mm-style handling of a 645 camera works better with that format. The new Pentax and Mamiya digital 645 cameras are much more reasonably priced (under $10K, complete).</p>

<p>MF digital has a "look" which distinguishes it from small-format digital much the same way as I found with B&W film. To my eye, it is more open, with much less tendency to blow highlights, yet retain shadow detail. In this example, it was possible to keep good detail in both the forest and path, which was in full sunlight (taken on a stroll yesterday, in lieu of lunch).</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Again, with the photo...</p><div></div>

[saulzelan]

<p>Wow, gorgeous shot Edward, I see what you mean about preservation of wide latitude, that will probably be important to me as I tend to shoot very contrasty situations, which is why, way back when, I switched from transparency film to negative film. Thanks also Dan for your contribution, I might try renting a 5dmii and making some 20 inch prints for test purposes...</p>

[OCULUS New York]

<p>I am approaching the same fork in the road. I have just completed selling off all my M Leica bodies and lenses; now, am wondering what to do with a 5-year old Rolleiflex 6000 series kit complete with killer glass. My 6003 body will take a digital back, but I am not sure which, and even then, not sure that I would invest another $XX,000 for a film body attachment. I doubt that F&H is going to be around much longer (IF they still are), but that new body looks tempting.</p>

<p>In the meantime, I am running my third (in 11 years) Olympus digital SLR (E3) and am happy with its results, even pushed to poster size. I am also looking at a new P&S, and am leaning toward the ePen 2, vs the new Leica D-lux 5. I just retired so I'm planning on stepping up my output (literally and figuratively).</p>

<p>Any thoughts on any of the above ramblings are welcomed.</p>

<p>Ray</p>

[saulzelan]

<p>In the P&S arena, I've heard good things about the Panasonic Lx series, which has a Leica lens and I've seen comments that it is "as good" as the Leica d-lux and cheaper b/c not having the Leica logo...don't have any first hand experience to offer on that front though....</p>

[saulzelan]

<p>Here's a follow up for you all:<br>

What do you think of the option of having the AA filter removed from a canon 5dmii? It apparently can be done for $450 at maxmax.com and increases the resolution and color depth of your sensor at the expense of risking a higher frequency of moire patterns in your images which supposedly can be fixed in PS post exposure processing if not "too" extensive. Clearly, the question is whether you want to take the risk of moire spoiling some images in order to have higher res for perhaps most of them? Where do you stand on this trade off? Is it "worth the risk?" </p>

<p>Learning more every day, many thanks to everyone! :) </p>