Medium format quality for about $5,000?

andrew_sacco · November 3, 2015

I appreciate the help and no, I did not leave Wouter. I'm eating popcorn watching this unfold. Edward, no, it's not the Nikon fan club, but I did clearly state I wanted to stay with 35mm and Nikon. I am invested in Nikon pretty substantially already, that's just my brand for 35mm. It was suggested the Pentax 645D, and I appreciate that, but for the 10-20% I might use this for my kids sports or travel, or long telephoto wildlife, removing that option with the 645D is not financially possible.

As for my quest for MF quality with 35mm, and the comment it cannot be done, that's a matter of semantics since who defines MF quality? I guess maybe I want something that is "biting at medium format quality's ass" while staying under $5,000. Is that more clear? I do appreciate the help and I am learning a lot. I think I see me with this: Nikon 810, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm (high quality prime landscape lenses) and a longer telephoto/zoom for non critical work/family/sports. Primarily it's landscapes with a tripod about 80%.

Ed_Ingold · November 3, 2015

What constitutes "medium format" quality may depend on the print size. In your case, MF is probably a poor choice of words, since that field is by no means static, and often exquisitely expensive. Using the rule of thumb of 300 dpi, you would want 30 MP or so for a 16"x 20" print, which is readily available in small format cameras. I would not consider 24 MP far off the mark. If detail is important, you can assume photos less than mural size will be examined at reading distance. Nikon just reduced the price of the D810e to about $3000, which means they're clearing the shelves for a new model. If the D810 interest you, act soon, because the supply will dry up fast.

The best focal length for landscapes is a personal choice. If you emphasize the middle ground, then a short telephoto (70-90 mm) is a good choice. Some would go to 200 mm or more to compress distances and make mountains more imposing. For emphasizing the foreground, then a medium wide angle (24-35 mm) might be better. Stay away from extremes unless there is a special reason for using them.

Try consulting the DXOMARK list. There are some Nikon lenses if you go down the list a bit. Use this list as a starting point for an in-depth search of hands-on reviews, and other reliable sources that may surface.

http://www.dxomark.com/lenses#hideAdvancedOptions=false&viewMode=list&yDataType=global

Uhooru · November 4, 2015

Medium format film hasn't been a contender against FF digital in several years (e.g., Leica M9),

</blockquote>

I've used an M9 before, you've got to be joking. In any event for under $5000 you can get a great FF camera and nice sense either Canon, Nikon or Sony, but its not medium format quality. Its what it is.

Ed_Ingold · November 4, 2015

No joke. I used film in my Hasselblad for several years and scanned it on a Nikon LS-4000, before going digital in 2007. The Leica M9 (used) was more recent (2014). Nonetheless I have ample basis for my statement, but not a deliberate A/B comparison.

My example above comparing Ektar 100 against the A7Rii illustrates the resolution and dynamic range of film (i.e., lack thereof) compared to FF digital. The difference between the A7Rii and Leica M9 is more a matter of degree than kind. The Sony shot was made hand-held. In the absence of image stabilization, the M9 only shines when used on a tripod with a cable release. The same is true of an Hasselblad.

The difficulty scanning negative color film and achieving any semblance of consistency and color balance can hardly be exaggerated. It gets easier with experience, but there are always surprises, and a lot of time spent in the process.

Robin Smith · November 4, 2015

Notwithstanding all the talk of Zeiss this and that. I think you will achieve medium format film quality by getting a Nikon D750 or 810, and using any half decent lens. This is why medium format has taken such a drubbing over the last 10 years - pros abandoned them pretty well as soon as they saw the quality coming from a Canon 5D original. Now you have the Nikon D810/D750. I don't think you need to look further. There are some remaining image advantages from medium format digital over 35mm FF digital, but that is another matter.

andrew_sacco · November 4, 2015

This review was pretty comprehensive, at least for my purposes, and one of the reasons I am not looking harder at MF digital. Were there a big step up in performance I'd spend the money but I think you could say it's splitting hairs.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/nikon-d800e-vs-pentax-645d/conclusion.html

Uhooru · November 7, 2015

Notwithstanding all the talk of Zeiss this and that. I think you will achieve medium format film quality by getting a Nikon D750 or 810, and using any half decent lens.

