film vs new digital cameras

[flaviodomenicucci]

I would like to know if the quality obtained through a RB67 whith a

90mm lens is better than 5.0 megapixels images obtained through no

professional digital cameras (canon, nikon, olympus, etc). I´m

studing commercial photography and wants to purchased a RB67. I love

this camera but have doubts if it will be the correct decision to

acquire a film camera when everybody is switching to digital.

Thanks for comments.

Flavio

(pd sorry for mistakes in my writting, my language is spanish)

[eye-of-searle]

Yes, an RB would be better. Although the Canon 1Ds and Kodak 14n? would be close I think. If I were you, I would go with an RZ and you can always add a digital back to it later. You are future proofed that way. Any 35mm digital you buy now will be obsolete in a couple of year anyway. I say go with the RZ because I am not sure if the RB accepts digital backs. It may though?

[thom_english]

I would also say RB or even better an RZ. A 6x7 is truly awesome, a 6mp digital is ok for snap shots, but not even in the same league as a 6x7.

 

A thought might be to get a Pentax medium format system because you can mount P67 and P645 lenses on Pentax 35mm bodies and the new *ist Digital body too. So you could get the mf outfit now and add a DSLR that uses the same lenses. This would be much cheaper than any digital back and you can still shoot film too!

 

PS buy used for any medium format gear, as pros are abandoning film like lemmings, get the gear on the cheap!

[andrew_ito]

I think it depends on what you're using it for. Undoubtedly, the RB will give you

higher resolution with a good scan. However, if you're not printing over 11x14

inches or if you are shooting for web use a DSLR might be a better choice. Yes, as far

as overall resolution and exposure latitude the RB will be much better, but I think it's

important to use the right tool for the job. There are some jobs that a DSLR will do

better than the RB.

[ky2]

ROFL.

 

Hola Flavio-- If you want to study photography get an RB67. Period.

[cxc]

Flavio,

 

Beware, I happen to know that Yaron just bought a Bronica and is still trying to justify it! ;-)

 

As a film-only middle-aged amateur, I would advise any young commercial-photo student to go strictly digital immediately. Leave the film for retro-geeks like me.

 

CXC

[fotografz]

Direct answer: NO, a 5 meg prosumer digital can't even come

close to a RB/RZ 6X7 film. They're in entirely different catagories.

 

Look seriously at the RZ verses the RB. As stated the RZ

accepts most digital backs due to the electronic interface. As

newer, higher meg digital backs come on the market, the current

ones will become more affordable. Meanwhile you can do just

fine with using film. A nice scan from an ISO 100 6X7 film still

beats even the mighty Canon 1Ds DSLR set at ISO 100. I can

vouch for that as I use both.

 

Plus you can shoot film or digital with the Mamiya, where it's

digital only with a DSLR (unless you spring for a second film only

body).

[jim_seaman]

Flavio,

 

According to this page:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html#testarea1

 

5mp isn't even up to 35mm resolution... Looks like 6x7 should be capable of over 40mp resolution according to the tests he performed.

 

The rb is a great camera. The rz is probably better but if you are buying used its still quite a bit more expensive. If you get an rb used, I'd lean more towards a pro s or a pro sd (newer). For lenses try to get at least C or if possible a KL (newer) series. The rz is dependant on a battery and offers newer technology (half step shutter speeds) and etc.

 

Good luck,

 

Jim

[gavin martin]

mixed bag of answers here but you can see a common thread running throughout.

 

A medium format tranny will give you much higher res from a drum scan & give a hell of a lot more detail vs a digital SLR.

 

You need to assess what you will be shooting & how large you will need to reproduce the shots. If it's Over 10x8 (roughly A4) then go for medium format. If it's not then DSLR is a serious consideration, especially when you consider the savings on film & printing

 

Gavin

[andrew_ito]

Look guys, I know that an RB will destroy a DSLR based on resolution alone. I'm just

saying that there are different tools for different jobs. There are plenty of wedding

and portrait photographers that use digital slr's in their work. Why? Because

sometimes it's the best tool for the job. Not all the time, but I just thought it would

be good for Flavio to know that there will be occasions where a DSLR might be the

better tool. Obviously, if you're shooting for print media where you need a large file

size a 6MP DSLR won't come close, but there are some situations where a DSLR will

work out better. I shoot medium format film and with a DSLR and I think they both

have their merits. I do agree that the prices for medium format gear make it much

more appealing to get into medium format. Also, the education and experience

gained from shooting with a larger format is valuable. But, he has a point with the

comment about switching to digital. Learning the digital medium might prepare him

for his future better. He will have to learn about all the digital issues at some point. I

just thought it would be good to hear from both sides of the coin instead of from

everyone here on the medium format forum telling him to get the RB or RZ. The best

situation might be to get both.

[vatovec]

The problem with such answers is that you all talk only about resolution which is only a part of the game (a tiny part in my opinion).

