5D mark i for film medium format experience?

[alwin_meyer2]

 

<p>I posted this message in the mirrorless forum first but I realize that there may be more relevant experience here. I will delete if that is preferable.<br>

Would the Canon 5D mark 1 give me the medium format feeling I described below ?<br>

I moved to digital a year ago from Leica and Rolleiflex / Hasselblad. I loved the look of medium format prints so much that I began the use the Rolleiflex as my main camera for street and just about everything.<br /> As if film medium format could capture the scene with ease and a lot of air to breathe while the same scene in 35mm feels more cramped and suffocating. I am a numbers person and I apologize for the rather unscientific , but to me relevant, explanation. I am sure, though, that people who used film medium format and 35mm know what I mean.<br>

I like M43 (epl1, epm1 + EVF + pana 20mm) because of the portability with its small and decent primes and I like Nex (C3+sigma 30mm) because of the bigger negative and getting nice shots with legacy lenses.<br>

I would be interested to hear from people who experienced my dilemma.<br /> I read every thread on the web about 5D vs aps-c but did not find the answer. Some find the 5D still relevant and capable while others see it at as too long in the tooth and surpassed by my most current and previous generation aps-c camera's. None of this answers my question though about the medium format feeling.<br>

<br />I would not be willing to invest much more than a 5D mark i. A half decent 5D would cost around 500 euro's in my region. I have a lot of Nikon FF primes from my film days that I could use on a 5D.<br /> If the 5D would work I would put the Nex stuff for sale and if the 5D would not be my camera I would invest in a Nex 6 or 7 in due course or wait for prices of more capable FF's to come down more.</p>

 

[esfishdoc]

<p>I think the only way for you to know is to somehow get one and try it.<br>

What is your output? Large prints? Books? Internet?<br>

You could search Flickr for 5D images and look at them.<br>

Frank Doorhof shoots mostly medium format digital... but... he also shoots with other systems. Viewing on a monitor it is hard at times to see any difference. (for me)<br>

<a href="http://www.frankdoorhof.com/site/category/blog/">http://www.frankdoorhof.com/site/category/blog/</a><br>

Best of luck in your quest.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Why on earth did you post in the mirrorless forum? </p>

<p>I spent 10 years with medium format film systems and the last four with Canon 5D/5Dii digital systems. I think one has to answer your question first from the taking experience angle and second from the point of view of final print appearance, sizes and flexibilities. </p>

<p>Looking first at the taking experience, using a 5D is nothing like using a medium format. It is like using a 35mm slr in nearly every respect- the same format ratio, the same kind of cramped finder. It has none of the open, expansive impression you get through something like a Hasselblad. Neither can you see in the same detail so you can compose and focus with so much confidence. Its a very good camera (I still have one as back-up) but it is not even close to the sensation of using medium format. If you persuade yourself to consider a 5Dii however something else comes into play and thats Live View. Using this you can elect to compose and check focus on the enlarges LCD panel on the back of the camera. You can enlarge a section of the image up to 10X to check focus/dof and composition in great detail. Thats a huge difference in my book.</p>

<p>The look of the pictures and print size issues are different. I've had 24" x 16" prints from the 5D in gallery shows and thats as big as I'd want to go from MF film using analogue techniques, though with a great scan I can get larger. If you've been used to using hybrid scan/print techniques on MF film then you might feel a little restricted by the 5D especially if you want to crop to a more square format. It would be less true of a 5Dii. Do the images look the same? Well the pedantic answer is no, especially if you've been using analogue printing, and i think most committed film users witll tell you that they can see a difference between a print from film and a printed digital file. That said, the difference would be much smaller if you're printing the film digitally. Additionally I most often slip in a MF analogue monochrome print or two into camera club presentations of digital b&w work and I've yet to find anyone who can reliably tell one from the other when handling mounted prints. Whether you get the smoothness of MF or not will depend on your post-processing skills to some degree, though increasingly you can use papers that replicate the look of analogue prints pretty well. </p>