</blockquote>

I think its hyperbole. I've seen amazing files from Nikon, Cannon etc full frame, but none of them compare to a medium color negative, especially a transparency using a quality MF lens, much less a quality digital back (which will be pretty outside the OP's 5000). Size does matter when talking about format IQ quality. And this from a guy, myself, whose favorite camera at the moment is a Lumix GX7 micro 4/3. It takes excellent pics, and gets beautiful prints at 18"x24" if the picture was well taken, but I don't delude myself that they are FF or MF quality. Point is, these great FF cameras can do pretty much what any professional needs to do and they are that good. The market has accepted them as the new standard, but they are not medium format quality and not even close to view camera quality.

Ed_Ingold · November 8, 2015

The Nikon D750 and D810 are capable of approaching medium format quality, but not with just any lens. MF film, whether negative or reversal, is not all that great when scanned at grain-sharp resolution and examined at a pixel level alongside a digital image at even 1/2 the nominal resolution.

I posted a comparison of a film scan and detail compared to the same subject using an A7Rii earlier in this thread. The Sony clearly has more resolution, even though pixel count on the short side is 8500 to 5350 in favor of film. Ektar 100 is very fine grained, as is most reversal film. In reversal film, the grain is composed of dye clouds, and less clearly defined. The most striking difference is the color and contrast, which is much more dramatic in film. The following example is an MF digital image, 4080 x 4080 pixels, of the same subject.

As you see, the color is more subdued, closely resembling the Sony image. Also notice the detail, which shows a strong Moire pattern. Despite the difference in pixel count, the digital image resolution is comparable to that of film if resampled by a factor of 2 to avoid pixelation, which can be done without artifacts. (These silos provoke more Moire than any other subject in my portfolio. It's a tough subject to photograph.)

All film is the same at the pixel level using a Nikon LS-4000 scanner at 4000 ppi, regardless of the format size. The following pair of images compare the same subject photographed with the same lens (50 mm Summicron) using Ektar 100 in an M2 and a Leica M9P (18 MP, no AA filter).

Ektar 100 <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18058059-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /> M9P Digital <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18058057-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" />

Which lens would give similar results on a D750 or D810 I can only guess, but the potential to equal or exceed MF film quality is definitely there. MF digital is a whole other world, with its own set of issues (and cost).

Ed_Ingold · November 8, 2015

The original digital image.

http://www.photo.net/photo/17865943&size=md

Uhooru · November 8, 2015

Approaching.....Try it on an Imacon or a good drum scanner.

Ed_Ingold · November 8, 2015

What evidence to you have to the contrary, Barry? The scan is grain-sharp and there aren't any scratches. An Imacon won't add detail that isn't there.

Ed_Ingold · November 8, 2015

I took a hard look last summer at using film to breath life into into my Leicas M2 and M3, as well as my Hasselblads. I have come to the conclusion that the gap between digital and film is too large to look back. This is for equipment I own and understand thoroughly, not some shiny new toys promised some time in the future.

At this point in time, getting medium format quality from small format cameras is not a theoretical question. Rather medium format film is an inexpensive entry point to approximate digital quality, if $20 for 12 images doesn't seem unreasonable. At that rate, you could afford an Hasselblad CFV50e digital back for the cost of 500 rolls of film - less than three years shooting if you're serious about MF, or an A7Rii or used M9 in 18 months.

To someone who hasn't seen better, film seems romantic, a mark of craftsmanship, or mysteriously superior. I've stained my fingers developing hundreds of rolls and thousands of prints. A trip to Europe fifteen years ago added 200 rolls to develop and scan to that list. I'm not holding my breath expecting any great revelations along this line.

Uhooru · November 9, 2015

Its not about mystique, or arcane technique, its about what looks better, tone, color, punch, etc. I just haven't seen any of these FF cameras match the look of well exposed, developed and processed MF transparency film. And if you want to compare digital backs, its simply no contest. So again, FF 35 equiv digital is not MF quality.

Ed_Ingold · November 9, 2015

If you prefer the look of MF film to digital, I'm okay with that. That's a subjective judgement. Film has a distinctive look which can't be easily emulated. In most other respects, digital is clearly superior, and certainly a lot easier with respect to handling and processing. Velvia is dramatic. No argument about that, especially with a polarizing filter. Digital is sharper, more accurate and consistent. That said, photography isn't about accuracy, rather impressions.

