Medium Format vs D-SLR--Learning and Long Term

[john harris]

At the risk of posting questions that you have probably seen too many

times, I would appreciate the opinion of the experienced participants

this forum seems to attract.

 

I am a self-employed graphic designer looking to get into high-quality

photography, for enjoyment for now, and hopefully as an extension of my

current business in the near future. I have been reading the posts in

the Medium Format, Digital, and other forums on this web site for

about three weeks now, and while I have found a GREAT deal of helpful

information, I sometimes think I walk away more confused than when I

began.

 

About a month ago, after researching every magazine and web site I

could find, (I hadn�t found www.photonet.com yet), I decided to visit

one of the (I think) more reputable camera stores in my area (metro

Detroit) to look at a 501CM and 503CW, as well as the Nikon D100, and

see what the sales staff had to say. Not much help, there, so back to

more research, which is when I come across this web site.

 

I thought at the time that digital was what I wanted, for a number of

reasons, not the least of which was that I could do an awful lot of

experimenting and learning, and see the results instantly (well,

download, convert, open in Photoshop�still a lot faster than sending

film out to the lab). I have all the necessary computing power,

software, and color management knowledge from my current business (I

started my career 20+ years ago working for a color separator, so

scanning, color correction, print reproduction, etc., are second nature

for me). Digital seemed perfect, except that the resolution of the

D100-class of DSLRs was about half of what I needed for work.

 

So, I figured, why not look into starting out with medium format film,

scanning transparencies (which will give me plenty of resolution), and

hey, the price of digital backs has to keep coming down, right. So I

looked into 6.x6, 6x4.5 (even briefly 6x7 and 6x9�I figured there

probably won�t ever be a digital back for those), Hasseblad, Contax,

Mamiya, Rollei, etc. The more I learned, the less I knew.

 

Then I find the reviews of the new Hassy H1, along with numerous

opinions on the format, lenses, etc. And, right about then I read about

the soon-to-be-available Kodak 14MP DSLR (and I figure there has to be

a Nikon version out soon, too), and the Canon D1S (I might have the

model wrong�the $8000 one). On the surface, these seem to make the idea

of investing in medium format gear and a Kodak DCS Pro or Phase One

back silly. Much less expenses lenses, and sure, they will be obsolete

in a year of two, but so will the $12,000+ back for any medium format

camera.

 

All that being said, about the only thing I�m pretty sure about

investing in right now is a Profoto (or similar) three head monolight

kit with accessories and maybe a Sekonic 508 (or similar) meter. I

figure I might actually get more than a couple years out of these

before they are obsolete.

 

So I guess what I�m wondering is (since there doesn�t seem to be a

"Right" or "Wrong" answer), what are some of your opinions on a logical

way to get started with a system that is capable (in the right hands�

not mine, yet!) of producing extremely high quality work. I�m looking

to learn and be able to grow with whatever system I end up with.

Ideally, I would rather invest in a system that has a good chance of

being around for a few years. I don�t mind spending the money on the

best solution, but it almost seems like it is (from this point forward)

going to be a moving target. Are the pros all going digital, and if so,

medium format with digital backs, D1X or H, D100-type cameras?

 

I apologize for being so long-winded. Any feedback will be GREATLY

appreciated, as I�d rather do this right from the beginning.

 

Thanks,

John H

[thidglance]

Personally I would suggest if you have the funds for it you look at the EOS 1DS - 11Mpix with good lenses will be more than most people will ever use. It is certainly looks to compete with all but the very best medium format combos.

[ellis_vener_photography]

According some people I've heard lecture who are beta testers for Canon,

Canon makes no bones about their target market for the Canon EOS 1Ds --

6x4.5 users, meaning portraits and wedding studios.<P>If you are goingo

work in 6x7 or even 6x6cm medium format film cameras still make sense, and

probably will for quite awhile. If you are looking at 6x4.5 I think I'd look very

hard at the Kodak 14n or the Canon.