<p>But the brief answer is that using a full frame dslr will not give you the taking experience to replicate medium format, and the 5D is not the camera that will get you closest.</p>

 

[Marcus Ian]

<p>If you are satisfied w/ the NEX system, you likely will be more satisfied w/ a 5D. That is, if you are looking for a 'feel' closer to MF. It is NOT the same feel as MF, but it is far <em>closer to that feel than the NEX. </em><br>

I would be in the camp of people who find a place for the 'old clunker'. While it's amenities are certainly not up to the current standards of DSLRS (it has no electronic level?! it must be a piece of junk!? ;-) ), there is nothing wrong with either it's capability as a generator of fine imagery, or as a professional workhorse. Ironically, the biggest complaints I've ever heard about the 5D (from people who've owned and used one) is that it's LCD was dim, or had a green cast (ironic, because these are often the same people who are a bit of photog purists ;-) ). However, it's NOT a 'sports' or 'sporty' camera.</p>

<p>I certainly would recommend buying one and trying it out. It's not like you can't turn around and sell it for virtually the same price you bought it for if you decide you don't like it - I can guarantee though that it'll give you a '<em>closer</em> to MF feel' than your NEX. </p>

 

[colin carron]

<p>I pretty much agree with David. I think if you particularly like the experience of MF then the 5D would be too much like a 35mm SLR. But I don't think you would be able to tell the difference between the final results very easily. Depends what you want - the expereince of the results.</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>Davtid Henderson's response was an excellent summary. I can say resoundingly that the 5D cannot replicate a MF film camera experience, either in shooting or print aesthetics; at least that is my opinion. </p>

<p>The difference of aspect ratio is obviously a big non-sequitur from MF. If you only wish to spend 500 euros your camera choices are limited. Since you are interested in the NEX 7 then I reccomend you visit Kirk Tuck's blog and catch up on his experiences with the NEX 7. It might be the camera you are looking for.<br>

If you need an mirror less SLR experience look at Panasonic m4/3 cameras or the new Olympus OMD.</p>

 

[alwin_meyer2]

<p>Thanks Don, Colin, Marcus, David and Richard for the excellent and well informed help.<br>

In spite of the unclear wording of my query, you all managed to come up with useful posts. My question should have been:<br>

I experienced a clear difference in viewing quality between prints (or even screen) made from 35 mm and medium format film. Would I experience a (comparable) quality difference between Nex and 5D mark I? <br>

I do not really care about the user experience of any system. I am purely after the final achievable quality in print (or screen).<br>

For illustration purposes; my photo in the link below was made with a Hasselblad and then scanned. To me it still has a medium format feeling, I could not get with 35mm. <br>

Thanks again for all your help. </p>

[alwin_meyer2]

<p>Apologies; herewith the link I mentioned in the above post.</p>

<p>

[philip_wilson]

I think the 5D is still a good camera - especially if you only plan to shoot at lower ISOs. Is it the same to MF film - in my

opinion no.

 

In terms of image quality I find my scanned 645 slides are about the same resolution as my 5DII although the pictures

have a different quality. I find by Fuji GX680 considerably higher resolution than my 5DII. Here is a post showing crops

from the two http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00WhwO?start=10. Scanning from MF is quite a painful

process to get a good quality scan. In addition the files can be very big - a 16 bit TIFF scanned on my Nikon 9000 from

the GX680 is around 500 MB.

 

In terms of handling the cameras are completely different. I find with digital you tend to take more shots and get into a

creative mode of choosing the best shot later. With MF film (indeed film in general) you tend to spend a lot more time to

get the image right.

 

In terms of the picture itself I still find that film gives a different quality to the print. Is it better - well I prefer it but that is a

personal preference thing. The closest I get with digital to a result that feels like film is with my Leica M8. At the time this

body was regarded by most (including me) of having the same resolution as the 5D. It is 10 vs 12 MP and 1.3 crop vs full frame but the Leica lacks an AA filter and uses a CCD sensor. The colours and feel of the Leica images are the closest to film of my cameras.