I have a couple of landscapes with similar subjects. An overview of Telluride ("To Hell You Ride") Colorado was taken with an Hasselblad using Fuji Velvia and scanned with an LS-4000 at 4000 ppi (8500 x 8500). The second example was taken of Mt. St. Helens using an Hasselblad CFV16 digital back (4080 x 4080). I inserted a couple of detail panels of 100% (pixel = pixel) crops. The Velvia shot used a polarize, which I omitted with the digital shot, to avoid banding in the sky as one frame of a stitched panorama.

Hasselblad + CF80 + Fuji Velvia <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18124759-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="700" />

Hasselblad + CF60 + CVF16 Digital Back <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18124758-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="700" />

DB_Gallery · November 9, 2015

I guess I am the odd pro who does not follow social or industry norms or any kind of "reviews"...

When I want medium format quality, I use medium format in both film and digital with my CFV50c back. For what it is worth, I shoot in Leica an M3, M6TTL & M240. In Nikon I shoot a F3, FM3A, F100, D750 & D810. In Hasselblad I shoot 2x 501CM's, 500ELX with 8 lenses, 9 film backs and the CFV50c.

See the pattern here?

Every system has both film and digital components that are relied upon equally in my pro and personal work. In the case of my film use, it is 95% black and white hand printed in my darkroom, something I feel digital will never be able to replace for *me* in terms of journey and final output. So the latest addition of the CFV50c back ( yes, I took advantage of the great deal going on until the end of the year ) has allowed me to now leave the Nikons at home more often when I have things like Winter shot lists to get done for a ski client but want to also make fine art black and white images.

And when I do use color film, it is mostly in 120 and 4x5 simply because I feel like it. Now....here is the thing about the new Hasselblad CFV50c back: I demoed it a couple months ago in order to establish it as a viable tool. All it had to do was equal the best D810 images with the better lenses and it did that and a lot more. The detail I get out of it with lenses like my 50mm CF FLE, 100mm 3.5 CFi and 180mm 4.0 CFi are just astounding, a much cleaner and open look than the D810.

So again, if you want "Medium Format Quality" then you use medium format, because quality is only partly measured in sheer resolution numbers and I don't feel that digital has changed the fundamental game all that much.

andylynn · November 9, 2015

Andrew, you're saying you want medium format quality but also that you don't need to be able to make huge prints, so what is it about medium format quality that you're looking for? If what you really want is to shoot at a somewhat wide angle and get a great 16x20 print, you don't need $5000, just get a D750 and a Sigma or Tamron 35mm lens. Add a tripod and any of the 100mm plus or minus macro lenses and you're covered for everything you said you were doing. If you're smart about it you can get all of that for $3000-3500.

andrew_sacco · November 9, 2015

Hey Andy, thanks. I would occasionally print larger, most times not however. I guess when I say MF quality I'm looking for that certain "je ne sais quoi" that we seek. Tonality. Crispness. Seamless tonal gradient. You know what I mean. I am not one that needs to measure everything and read all sorts of reviews although I like to be informed. I'll give you an analogy. Listen to Mahler's 5th on a good solid state system and again on a good system running vinyl. They are different although many people can't describe it. Were I of unlimited time and money I'd go for large format film and develop it in a darkroom. I want the best quality for the buck, so am looking for value. Thanks for asking.

DB_Gallery · November 9, 2015

Andrew, I would go for the D810 then, it opens up the tones a good bit over the D750, has a better tonal range within it's dynamic range. You know you can rent this equipment to check it out from a place like Lensrentals, I have done it in the past and it really helps nail things down, much better than over the counter handling upstairs in B&H.

And I hear you on LF in the darkroom, I also shoot that format and it is by far the easiest to print in terms of dust control. Good luck either way, lots of great gear out there that can handle up to 20x30 with ease, all you really need is vision.

Uhooru · November 9, 2015

Well said Daniel.

Karim Ghantous · November 9, 2015

Andrew: based on years of observing people comparing this vs that, I suggest that Edward knows what he's talking about, and his equipment suggestions (e.g Zeiss Milvus) are worth taking very seriously. You want the best lenses for your DSLR? Zeiss. In fact, a lot of medium format lenses are sharper than some Nikkors, but you'll have to do some research there.

