roger___3

I shot with a Pentax 645 as my main camera for years. I print to 16X22 a fair amount and a few larger. A couple of years ago I went to the Canon 5D. I think the print detail from the two formats is about the same. For a 1.7 meter print the 645 probably will loose some detail (as would the 5D). However, I've sold prints this large and had satisfied customers. There are a lot of uprezing, sharpening, and noise reduction software tools out there to help. But I don't think you can quite equal a larger format for prints this large.

 

I've not used the Mark III, but would think it would compare to the 6X7 format. These will probably get you closer to optimum detail. For fine art prints this large with the finest of detail, 4X5 really is probably the best. But this is a whole different beast for shooting style and ease of use. Upto the 6x7 format there are digital euqals. IMHO they are so much more convenient (man am I over scanning) and have added advantages of DOF that it's a no brainer, unless you're on a strict budget. A thought I would have is to rent or borrow a Mark III (or a film format), take a few photos and enlarge them to your desired print size and see how you like it.

Yes, I asked the same question down just a little bit, if you want to check out a few more details. I downloaded the DNG converter and it works fine.

That's very helpful. Thanks alot!

I am just starting out with my G9 and am wondering if it's possible to use ACR

and bridge to convert RAW files in CS2? The most recent update for CS2 doesn't

support the G9 and appearently the DNG converter update that Adobe has listed

as supporting the G9 is not compatable with CS2 - only CS3? The Canon software

that came with the camera is very basic and I'd much prefer to use CS2. Sorry

if my computer skills are a little elementary, but would appreciate any help.

I'd suggest you check out the web site for Denver Digital Imaging Center (used to be The Slideprinter). They are my second choice when I don't want the expense of WCI, though WCI quality is hard to beat. I'm guessing a high quality scan and 16X"let fall" print might run you $50 to $60. They are pretty helpful over the phone, as their pricing takes a while to figure out from the web site.

Resolution of larger prints is often a question of what is acceptable in the eyes of the photographer, with a tad of photoshop expertise thrown in. I've shot film in both 35mm, 645 and 4X5 formats as comparison. The 5D makes a very nice print at 16X22, but at that size it's starting to loose just a little resolution. It's comparable to a good scan from 645. At that size and anything larger, 6X7 or 4X5 will have noticably more detail, though the 5D enlargement may be acceptable to the viewer or photographer.

Thanks you Yakim for your kind and thoughtful suggestions, though I'm not really sure why I should buy a 50mm lens when that range is covered by my zoom? One of my more favorite outdoor photographers, Tony Kuyper, sells fine art prints and uses the Tammy 24-135mm. You might want to check out his web site and wonderful work.

Yakim, My timely purchase of the 5D was due to the $300 rebate Canon offered and also that I've saving a couple of pounds hiking weight over my Pentax 645. I can build a kit with time. As you probably know, there are 3rd party lenses rated optically equal or better than some of the L series lenses.

Thanks for the advice. The links were very helpful and the Tam 24-135m really didn't get that great of reviews for use on the 5d. I'll hunt around for some of the other options mentioned.

I've been using my 5D for several months now with the Tamron 28-75mm lens.

Inspite of it's slightly cheap construction, it's really a pretty nice lens and

very sharp. I'd really like to have a bit wider and longer perspective and it

won't be anytime soon that I can afford the nice Canon 24-105. Any perspectives

or experience with the Tamron 24-135 for sharpness and performance? It is

listed in the B+H online catalog as a film camera lens, where the 28-75 is

listed as a digital cameral lens? I'm not sure of the distinction here and have

seen some forum postings with the Tamron 24-135/5D combo. So anyway I'm thinking

on replacing my 28-75 with the 24-135 Tamron. Lens speed is probably not an

issue. Any advice or experiences appreciated!

Kieth, yes the 5D will hopefully replace my 645, though I'm hanging onto it for a while yet until I've gotten a good feel for image quality. I've weighed the two and it looks like I'll be saving about 3.5 pounds, which will be good for my creaking old knees and hiking. And no more scanning. We'll see how it goes.

Thanks for all of the help! I think I have a couple of alternatives to work with, now. My current cameras are an older P645 and a 4X5, so I have embarassingly little experience with EOS and/or typical SLR mirror lock up features (not to mention other modern features). I've lost track of how many inexpensive cable releases I've mistakenly left somewhere remote, but probably should pickup one of the knock-off releases. I didn't know they were availible.