You can post process the Canon images and get them closer to film with a bit of effort if you wish.

 

There is a different look to MF film - especially the larger MF formats. Unfortunately I have not found a digital 35 mm

body that gives the same look and feel. That said I think you might like the 5D but for its own capabilities and qualities. I

find the images are much better than those of higher megapixel smaller sensor bodies like M43.

[Marcus Ian]

<blockquote>

<p>I experienced a clear difference in viewing quality between prints (or even screen) made from 35 mm and medium format film. Would I experience a (comparable) quality difference between Nex and 5D mark I?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> The short answer is maybe. I have never scanned any of my old MF film in to give a proper 'apples to apples' comparison on screen, but occasionally note the differences in prints between it and images shot from the 5D & 5D2.<br>

However, I do experience a difference in viewing quality between prints & screen made from APS-C and FF sensor units. Sometimes it is certainly subtle, sometimes not. Certainly at the limits, the difference is much more apparent. I've never owned a NEX so I can't give a specific interpretation to the differences between it and a 5D, but they (all?) have APS-C sized sensors, and the qualitative differences between a 5D and the other Canon crops I've owned are at times<em> quite</em> apparent. </p>

[alwin_meyer2]

<p>@ Marcus</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is NOT the same feel as MF, but it is far <em>closer to that feel than the NEX. </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, your answer is exactly what I was curious about. If I could compare Nex (16 MP sensor) with Canon 5D would I experience a noticeable improvement, comparable with the improvement between film 35mm and film 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 (6x6). i AM NOT LOOKING FOR THE SAME QUALITY AS MF FILM IN DIGITAL BUT CURIOUS IF THE JUMP FROM NEX TO 5D WOULD GIVE ME A COMPARABLE IMPROVEMENT.Your answer is interestingly a qualified yes.<br>

and @ Philip</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That said I think you might like the 5D but for its own capabilities and qualities. I find the images are much better than those of higher megapixel smaller sensor bodies like M43.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, although Nex seems a step up from M43 what you say may mean that the 5D would give better images than Nex, especially in the subjective " MF feel" factor realm. </p>

[philip_wilson]

I depends on your criteria and what you plan to do with the images. I no longer have a 5D but I do have a 5DII, 7D and

1dIIN. In addition I have a m43 body and m8 plus lots of film bodies. The m43 body - a Panasonic G1 was bought to use

my old Contax G and Canon FD lenses. While the IQ is fine the handling is difficult and it feel more like a computer than

a camera (small fiddly buttons, lots of menus etc...). For these reasons I find that I rarely use it and much prefer my

Canon DSLRs. In terms of IQ the 7D gets pretty close to the 5DII at lower ISOs and viewed on a computer screen there

is little to choose between them. When I print them however I find that the 5DII prints look better than the 7D prints -

really that sense of "space" you refer to. My old 5D prints show similar characteristics so I think you will be happy with

one. If you do buy a small NEX or similar I would make sure it has an electronic viewfinder. That said the electronic

viewfinder is not the same as looking through an optical one. I find the way it adjusts to the light levels and the general

look of the viewfinder image is quite different from optical. The advantage of the 5d is being full frame it has a bigger

viewfinder. The viewfinder on my 7D is (I believe) the biggest of any APS-C body but it is still quite inferior to the 5DII. Of

course the viewfinder on an MF body is a completely different experience.

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I may regret this, given some aspects of the original post, but here goes...</p>

<p>Full frame DSLRs can in <em>many</em> ways equal the performance of MF <em>film</em> cameras. A general rule of thumb is that when it comes to potential print size, the standard set by some format with film can be roughly equalled by one format small with current digital gear. So, in many ways, a cropped sensor DSLR can perform as well as a 35mm film camera, and a full-frame DSLR can perform as well as a MF film camera.</p>

<p>This is not, of course, a perfect comparison. In terms of potential print size I think it works reasonably well, but it does ignore other performance differences than result for sensor/film size differences, such as those related to aperture and DOF and so forth. </p>

