Throwing in towel and replacing Mamiya RZ with Canon 5D Mark II but..

[steven_crist]

<p>I got rid of my Mamiya 645 film outfit (I know it's only 6x4.5 and not 6x7 like your RZ), when I got my Canon 1DS MKIII a fews years ago. The results with the Canon were better, but more importantly images were easier and cheaper to get. I originally had doubts about getting rid of the film outfit but looking back I don't miss it at all.</p>

[levante]

<p>I understand both sides... wish I could have best of both worlds and I think there are reasons to stick to film (if your aesthetic fits with film) but also have ther versatility and ease of digital. But the cost of used MF camera equipment keeps going down (expect for the Mamiya 7II for some reason) so if I feel some deep need to go back, hopefully I have made some money via stock or assignment using the 5DmarkII to invest in another MF system in the future. Any feelings on used Canon 5DmarkII ? I probably will just buy new, since I have terrible luck with used, even from big stores with 90 warranty. But thought I would ask. Thanks for all the suggestions... As an aside I was at the Metropolitian Museum to McQueen show and stopped by their show of recent photo aquisitions. 3 mural size color ink jet prints were on display, probably 6 feet by 4 feet or so. They were lushious, rich, exceptional detail and unless I was looking under a powerful loupe, flawless. I think the age of digital has caught up to MF or even large format.</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Dan South wrote: "There's plenty of suffering to be had in the digital world. What until you blow the highlights in a shot that you can't re-stage."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ha! That's for sure. It seems to me that each medium brings its own modes of suffering. And if those aren't enough and the previous suffering due to carrying pounds of MF film gear on the trail is no longer available, there is always good old fashioned artistic suffering. ;-)</p>

<p>You might think of the attitudes of film shooters towards digital as being in several categories:</p>

<ul>

<li>"I really ought to try it some time."</li>

<li>"It is new. It can't possibly be as good as what is old." (Always good to offer a reminder that photography was considered the "new" in relation to painting at one time not that long ago. And that cameras with interchangeable lenses and roll film were regarded by some in the same way.)</li>

<li>"I'd switch, but I would have to learn a whole new workflow." This is a serious issue. I know of a number of photographers who have determined to make the switch, but then were too frustrated by having to become beginners again and not be able to rely on their hard-earned intuitive skills. It is good to prepare for this. </li>

<li>"Digital is fine, but I'm fine with film." I can think of at least one excellent photographer, and I know there are others, who seem to have adopted almost exactly this perspective. I can understand. If you are well-regarded for the work you do with film, and you have spent an entire career working that way, and your results are successful... </li>

<li>"I'll just shoot digital the way I shot film and it will be even better." Caution. Digital is not film and film is not digital. While ones visual intelligence can be roughly the same with both media, there are technical differences that must be understood and mastered. (What happens to highlights is a wonderful example.) </li>

<li>"That worked with film but digital can't do it." This is related to the previous point. Thinking of film as home base, means that all comparisons go back to film. For example. people will critique prints because they don't look the same as, say, silver gelatin. But you could equally critique silver gelatin prints because they don't look like great inkjet prints! When two things are different, one is not always better - sometimes they are just different.</li>

<li>"I mastered digital capture, post, and printing. I produced really outstanding work, and the process became intuitive. Now I want to go back to film." Somewhere out there, a photographer with that point of view probably exists. So far I have not met her or him.</li>

</ul>

<p>Dan</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>I have been using a 5DmkII for a couple of years now and have found that the images don't really have the look I'm after and so have returned,partly, to MF film. <br />If you're used to MF film I would definitely consider renting a 5D, just over a weekend maybe, before spending your cash just to make sure.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While this sounds like a conservative, cautious approach, it's really a BAD idea UNLESS during your evaluation weekend you spend some quality time with someone who UNDERSTANDS DIGITAL POST-PROCESSING. If you shoot for a couple of days, load the images on your computer and don't process them correctly, you'll probably come to the same conclusion as the poster I've quoted above. ("They don't have the look I'm after.")</p>

<p>Digital files can be transformed into all manner of "looks" if you know what you're doing. High-contrast, low-contrast, saturated, desaturated, B&W from color, etc. But there's the rub - you have to KNOW what you're DOING. If, like me, you enter into digital photography believing that your film experience taught you all you need to know, you'll waste a lot of time and you'll wonder why people get so excited about digital cameras. You might even conclude that "film is better" given that you don't get the results that you want from your digital files.</p>

<p>Learning post-processing isn't difficult if you take your time and have access to some decent training and tutorials or some patient friends and mentors. But if you think that you can evaluate a digital camera in a weekend without any post-processing experience, you're setting yourself up for a big disappointment.</p>

[levante]

<p>The irony is that i do have experience with digital because of my 20d which I used extensively, it just no longer can cut it, even when I was doing some stock back in 2005. I got the RZ because I was frustrated at the time by not being able to afford a digital system that was in the 21 megapixel range or up... so I thought, hmmm I'll shot 6x7 transparencies and get that beautiful resolution I am looking for, full of detail, color saturation, no noise (or grain) etc. The problem was you can't display a transparency ! It's a lovely object in itself, but not the final result (much like a Raw file is not the final result). I had to scan using an affordable Epson and the loss of information, resolution, refinement from the transparency is heartbreaking. But since the 5dMarkII a decent digital camera is within financial reach I have got an Apple cinema screen, mac computer, several 1Terrabyte external harddrives, and the Canon lens from the D20... ready to make the switch !</p>

[dan_south]

Michelle, I'll add a plug for Lightroom 3 if you don't use it already. It will help you get the most out of the raw (CR2) files. Also,

update the firmware when you receive your camera. Typically, they don't ship with the latest version.