[douglas_cummings]

There has yet to be a good comparison between MF and digital

published on line (a 4x5 was compared here

http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/Canon_1DS/4

5_film_1ds.html but talk about apples to oranges! ) A problem

with the Eos 1Ds may be wide angle color fringing

(http://www.fredmiranda.com/1Ds_review/index_noise2.html). If

you are doing wideangle work perhaps you would pause before

going to the digital cameras- already their problem with those

available having lens multiplication factors of 1.3 to 1.6. This

problem may not be noticable to you or will likely be solved soon.

Then again, one would think digital backs will eventually be

affordable, full frame and therefore make MF probably again

superior in image quality. If you are just starting, I'd probably go

with the 14n or D1s. Remember that "obsolete" is Exactly what

these companies want you to say, so you'll be in that never

ending hamster wheel of feeling behind so as to cough up more

dough. I'll bet a 1ds will last quite some time, and WILL NOT be

obsolete in a year or two. This is a more difficult decision for

those who already own MF gear and don't have a high volumn of

work: Do we get out now or wait for a cheaper back?

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

"If you are going to work in 6x7 or even 6x6cm medium format film cameras still make sense, and probably will for quite awhile. If you are looking at 6x4.5 I think I'd look very hard at the Kodak 14n or the Canon."

 

<grumble>

6x6 gives next to no advantage over 645 for rectangular prints; there are almost no cases where the extra 1/3 film area does you enough good to make a practical difference. 6x7 on the other hand, is a lot bigger than 645. Printing to A4 proportions, 6x7 is a full 50% larger than 645 and 6x9 is almost exactly twice the area.

</grumble>

 

It looks to me as though my sharpest 4000 dpi scans don't really have 4000dpi worth of information in them, but they do seem to have 70% or so of that. (I.e downsampling by 70% doesn't really lose any detail, but downsampling by more than that does.) That means that 645 scans are about 26MP, or about twice the detail content of the 1Ds or 14n, although the noise is worse. The inconvenience of film and scanning may make that difference not large enough to bother with.

 

The only problem with the first generation of this class is the problem that $5,000 to $8,000 is a lot of camera to drop or get stolen. When that class of camera is down to US$2,000, I may trade in my 645 stuff on a GSW690 and do everything else digital. Since that's only 2 years away, passing on 6x6 or 645 may make sense.

 

On the other hand, 35mm digital is unlikely to ever do much better than 13MP or so, simply because the area of the frame is so small. So digital capable 645 or 6x6 (645 is 2.7 times the area of 35mm) may make sense in the long run, even if the current crop of backs don't.

[garry edwards]

I think the problem with the new crop of (promised) 35mm-type digitals is that all we have to go on is specifications, manufacturers hype and our own predudices. Will an 11 or 14MP file really produce professional quality? And what does 'professional' mean anyway - Professional advertising photographer or semi-professional wedding photographer?<br>I thought about buying a D60 but was badly put off by Canon, who said that they couldn't supply me with images on disk for evaluation - "look on our website and you'll see how good they are." <br> While 6MP medium format backs can produce vastly superior quality, and much cleaner images, than anything produced by Canon Nikon or Fuji it's difficult to believe that a larger number of pixels crammed into a slightly larger sensor will produce very much more than just a larger file.<p>My advice would be to buy a D60 or similar if the quality standard is acceptable, and a 6x4.5 or 6x7 if you need something much better. The transparencies from a 6x7 can be scanned to produce outstanding quality and you may wish to buy a digital back in the future.<p>One final word though, whether you buy a current digital camera or a MF with a digital back, you'll struggle to get wideangle shots.

[richard blau]

Many of the above answers are quite good. Let me add my own 2 cents.

 

One strong argument for the Canon 1Ds, is that even when the body gets

replaced with something better (and it will ) you will still have your lenses,

which end up being the largest investment. Caveat: one day it is possible that

there will be an entirely new technology for capturing images which will make

everything now on the market obsolete.

