Digital SLR or Medium Format for Landscape Photos

[scott_krycia]

Hello,

 

Over the past 2 years I've been shooting landscapes and ruins

with my trusty n90. I'm planing to upgrade, but I'm stuck on the

choice. Basically I'm looking at getting a Nikon D70 or a Mamiya

654E. I'll keep my n90 still. I'm sure this question has been

asked. Can anybody steer me in the right direction? Thanks in

advance.

[NetR]

Let me pose a question back - how big do you enlarge? The 645e will enlarge satisfactorily to a much bigger print size than the D70 will, but that is only worth paying for IF you need it. If you need a digital file from time to time, you can always get a film scanned.

 

Regards, Ross

[shane_reimer]

It has been my inpression that even the 35mm format will give you a better image than any currently available digitals.... how can you even be considering a large format vs digital comparison?

[raymond bradlau]

I had no trouble replacing 35mm with digital, but couldnt give up the MF for

landscape work.....<p>

 

long exposures with super fine grain films<br>

latitude of print film (Shadow and highlight detail!!!)<br>

B&W is still my favorite to work with, digital B&W is very nice but I just cant get the

same look with film (Ilford Pan F 50, Fuji Neopan 100 Acros)<br> <p>

 

Although it is a little tuff to get consistent results from my local labs hopefully you

have access to a quality lab (it will make all the difference)

[raymond bradlau]

I almost forgot, the 1.5x factor make it a little tuff getting wide angle

[scott_krycia]

Thanks for your answers - in response - I rarely print above 8x10.

[Ed_Ingold]

You will like the results of a 6Mp DSLR over 35mm film. They will look sharper (even though the numbers may not agree) and will be virtually grain-free. The large sensor size, and availability of first-rate glass makes all the difference. You find that the DSLR compares favorably to medium format up to 11"x14", and even then has less "grain." The dynamic range is greater than any color film: about 7 stops.

 

Medium format is very satisfying compared to 35mm film. At the same time, everything about medium format is expensive: equipment, film, processing. Even locating a processor can be a problem.

 

A good 120 film scanner will cost 3x that of a comparable 35mm scanner. Slinging 450Mb files around takes some serious computer horsepower. You have to enlarge bigger than 11x14 to appreciate the difference. Flatbed scanners simply don't do 120 film justice. A medium-priced 35mm film scanner gives sharper results.

 

You should try out the 645E before making a committment. The 645 Pro is as easy to use as a 35mm, but the 645E has a number of compromises. The most obvious compromise is the viewfinder. The lack of interchangeable backs is another.

[oskar_ojala]

These are different tools - the D70 is faster, running costs are lower and you'll be more likely to take more pictures. The Mamiya will give higher quality, running costs will be greater, it's slower to use and digitalization of the pictures is more difficult. It's your choice - I like shooting 6x6 and 6x7 very much, but I'd like to try out the D70 too, for different projects. What matters to me might not matter to you. If your typical print size is 8x10", then medium format doesn't give that much of an advantage, at least considering the hassle.

[gary_ferguson1]

It's tempting to analogise the whole film versus digital debate, for example to say noise equals grain, pixel count equals resolution, and simple measures of latitude are common to both.

 

After three years of working with digital (first with a Nikon D1x and now with a full frame Canon 1Ds) I'm convinced it's more complex than that. Film and digital are just different and you either like the look or you don't. Here's some reasons why.

 

At the very edge of resolution film gives up the ghost quietly and with dignity, digital doesn't! When I shoot portraits there's a built in resolution test, are the eyelashes distinctly rendered? With film there's often no clear answer in the print, but the effect isn't displeasing. When digital's on the edge there's frequently bizzare results such as one eyelash that's crisply drawn while its companions are indistinct! If the subject is within digital's resolution limits then I tend to prefer digital's sharp and precise look, if it wanders back and forth over the resolution boundary then I prefer film's more natural portrayal.

 

With slow black and white film I personally don't find film grain intrusive, to my eye it gives texture to the print. With colour negative stock and even some transparency materials the grain is less attractive, like looking into a bait tin full of maggots! At low speeds digital is virtually noiseless, but plain tonal expanses (such as you might find with blue skies or modern buildings) can look a little bland and sometimes even posterized. Conversely high noise levels look horrible, with disconcerting splashes of magenta poppingout of the shadows. However, digital has a very useful middle range, round about ISO 200-400, where I find it brings real advantages over filma. Again, it's a personal choice based on the final "look" of the print.

 

In respect of latitude it's convenient to talk about digital having five to six stops, roughly the same as transparencies. It's probably accurate, but it misses the way that when digital crashes into the highlights there's no air bag to buffer the shock! For contrasty subjects I still prefer film.

 

Going back to your original question for me it would be a simple decision, despite having a lot of money invested in digital, and being a proponent of digital for many applications, I'd still choose a 645 film outfit for landscape over a 6MP DSLR. To my eye it would just look better.

[ed_whitney1]

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but I've been contemplating this same question for some time now. I'd like to thank Gary for his very informative and well thought out answer. I think he's convinced me to keep my digital stuff and (considering the great bargains in MF equipment these days) start building a small MF system to use for certain occasions.

[rick_helmke]

Scott, based on my experience, for what you are considering I would not waste time and money on a 645. Don't me get wrong, it is a great format with a lot of versatility but an RB 67 or something from that family would be better for the work you describe. Prices are dropping on nearly all things film based. Having said that, I'd buy the digital first and as finances allow get the MF camera. If you are going no larger than 8x10 or 11x14 the digital will have you covered nicely. Scanning larger than 35mm is a pain and an expensive one. Making silver based prints from the larger negs is a beautiful as it ever was. Anyway, that's my suggestion, I'm sure you'll get it worked out.

