ken_mccallum1 Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 At the present time, I own a complete Hasselblad 500C/M system including five CF lenses. I've been considering the possibility of either selling my existing system and making the switch to a new professional 35mm digital camera, or waiting and purchasing a digital back sometime in the future; hopefully, when prices come down. When using traditional film, it is without question, better to use a larger fomat in order to obtain a higher resolution image. But, does the same hold true for digital? Are MF digital back pixels the same as 35mm pixels? Can someone please explain the differences, if there are any? Can I expect to obtain the same quality image using either a 14 megapixel back or a 14 megapixel 35mm camera? Your thoughts will be greatly appreciated. Thanks Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brooks short Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Ken, If the pixel count and the physical size of the chip is the same, a DSLR and digital back will have equal quality. There may be some issues with one image processing software being better or more intuitive than the other but that's another question. But...a medium format digital back that can be used on a view camera with swings and tilts can do things that a DSLR can't. Even a DSLR with a perspective control lens is not as effective for creating deep depth of field or shallow focus as a digital back on a view camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Current 4X4 digital backs clock in at 16 meg., and are physically larger than the usable image circle of any 35 DSLR. If you use the whole square of the 4X4 digital back, you not only get 16 meg, but the cells are physically larger...which helps with smooth tonality. There are 22 meg. 645 backs already to be launched, which will deflate the prices on the 16 meg backs. If you consider the price of a high end DSLR and the cost of stocking up on a new lens system, you're pretty much into the price of a MF digital back anyway. And remember, with a digital back, you can shoot film any time you wish, Especially important when you consider (1) B&W film and high speed films. (2), back-up for the digital back is the film back you already own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garry edwards Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 I don't usually find myself disagreeing with Broooks but...The files produced by digital backs are far cleaner than from the overcrowded sensors of 35mm-type digicams and can produce large, clean interpolated files.<br>And that's just in single-shot mode. For still life subjects, where 4 or 16-shot capture can be used, the quality is amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny_spinoza Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Two main parameters are the number of pixels, and the size of pixels. The larger the pixel, the larger the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). So even if a DSLR and back have comparable numbers of pixels, the size of the back will give it an advantage in SNR at the same ISO speed setting. Why not just keep your Hassy system and buy a used back when prices drop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brooks short Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Gary, Thanks...I think. #8^) The Kodak ProBack plus chip is 36mm square. The Kodak 14N chip ( CMOS) is 24mm x36mm which is the full-frame 35mm format. So the two chips are the same length. The 14N chip size and resolution (13.8mp) is similar to a 35mm crop of the square ProBack which has a 16mp chip. Marc raises an excellent point in that a medium format camera with a digital back can still be used with film. This is a big deal if a client wants film and some still do. On the other hand, the 14N with its full-size 35mm chip can be used with true 35mm wide-angle lenses currently available for Nikon film cameras. I have a ProBack Plus wgich I use on a Mamiya RZ and Sinar 4x5, but I'll be getting the 14N just for wide-angle work. And for fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_henderson Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Whether one pixel is the same as another or not, you have the fact that MF photography is different. I never really liked 35mm. The angular shape struck me as inelegant, and the views through the finder cramped and mean. Medium format , especially 66 and 67 is a much more expansive experience. I'm sure I'd make different and worse photographs with a 35mm DSLR. I'll wait for the MF backs to give me more megapixels, it'll just suit the way I feel comfortable photographing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Brooks, don't get me wrong...I currently have 2 DSLRs and love them. The 3rd (a Canon 1Ds) is being delivered tomorrow AM. Each one does something different, Yet none will replace the MF back for all the reasons I and others have quoted. For example, agency Art Directors expect the best, and at weddings I switch back and forth between film and a Kodak back. There are a lot of shots I don't want to sit correcting for days on end, so I just turn in the film at the lab and go do something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r s Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 If I put a canon/nikon/something lens on a 35mm DSLR and take a photo and then take the same photo through Zeiss glass captured onto a MF digital back are we at that time back to the old '35mm vs MF' comparison? I.e. will optics still play a role in digital will the MF back be 'better' than any 35mm DSLR in the same way as the MF is 'better' than 35mm film today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_knapp1 Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 I see the pros and cons of digital 35mm format vs. digital medium format, as a question of speed vs. composition. If speed and ease of facility is of paramount consideration, then by all means 35mm DSLR is fast and efficient (sports, news, etc). If artistic composition is your priority (portraits,landscape, architechure, etc), then the medium format digital will retain the integrity of your "canvas" much better than the contraining 35mm format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_mccallum1 Posted March 8, 2003 Author Share Posted March 8, 2003 Your answers have been very helpful. My other primary consideration, which was also introduced by a respondent, is whether or not the optics of the larger Zeiss lenses make any difference when shooting digital. Any thoughts on this, aside from the obvious advantages of auto focus and metering with 35mm? It's interesting that several people have suggested the Kodak Pro Back Plus, since it's the unit that I've been considering. Thanks Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawrence_title Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 In a newer question above, someone posted this webpage as an interesting comparison between the phase one back on a Hasselblad vs the Canon 1Ds: http://www.ampimage.com/H20%20image/Test003.html Have a look and you be the judge. The real question is can you afford the difference in price ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now