<p>However, you ask specifically about the original 5D. I have owned one for something like seven or more years, first as my primary camera and then as my backup. It is a fine camera and can produce excellent photographs and prints. Whether or not it achieves your ephemerally described and highly subjective notions of what MF does is impossible to answer in a cold, hard, objective manner. What I can say is that it can produce excellent prints at say 18" x 24" (using the MF 4:3 aspect ratio crop) if you know what you are doing during the shooting, post, and printing phases. It can produce some very fine results at somewhat larger sizes, though that becomes more challenging.</p>

<p>There is no special magic about the 5D nor, in my view, about MF film. Both are what they are, and both can be used to produce excellent photographs with a wide range of objective and subjective characteristics. In general, looking for some sort of mystical emotional quality in camera gear is a lost cause. Gear is gear. </p>

<p>If I were getting a Canon full frame camera today, I would not likely get the 5D unless my financial situation made it impossible to get anything else and I really needed full frame. If you want to save some money and get better technology, the 5D2 is the current sweet spot. The 5D does nothing better than the 5D2 (and I use that camera, too), and the 5D2 has a number of significant advantages.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I shot with a 5D for 3 years and it was nothing like using medium format in terms of results or handling. At first it did have a nostalgic film vibe: reminded me of using my EOS 3 due to the huge VF, perspective and feel in the hand (not AF tho'). But that was mainly because I was suffering for years with the tiny VF and crop factor of my prior EOS 10D/20D.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Alwin: I don't think its the digital camera as much as the post processing. While not taken from mirrorless (rather simple Canon P&S's), some of these pictures might fool some into thinking they're film. Whether MF, I don't know. You might want to spend some time researching conversion of color digital files to B/W. Some programs are better at this then others.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/sets/72157627487899061/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/sets/72157627487899061/</a></p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>I don't think its the digital camera as much as the post processing. While not taken from mirrorless (rather simple Canon P&S's), some of these pictures might fool some into thinking they're film. Whether MF, I don't know. You might want to spend some time researching conversion of color digital files to B/W. Some programs are better at this then others.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are onto a very important concept here, though it isn't the programs that make the difference but the skill level and techniques used by the photographer. I'm often surprised by how many folks will invest tons of money in cameras and lenses and very little to no time in learning the skills required to optimize images in post for printing.<br>

<br>

(I often have people look at my prints and ask if they were done with film. It is possible.)<br>

<br>

Dan</p>

[philip_wilson]

Dan I am not sure why you would regret your statement. As a keen film user I agree - my 7D in technical aspects

outperforms any of my 35 mm film bodies and as I said my 5DII matches my 645 film equipment in resolution etc... (and I

suspect the Nikon 800 will match my Fuji GX 680 large MF images). Digital is also dramatically more convenient but film

dos have a different look. I find it hard to compare film and digital in online forums as you really have to look at the full

size prints and this cannot be done online. Obviously while I like film digital represents almost 100% of my output these

days due to its convenience.

 

I disagree slightly with Alan - while post processing is a big issue I have never managed to get film results from digital.

This is especially true when comparing a B&W wet process with a digital B&W image. Even within digital I find that the

images from my Leica are more film like in there rendering than those form my Canons. In term the Canon images

(especially the full frame ones) look less computer generated than the images from my M43 body. All reasonable

cameras these days are able to produce great images but the trade offs a manufacturer makes do appear to have subtle

impacts on the image.

[alwin_meyer2]

<p>@ Dan,<br>

Thanks for the advice and clear explanation of the capabilities of digital formats relative to film. I was an easy spender on analogue equipment and own a collection of Leica, Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, Hexar and whatever equipment. I started maybe 2 years ago to look at digital. I bought and sold several M43 and Nex camera's but I am rather greedy regarding digital body's because I still view them as very short term investments. Hence my choice for a 5D as a possibility to test the waters of digital FF.<br>