A lot of photographers would prefer out-dated MF backs to new DSLRs, but as you said, you're sticking with what you have.

That is a separate issue from film vs digital - a very different thing indeed which I will not comment upon here. ;-)

Ed_Ingold · November 9, 2015

You don't need to make huge prints to reap the benefit of high resolution images, especially if coupled with a large dynamic range for open shadows and highlights.

Resampling and downsizing retains a lot of detail that simply doesn't exist in a lower resolution source. A wide dynamic range allows more room for adjustments to fit into the much smaller range of a print. I notice a difference even in prints made on a laserjet, like cobwebs on lawn statues. and surface textures.

DB_Gallery · November 9, 2015

I just shipped off a 16x20 contact frame today since I scrapped the idea of a 16x20 camera when I spent that money on

my CFV50c back, I'll just stick with 4x5 on the larger end. As for hybrid process, not interested really, either the darkroom

all the way through or digital.

It's a manner of working and a deep seated philosophy that is working really well for me.

Ed_Ingold · November 10, 2015

The flagship cameras in the Nikon and Canon DSLR lineup are 16 and 18 MP respectively. Small wonder that their emphasis is on fast focus, long telephotos and zoom lenses, rather than ultimate optical quality for more contemplative work. The D810 and 5Ds were orphans from birth as far as native lenses are concerned. That's where Zeiss comes in, as well as the surprisingly affordable Sigma ART series.

Leica opened to door just a crack to really high quality digital images with compact, prime lenses, especially wide-angle lenses. Fuji and Sony (and a few others) threw the door wide open. Imagine, getting accustomed to images sharp in places nobody bothered to look before. Not just sharp, but images with a dynamic range in small cameras rivaling the best medium format has to offer. Before you know it, we'll demand the same performance from DSLRs.

Zeiss has dogged Leica's heels for decades with high quality lenses at a fraction of Leica's prices. When Sony opened the door to collaboration, Zeiss seized the opportunity and we see the results in reviews, portfolios and more recently the financials of Sony and the current market leaders.

Regardless of the effect on the traditional marketplace, we the consumers stand to benefit.

Robin Smith · November 10, 2015

but none of them compare to a medium color negative, especially a transparency using a quality MF lens, much less a quality digital back (which will be pretty outside the OP's 5000).

</blockquote>

I expressly was not talking about MF digital. My experience from using MF and digital is that although one can argue that an MF transparency is better and more vivid etc etc. the problem is translating that into a way that can be directly compared. If you print using wet chemicals then you could argue the MF film has an advantage (comparing print to print). But most of us do not do this and MF film has to be digitized and when that happens any advantage MF has vanishes for most of us. A drum scanned original may have the edge (although personally I don't think so), but the expense and the operator hassle is not inconsiderable. There's not much point arguing this old argument as digital has manifestly "won" the contest, which is why I said what I did. If you want MF quality (as per the year 2000) then just get a high MP full frame 35mm camera and you have it in spades.

Ed_Ingold · November 10, 2015

Transparencies are not quite as nice as advertised when examined closely. That is why I used an MF transparency scan in comparison to a 16 MP digital back (the mountain scenes). On the whole, I prefer color negative film to transparencies. The grain is sharply defined rather than diffuse dye clouds, and the resolution is as good or better. It's just very hard to achieve accurate color, or even consistently inaccurate color.

The dynamic range (of capture) is very limited in transparencies, to between 6 and 8 stops. It is very easy to completely blow highlights, as in patches of sun on a stream bed, or loose chadows in a dark morass. What transparencies excel at is high contrast in the results - transparent to impenetrable black. Before scanners, printing from transparencies produced decidedly sub-standard results. While digital imaging is also subject to blown highlights, it is seldom an issue. The dynamic range of MF digital is enormous - 13 stops or so - which means you can keep highlights in range and open up the shadows to a ridiculous degree. I find the Sony A7Rii produces provides the same dynamic range or better.

The following example, taken in bright August sunlight, would be impossible with reversal film without blowing highlights or rendering the faces in deep shadow. Taken into the sun in this way, my Nikon would have been overwhelmed with veiling flare or sunspots (lots of examples in my archives).

A7Rii + Loxia 35/2

Sign In

Medium format quality for about $5,000?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in