 

Rick H.

[._._z]

If you don't print larger than 8x10", then digital could be the way to go. Decide which

system you want to fo with then buy from a reputable store that has a 14-day return policy.

Try it out -- extensively. You'll be able to get immediate feedback and print immediately.

Decide for yourself.

[scott_eaton]

I have a suggestions to make these type of digital vs film threads more readable. How about we impose an informal photo.net rule that puts a disclaimer by anybody's name that claims to know a lot about the quality of digital, but has never in their life used a 6mp digital SLR??

 

Own both a Canon 10D and Mamiya RB, and can't quite decide what systems wins in terms of landscape work. The 10D wins on ease of use and perfectly clean 8x10's and the RB wins when it comes to using more dramatic classic B/W films or color slide. In any case with the film route you *must* do your own scanning to get optimum results. If you aren't planning on doing your own film scans, go digital.

 

If I were exclusively shooting landscape and 'artsy' stuff I'd probably look at a Fuji 6x7 rangefinder or even 4x5 field camera and certainly not waste time with 645 format.

[d_g]

i must confess that i just don't like 4,5x6, because i find it too expensive in term of film...cameras are much bigger than 135, and the gain of quality vs a leica m is not that great. I ve an hasselblad that i use only in 6x6, when i want to make a rectangle shot, i use 6x7 or 4x5.

Considering a digital slr for landscape for small prints, is a good idea, but you have to consider prime lens as well, i will go with canon for their PC lens (24 and 45). Considering the factor of the sensor, the 24 will be a 24, 30, 34 lens with shift capabilities !

[matt_moorlag]

Scott,

Medium format will give you significantly more fine detail than a 6mp dslr. I use a S2 pro for everything up to 18x12 and it works great but it can't compete with my 645E for landscapes. It just doesn't have the resolution to render fine detail like Medium format has. If you only do landscapes, then MF is the way to go. I would look further than the 645e if it will be your main system. Its pretty basic. The 645AF will keep you happy longer and accepts digital backs so you can have the best of both worlds.

Matt.

[robert_eaves2]

If you're really serious about taking breathtaking (sellable) landscapes, the only way to go is a 4x5 or 8x10 field (view) camera. Not only can you take sharper images than digital or medium format, you also have total perspective control with the movements of a large format camera. Don't get me wrong, digital and medium format cameras have there place in my arsenal (I own both), but for landscapes that I might want to enlarge to 40x30, my 4x5 is what I grab.

[._._z]

<i> If you're really serious about taking breathtaking (sellable) landscapes, the only way to

go is a 4x5 or 8x10 field (view) camera. </i><p>

 

I've seen landscapes from the EOS 1Ds that approach LF in quality in large sizes. One

photographer, John Brownlow ( pinkheadedbug.com ) dumped one or two LF cameras after

getting his Canon.

[marc p.]

A little comment - maybe OT - on the previous post by �[�Z:

 

You may be willing to drop a 40 year old Graflex for a modern digital camera, but if you compare apples to apples (modern camera to modern camera) I think there is no contest. I shot LF for a few years (Arca Swiss with APO Schneider / Rodenstock / Fujinon) and nothing I've seen from a 1Ds comes close to it for large prints; not when you know how to use the LF.

 

More to the point of your question, I think it is important not to forget that the camera is just part of a bigger process, and many a beautiful picture, whatever the medium, was ruined by poor processing. I would personally go for the medium format system, especially if you take B&W pictures, although I would probably upgrade to 6x7 (RB/RZ). IMHO, when printed properly, the quality is just better.

[harry_pluta3]

I feel this is a thread I can weigh in on. Over the last 7 years I have gone from using an older 4x5 Sinar, to a used Pentax 645, to a new Mamiya RZ67, to my trusty F5, and am now looking to finally go to either a D100 or a D70. Here are my observations.

 

The Sinar - Pros: prints from 4x5 negatives look good even when scanned on a flat bed scanner. Ability to shift and tilt both front and rear standards allow pinpoint accuracy of plain of focus, you must work very slowly and carefully. Cons: Large and bulky ( although it did all fit in a backpack, requires a seperate light meter, lens cost is very high, film cost and processing is very high, you must work very slowly and carefully.

 

The Pentax 645 - Pros: Nice amount of automation, reasonable lens prices (used), decent size in a backpack. Cons: Not much difference in negative size between 6.45 and 35mm, scanner cost very high, weight, no shifts or tilts.

 

Mamiya RZ67 - Pros: Very large negatives compared to 35mm, amazing lenses, excellent automation. Cons: Cost, size, weight, shifts and tilts limited to special adapter, cost of scanner. Requires either a special prism or a handheld light meter.

 

Nikon F5 - Pros: Lots of lenses available, remarkable exposure control, auto-focus, mirror lock-up, decent scanners at reasonable prices, lots of film to choose from. Cons: Price, weight, still film based; lots of issues with grain, artifacts, and dust when scanning

 

D100 / D70 - TBD but I think the main pro is no longer having that intermediate step of scanning, I can use my existing Nikon lenses, I can carry a spare film body if needed, uses same basic exposure CPU as my F5, auto-focus, I can dump straight to my computer. Cons: TBD no mirror lock-up!, still bigger then I would like, but much smaller then the F5.

 

These are just my observations as a hobbiest. The truth is a camera that you will take everywhere you go will serve you much better then one which sits at home because it is too much of a hassle to carry with.

 

Best regards,-harry