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Michelle, my apologies for forgetting that you have used digital in the 20D. You were pretty clear about that.</p>

<p>I think you're set to go with a 5D2 or equivalent at this point, and I believe you'll be very happy with the results, the increased flexibility, and the lighter weight. </p>

<p>Dan</p>

[andrew_gardiner]

<p>@Dan South<br>

An unnecessarily charmless response there Dan to what was meant to be a genuinely helpful post. Particuarly so since I had chosen my words carefully so as to not inflame any tedious digital vs film 'debate'.Alas though, not carefully enough obviously for some sensitive souls.</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Andrew:</p>

<p>Dan's post may (or may not) have lacked charm either in presentation or perception, but I think he does make a good point and one that is not unrelated to a couple of bullets in my list.</p>

<p>A good number of people who come from a film background and who might be trying to decide if digital can produce comparable (notice that I did not write "identical") quality to film can easily be led astray by comparing a thing with which they have great familiarity, namely film, to the thing that they barely know at all, namely digital. (By the way, it doesn't appear than Michelle is among this group, and I'm not forming a judgment about whether or not you are either.)</p>

<p>For reasons that I completely understand, these Film Photographers Testing The Digital Waters (FPTTDW) can make some unfortunate initial judgments about what digital can and cannot do. I've heard them say things like "a digital print cannot rival a darkroom print," or "you can't make a great black and white print from digital" or "the images from my camera a too soft with digital" and many other things.</p>

<p>Digital can do all of these things and more - and this is not meant to deprecate film photography at all, by the way - but they are not automatic, they are not done in the same ways they are done with film, and digital work requires the acquisition and development of a new and sophisticated set of skills that the film photographer does not automatically possess.</p>

<p>As I like to say, the FPTTDW often needs to be willing to become a beginner all over again in many ways. I truly do appreciate the difficulty of this and the frustration that it brings - but it cannot be avoided.</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[dan_south]

My post was directed to the OP and others who might be in a similar position. It was meant as a cautionary note to avoid the mistakes that I myself made when crossing into

the DSLR realm after years of dedication to color reversal film. If she plans to make a big decision based on a couple

of days of evaluation, information is probably more salient than charm.

 

On the other hand, Andrew, perhaps I characterized the subtext your choice to return to film unfairly. I am by no means

an expert at post processing, and it's very likely that your own Photoshop skills would put mine to shame. I realize that

my post may have implied the contrary and for that I apologize. Again, I was thinking of the well-being of the OP who

is on the verge of making an important decision, not someone who has already chosen their path. I don't know your

reasons for preferring film. I still shoot film on occasion for the pure joy and look of it, so I appreciate your dedication

to the medium.

 

G Dan: As I like to say, the FPTTDW often needs to be willing to become a beginner all over again in many ways. I truly do appreciate the difficulty of this and the frustration that it brings - but it cannot be avoided.

 

That's a very good way to look at it, particularly because experienced film photographers often have no idea how demanding that transition will be.

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

<p>Michelle, buy a Canon 5DMkII body and keep the excellent RZ-glasses and save money, and use them with an brand new special adapter mount for Canon. www.hartblei.de</p>

[scottelly]

<p>I think you have answered your own question Michelle. Get the 5 D MkII. Yes, in a year or two you might want to upgrade to the replacement, when it comes out. But you can decide then. Now though, you will save hundreds of dollars on film and scanning, and you can go back to shooting film (drum scanning just a couple of your very best shots each month), if you're not satisfied with the performance of the new camera. The 5 D is WAY better than the 20 D. I have both. The 5 D Mk II is a nice step up from the 5 D. It does 14 bit RAW, instead of 12 bit, and it catches significantly more detail.<br>

-<br>

If you do it, you will not miss the heavy kit you use now. With one spare memory card and one spare battery, you can walk around with your DSLR and a 24-70mm f2.8 L all day, and it will be like you're just out for a stroll. You can keep a 16-35mm f2.8 L in your pocket or on your belt, so you can get those wide landscape shots, and you'll be a happy camper!<br>

-<br>

By the computer equipment you have, I think you really will be happy with the 5 D Mk II. Eventually, you can get a 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS for shooting animals and longer stuff. (You'll shoot at f8 or f11 most of the time with that baby. I found myself doing that with my 70-200mm f2.8 L IS.)<br>

-<br>

Good luck!<br>

-<br>

P.S. I get 20x30 prints made at Costco for $9 each. Many people never print larger than this. Try it with one of your best shots from your 20 D, if you haven't already printed at that size. Then, if you do get the 5 D Mk II, try it with that camera, after you've been shooting for a couple of days, just to see the difference. My guess is you won't see much difference, because the difference won't show up much until you print larger than about 24x36. Also don't forget that L glass is pretty much all you should use, so DEFINITELY get a 24-70mm f2.8 L or a 24-105mm f4 L, and shoot them at f8 and f11, when you are testing. I'm sure you'll use mirror lock-up mode on a tripod too. If you plan to buy mostly fixed lenses, the 14mm f2.8 L, 24mm f1.4 L, and 135mm f2 L are all great, and the 85mm f1.2 L is absolutely amazing, but the 50mm f1.4 is not so good (mine shoots pretty clear images at f2.8 and above, but with no getting wet or dropping or other abuse it stopped working - firs the auto-focus stopped, and then the aperture stopped, so I can only shoot at f1.4 now - and this after only using it a few times in a few years - low quality! I suggest the Sigma 50mm f1.4, because it's better and has aspherical elements, so you can shoot at night, with points of light, at f1.4, without ending up with scallops instead of points of light).</p>

[jacqueline_dessel]

<p>I have a 5D MkII and I love it. But I miss the experience of shooting film, so I just bought a used Mamiya RZ67 and can't wait to play with it and learn it. I'm very happy having both.</p>