I will put it that way:

- if you want to make money go digital (no P&S talking about DSLR here)

- if you care about TONES (yes that`s something nobody talks about) and color detail go MF (i own an RB and it`s wonderful)

 

Even in a 5x7 print i can tell which one is made from MF or 35mm or digital - all are different mediums and deliver much different tonalities.

Nobody talks about the limited color space a digital camera gives (OK, OK, you can`t see more colors on a monitor or even in industrial print), but a slide projected on a wall will give you much more color depth - and even if tomorrow there ia a 50mp camera out, if they don`t solve this color issue slide film will be far better (print film is dead for me, since i do everything i done on print film with my digital camera now - excluding bw film which is also a different story).

And in all the tests the DSLRs gets compared to scanned film which is not equal, let`s compare a picture from a slide projected on a wall and a similar picture from DSLR projected with a video projector on the same wall what will you get?

[jim_seaman]

Andrew,

 

No offence intended. Digital has a lot of advantages depending on the job. Flavio asked: "I would like to know if the quality obtained through a RB67 whith a 90mm lens is better than 5.0 megapixels images..." and in my opinion the answer is: yes. I was not attempting to say that the rb or rz is better in all instances than a digital slr.

 

 

David,

 

Yes, resolution is only one small way of measuring the difference between the two mediums. I do think that film is a much nicer medium regardless of the resolution but that is my opinion only. (I can even tell the difference in a 3"x5" made from medium format and 35mm or 5mp digital. I'm afraid to even try large format!) If the comparison is to be made over the internet we are sort of limited to scanned film (neg or pos)... I think thats why a lot of people do concentrate on megapixels and leave the color warmth out of the equation.

 

Regards,

 

Jim

[dan n.]

I agree with Andrew. This is a situation I try to explain many times to my clients. I even mention it in my agreement/contract. I think the reason they want digital is the fast turn around (don't want to wait for processing and scanning of films) and they want to take the risk. Sometimes I have to redo a job using film because they want it in bigger file size. Just let them know the limitation of a file from a digital camera and it's their choice.

[neil_browne1]

Get Both!!

I use a Hasselblad, and a Canon 10D.

I'm used to shoting everything medium format, but I'm learning when and

where a DSLR may be more appropriate, but it's nice to have both.

Also, after when everone dumps there med. format gear, they will be sorry

when digital backs are more affordable for med. format

[photo5]

In my experience having shot 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, and 4x5in as well as my 3mp Nikon 990

digital camera, the 3 mega pixels that the Nikon 990 delivers doesn't match the resolution

of a 35mm slide or negative. So with that in mind, 5mp won't come close to a 6x7 by a

long long ways. The Fuji S2 Pro can spit out a 35mb 12mp file which will match 35mm in

quality (but you can still scan a 35mm slide up to 100mb and beat that too!). Digital is

nice, but it is not archival as film is (who knows if a CD will be readable in 100 years, but a

negative may still be printable). I'd stick with film for now for your serious work.

 

Cheers,

[robert_reis2]

The Sony DSC-707 and 717 5 megapixel cameras can generate 32 cm by 47 cm prints of high photo quality using Genune Fractals to upsize the digital file to 260 dpi. resolution. Buyers might not want to pay you since they will think you are using a toy.

 

They will never think your RB67 is a toy.

 

Medium format prints will be more beautiful. A scanned 120 film size negative ( I like color print film. ) will be grainless and have better color tones.

 

You will have to learn the same digital software touse a digital camera or a scanned file.

 

Write me if you want some software recommendation. Puedo leer espanol si sera mas facil.

 

Bob Reis

Saudi Arabia

[flaviodomenicucci]

Thanks everybody for the advice.

Flavio

[status_flo]

flavio, i am also a photography student.. and i was just in the same boat as you. we had to buy or rent a medium format (and large format) camera for school.

 

i had been trying to decide if i should buy a cheap, very old, used medium format for school (which many people did).. or go all out.. i ended up buying an RZ. i don't regret it at all. i can crop half my neg and make a print that still blows me away.

 

to me it just seemed like the best investment to make.. and i'm not regretting it yet.

[robert_hurd]

Hi, Flavio,

 

I imagine you have resolved this already, but did you also post your question on the Digital Photography Review forum? www.dpreview.com

 

You may get an interesting set of differing viewpoints on that forum. (I'm going RB, myself, though...)

 

Robt.

[markusglueck]

Holla Flavio!

 

Photography is about seeing, creativity and craftsman-ship.

The camera is only a tool used by the photographer. Buy and use

the tool you are most comfortable with, which suits YOUR working style. Try both and decide then.

[roman_kuznetsov]

Quality from 6X7 film will beat anything you are getting from consumer cameras hands downs. Also the same for 35mm DSLR, still. But there is a "convenience factor". For example, if all that you need is, say, good quality 8x10 prints with very fast turnaround, nothing will beat Canon 10D + Kodak 8500 printer combo. You will get technically perfect prints 5 minutes after the shot. If you need larger prints, DSLR images will quickly run out of steam, while 6x7 original can be easily enlarged to 20 inch and more with significant margin. But the workflow is much more slow and often more painful.