I bought new a Nex C3 and an Olympus Epm1 with EVF and several lenses for both. I miss though a certain quality that Philip described above as a 'sense of space'. I apologized in my original post for my unscientific description of this phenomenon. Yet photographers who shot with film 35mm and MF would often have this different feel regarding prints of both formats. Most probably this difference can objectively be expressed in numbers related to magnification lines per mm and so forth. <br>

So I felt it would be easier to address those with decades of film experience and ask "hey, would the print quality improvement between Nex and a 5D be like getting more of the nice spacious feeling that an MF print would give compared with a 35mm print". I fear that my question was poorly worded though, as I am not looking for magic in camera's or lenses. It is all physics after all, but with a very big amount of variables to master though.<br>

I am consevatively bidding on some 5D's on my local craig's list and we will see what happens.</p>

<p> </p>

[thomas_abbott1]

<p>The 5D is not "pretty much" like a 35mm camera: it is exactly like one. The experience is nothing like medium format. If you are truly looking for the medium format experience, the 5D will disappoint. It's a great camera for what it is: a 35mm camera.</p>

[abbas_haider]

If you are going to 5D I prefer mkii you can get good one with reasonable price

[hjoseph7]

<p>The full frame might give you a little breathing room, but I would not say medium format. </p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>There is one <strong>BIG</strong> reason why a 5D will give more of a medium format feel to your images than any NEX or crop sensor DSLR. <strong>Depth of field.</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

Forget resolution, forget megapixels and also forget outright image quality. The shallow depth of field of a full frame DSLR is what takes it closer to medium format than any other factor. Before the dogmatic users pipe up to say depth of field doesn't change or, an 80mm is an 80mm is an 80mm blah blah blah... yeah, we all know that. But... without beating around the bush, in real terms a full frame DSLR will give you images more akin to medium format than an APS-C sensor ever will. Shoot portraits on a 5d with an 85mm f/1.8 or 135mm f/2, crop off the sides and you will get as close to a 6x6 Hasselblad shot as you're ever likely to get.</p>

<p>However, if you're a landscape shooter and shoot everything at f/16 or f/22 you may well be better sticking with the NEX as the difference in the final image will be minimal.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>A quick note on the "digital v. film" question. I'm pleased to see that several in this thread - though not everyone - are coming to the perspective that while there are differences between the two media, both can produce excellent results. </p>

<p>I can't say that photographs produced by one or the other technology are better than those produced by the other. Clearly, beautiful work has been (and continues to be) produced using film. And just as clearly, those who have learned the digital equipment and work flow and printing to the same level that masters of film photography understood their process are today producing work that is just as wonderful. </p>

<p>I do think it is good to step back from the assumptions that one medium is more "magical" or "evocative" or whatever and simply view them for what they are. </p>

<p>Dan</p>

[dan_south]

If you own Nikon lenses, it might be easier to use them on a Nikon body. However, most of the older Nikon lenses that I have tried to use

on modern digital bodies did not meet my expectations for sharpness, so don't get your hopes up.

 

Every camera system offers a new experience. As David Henderson stated eloquently, shooting 35 mm digital will seem very different thn your work in MF. However, 35 mm digital has some notable advantages, which is what makes the format so popular.

[dan_south]

<< Forget resolution, forget megapixels and also forget outright image quality. >>

 

What would be gained by neglecting to compare these metrics between different cameras?

 

<< The shallow depth of field of a full frame DSLR is what takes it closer to medium format than any other factor. >>

 

Is shallow depth of field a staple of medium format photography outside of macro photography where it's all but

unavoidable? Medium format lenses don't come in f/1.4 versions. F/4 is typical for MF with some f/2.8 lenses available,

but stopping down two more stops (f/5.6-f/8) was generally recommended to maximize sharpness. That doesn't yield a

razor thin depth of field look in medium format unless again you're talking about macro photography.

 

<< However, if you're a landscape shooter and shoot everything at f/16 or f/22. >>

 

I don't know anyone who shoots everything at these apertures - unless they're working with 4x5 film. These f stops rob

small format photos of sharpness due to diffraction. Galen Rowell avoided anything smaller than f/11, as one notable

example.