 

Nevertheless, I still don't believe that the Canon is going to produce images

quite as detailed as a medium format camera. I would recommend you visit

www.luminous-landscape.com, where this debate flourishes (and where you

will find good reviews of both the Hasselblad H1 and the Canon 1Ds.

 

Good Luck.

[will_muir]

I am no pro here, but no one else mentioned that a Hassleblad from 20-30 years ago is still basically the same as one made yesterday. I don't think you will buy a digital camera that will have that kind of deprecation life, do you?<p>

Will

[diegobuono]

When you buy digital camera you (or they or us) believe that you can work more quickly, quicker work means more work and more work means more money! But you have to consider computer and camera obsolenscence so at the end you don't have so much money. Only the manufacturer of computer and digital camera earn more. The digital revolution is guided from the manufacturer that don't want that we use a 20 years old camera. they want sell you a new camera every 6 month, like the computer. The difference is that the computer is necessary for its purpose, a digital camera is not necessary, we already have good camera that can give awesome result, why starting with digital and worst (at the moment) result?

[jay_.]

<<I am a self-employed graphic designer looking to get into high-quality photography, for enjoyment for now, and hopefully as an extension of my current business in the near future.>>

 

This is really the crux of your issue and I don't understand exactly what your needs are. If your work and/or clients require the speed of digital capture then you have to choose between something like the 1Ds and a Contax 645 + the Kodak Proback (I wouldn't personally touch the Hasselblad H1, it costs twice what the C645 does and doesn't give you the Zeiss lenses). That choice will be made on the basis of lenses (the Canon has a much greater range, and Image Stabilization which is a huge plus)and cost (the Canon is much less expensive than a C645 + Proback)versus the flexibility to shoot medium-format film as well. You could of course go with a second-hand MF setup that does not (at this time)have a Proback, such as the Hasselblad 6x6, plus a MF scanner like the Polaroid 120 or Nikon 8000, but doing so IMO is economic suicide given the ever-softening market for film cameras.

 

 

<<I decided to visit one of the (I think) more reputable camera stores in my area (metro Detroit)>>

 

You might not be old enough to remember Lobby Hobby on Woodward between 6&7 but since they closed up shop, for a reasonably large city Detroit has the most pitiful camera stores of anywhere I can think of. Every time I go back to visit I'm appalled at the sparse assortment of dusty, grossly-overpriced stuff sitting in the used cases--a lot of it the same as I saw the year before, just more dust on it ;>)

[peza]

Have you seen <a href="http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/eos1ds/samples_new/507S0199.jpg">sample image from Canon 1Ds</a> and compared with <a href="http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/proback645/samples/44FP1809ps.jpg">Kodak DCS 645 Pro Back</a>. Judge yourselves :)<br>

Quite a surprize isn't it ? There seems to be some heavy computing behind DCS pics. Just have a look at OOF areas.

[deardorff8x10]

One thing you can consider is buying a used Mamiya RZ (has a bellows, so good for studio work) or Hassy (advantage is that you can handhold) outfit with a couple of used lenses which would probably cost about $3-4,000. You will then be able to sell them later with little loss of money if they don't work out or you decide you don't want to do photo professionally. In the interim, you would learn a lot about lighting, etc. with your strobes (I use profoto and really recommend it). Ultimately, I really believe that understanding lighting is far more important than digital vs. film, format, etc.

 

If you are doing a lot of product stuff in a studio, you could also consider a cheap view camera with polaroid which you could buy for about $750 and the film is about $1-2 per shot. You may learn a lot more about photography that way, but it is a bit cumbersome.

 

I may get some heat for this (I cannot claim to be a digital expert), but I think digital brings in more variables. If you use Provia all the time, it varies only a tiny bit if you use a good lab. You will see clearly if exposure is off, what color casts there are, etc. With digital, you have also have gamma, white balance, file format etc. that will impact results. If you understand all of that already, you are ok, but digital will put in more potential steps in the process to learn.

 

I have not used the most recent crop of digital cameras (I have rented a high end digital back -- really great!!!), but in talking to people who do, I would say the following:

 

Most D-SLRs have slightly less dynamic range than much slide film (they are like Velvia). Color neg still will be better in contrasty scenes. B&W even more so if you want to go that route.

 

Film is good because you can store a lot of images fairly easily. Many D-SLR people throw out "bad" pictures, but then you can't go back to review your progress a year later.

 

D-SLRs probably have better auto focus, auto exposure, etc. than MF if that is important to you.

 

Look at MF film/processing costs, maybe $4-6 per 120 roll or 35-50 cents a shot, so digital will eventually be cheaper if you shoot a lot.

 

News/sports pros use almost only digital since it facilitates their workflow and speed (I don't get the sense this is what you want to do).

 

Pros doing products in a studio are mostly digital because it is a lot faster and the depreciation of digital is made up for by increase in volume and cost savings (mostly one's time). They mostly use large format or MF. Some people shots in studios are done with MF digital now, but it does not yet seem to be the norm.

 

Pros doing people/models on location are mostly film based because it is fairly fail-safe (they use 4x5 or MF mostly). Also, they are maybe more conservative and just want to deliver the goods and do what they know works. You can split your film between labs, ship separately, etc. -- what happens if your micro-drive crashes?

 

Hope that is helpful. Ultimately, you should look at what you want to do (studio, location, etc.) and get what makes that easiest.

[_________1]

John, listen to Michael Waldron. His advice is sensible. And here too is my vote for Profoto, clearly the best light in the business.

[chris_patti1]

My guess is that increasing quality and decreasing cost of 35mm-based digital will eventually render MF a technological dead end.

 

1. 35mm digital quality will improve, but only marginally beyond the standard set by the current 11-14 megapixel bodies. Once MF quality is reached (which, as far as I can tell is very close right now) there just won't be much demand for further improvements.

 

2. Rapid technological development will, however, cause the price of high-end 35mm digital bodies will to drop significantly in the next two or three years.

 

3. Medium format digital will probably die out. Again, the demand for more quality than 35mm digital systems will be able to offer will not justify manufacturers investing the resources in MF digital systems. This possibility makes the strategy of buying into a new MF system with the idea of adding a digital back later when the price comes down quite risky.

 

4. Film-based MF is in trouble. Pros, who drive the market for MF gear, will move to 35mm digital, especially after the price of MF-quality 35mm digital comes down, and the hobbyist market will follow. Film will be available for a long, long time, but development of MF will stop, and MF systems will begin to be orphaned.

 

All of this suggest to me that buying into a new MF system is not a wise investment right now. A better idea might be to start with one of the less expensive Canon digital bodies and begin investing in a high-quality set of lenses for it. Then you will be able to buy a high resolution body when prices come down.

[john harris]

Thanks to all who have responded. Your input is very much appreciated.

 

Just to clarify a couple of points, I won't be doing any weddings or sports/news, and portraits will just be for fun.

 

I'm mainly looking at product shots for catlogs, studio for the smaller items, location for things like doors, windows, furniture, build-it-yourself backyard sheds, etc. Also, I've had quite of few clients ask about taking shots of there business, equipment, machinery (and certainly some employees-at-work shots), for there own marketing materials that I currently produce.

 

As pointed out by a couple of others, the total investment in lenses and accesories is probably what worries me most about making the "Wrong" move. Used MF is certainly an option (although I will admit I'm a little leary of that, due to the high costs of repairs for Hasselblad, Rollei, et al), and my lack of knowledge of determining the condition of used equipment. But that's why it's cheaper than new, right?

 

I guess the only advantage I have is that I will be in a learning situation for some time, and as long as I don't go too crazy with lenses right now, that buys me some time for things to shake out a little, although I would like to be up and running (being able to start taking on "real" work within year--sooner if possible.

 

Thanks again to all...

John H

[marbing]

The problem with diving into the deep end with any emerging technology is the problem of obsolescence. If your concern is the 'long-term' then digital is definitely not the way to go. Many people have paid a premium for the latest in digital technology only to have it surpassed within a relatively short time as the pace of development quickens and newer equipment emerges to take advantage of it.

 

Unfortunately, there has not been any ability for digital users to upgrade without buying all new gear. The ability to continue to use some lenses and other peripherals is a small compensation.

 

That said, all the points are definitely with film over the 'long term' since any advances in film technology can be instantly applied. I have a 1950's Ikoflex that now can use film of speed and quality unheard of when the camera was produced half a century ago. It can use the identical film that a Hasseblad, Contax, Mamiya, Rollei, etc use.

 

While digital technology 'advances' such as the Foveon chip remain to prove themselves, it does no good to the person who, just a short time ago, purchased a Nikon D1...D1H...D1X...D100 or any of the Canons or the Fujis or Kodaks. They will never be able to use it! Whatever, the "next BIG thing" in digital technology will be...for current systems...'what you see is what you will get'...forever!

 

Of course, you could always continue to use the same digital SLR because nobody forces you to upgrade but you will continue to be aware that "...the resolution...was about half of what I needed for work." and you would fall further and further behind what your competitors can offer their clients. So, you WILL upgrade and hopefully, you have earned enough to make the system pay for itself but...there goes the 'long term'.

[douglas_green1]

It's a safe bet that ANY well chosen Medium Format Camera bought now will remain useful for longer than any digital camera. Heck, you could buy a 30 year-old Pentax 67 or Hasselblad or Rollei, or Mamiya for less than $1000 and it will remain useful for longer than any NEW digital camera. In fact, that's what I recommend that you do.

[phil_royall1]

A lot of people clim that going digital has improved their photography in that they can instantly check the results and retake if needs be. I can't help thinking that this disposable technology means that although you get more decent pictures when you start, you miss out the learning process of getting a roll of poor pictures back from the lab.

 

I went MF last year and my photography has improved ten fold, medium format is slower, so I take more time with each shot and I learn from each slide I get back. I suspect that long term I'm going to improve as a photographer more by taking time and learning than I ever would by just separating the wheat from the chaff at the taking stage.

[j.w.]

John;

 

Very good question. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "high quality photography" as your goal. If you mean line pairs per millimeter of resolution in the final printed image, I would recommend an inexpensive 4x5 starter camera, such as a used Speed Graphic with a decent lens. Since you are familiar with the image reproduction business, you would know to use a drum scanner to import your 4x5 images post development. You would also have the additional flexibility of some degree of limited camera movements with the Speed Graphic, if that feature is important to your personal vision.

 

In terms of using this gear for "business in the near future", its hard to decide between high-end D-SLR or medium format. For business reasons, quick image turnaround - verification that you've got the shot the first time around - D-SLR is the way to go. However, commercial photogs have been using MF for decades with few issues, once the learning curve is breeched. And MF still has the quality edge. I also ditto the comment about no immediate concern of MF being obsoleted.

 

I appreciate your comment about sales people in stores being of little help. That also applies to most magazines. They're just marketting forums for advertisers.

 

Since you want to do "an awfull lot of experimenting", I would recommend some sort of starter LF 4x5 kit. Even an inexpensive monorail camera. This would give you opportunity to expand your skills into areas you may have not considered before.

 

I feel film is still the prefered image collection format. Its guaranteed to not be obsoleted. You can always scan your images into whatever newer format of hardware device that comes down the pike. For color prints, higher-end digital is good. For black and white, darkroom and alternative processes are the only way to go, IMNSHO.