 

Puppyface, I've been studying and saving for a good DSLR camera and lenses for a very long time. I know another $50 may seem trivial, but I have to say that the bills on my little money tree are thinning out. I'm going to have to sell off a few of my older camera items before I'm back on top of things.

I still reviewing the features of my new 5D. After many years using a cable

release, I'm a little baffled on it's equivalent in the 5D. I shoot mostly

landscapes on a tripod often at slow shutter speeds. The obvious replacement

for the cable release appears to be the self timer plus mirror lock up. The

manual indicates that for this combination you should take off the viewfinder

eye piece and replace it with the cheesey piece of plastic on the neck strap to

block out the light that might inter through the eye piece and view finder.

This seems like a bit of a pain. How important is this step? Is there a better

way to simulate cable release and also get mirror lockup? THanks for any help!

My new 5D arrived recently and is the first "modern" camera I've owned. My

previous cameras have been mostly manual and mostly primes and I have no

experience using autofocus. I shoot mostly landscapes and frequently do the

"near/far" shot using a wider angle lens stopped down and wanting the very near

foreground and the background all in focus. Can autofocus accomplish this or is

it a situation where I would want to switch the lens to manual?

The most recent prices on the 5D are finally feeling slightly

comfortable on my wallet, but I'm less sure about the cost of adding

in a nice L series canon lens. I do mostly landscapes and really

don't need a fast lens or IS, and would like to keep hiking weight

down by using only one or two lenses. For focal length, something

like the Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f3.5/5.6 would probably cover 95% of my

needs and seems to have a macro feature, which would be nice. I've

read a few mixed reviews of this lens, though. Bob Atkins seems to

like the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 a lot. It's zoom range is slightly more

limiting. Of these two lenses or any others, would you have some

suggestions to help me along?

My first serious camera was a used mint condition Nikon F3 that I was delighted to aquire in the pre-digital days for $500. At that time it was still selling new for $1600 but had been superceded by autofocus and advanced metering in the F4 and F5. Of course none of these changes had anything to do with advances in resolution. I don't know what the next technology will be, but it will happen. My thought is that the megapixel race is close to flattening, but there will be something else come along to make all of the current digitals seem outdated. Judging from decades of camera pricing, what ever a person picks will probably not be worth a whole lot by the time it wears out.

I love my Pentax 645 for all of the above reasons. Plus, you can get basically two zoom lenses and have nearly all of the commonly desired focal lengths covered.

I don't know much about Qimage, but asked a similar question on another photo forum. I wasa directed to this helpful web link, where the author says that for upto 200% upresing, there was not a big difference in the different methods. I've been playing with the bicubic smoother method which seems the easiest. I don't know if this feature is availible in Elements or just the full version of photoshop. http://ronbigelow.com/articles/interpolation/interpolation.htm

I admit that I've been shopping for a new digital to replace my Pentax 645. But sometimes it seems a little crazy and I have to wonder about the whole state of things. My Pentax set up is maybe worth $1000 on the used market. I scan for the web or smaller photos on my Epson 2450 which has probably devalued to less than $100. The ten or less photos I get each year that are worthy of a fine print can be scanned for maybe $10 each on a Nikon 9000. As a hobbiest, serious amateur or much else besides a professional, the several thousand dollar replacement that will be worth a few hundred bucks in two or three years just doesn't add up. Somethimes it all doesn't add up.

Fred, If current trends are any sign of MF digital back prices, I'm guessing it will be several years before they come into my price range.

Howard, thanks for taking the time to explain some of these things. It was helpful to me!

I've asked a similar question a few threads down. You might be interested in the responses. I think at least part of the problem is a point of reference. There are those who claim very large and acceptable print sizes from smaller formats (or megapixels). Which may indeed be the case. But if sharpness and resolution are indeed your criteria it is very helpful to have a comparison to a "gold standard". A print with optimum resolution from a larger format (or megapixels). I somewhat trust the studies various folks around the web have done, which say that the 5D should come close to 645 but probably not 6X7. The Luminous Landscape sight provides some pretty convincing evidence of this. But much of this is academic and I really think the best judge is a side-by-side comparison of a few or several prints, especially those with fine detail such as a landscape with forground grasses and leaves. I'm not much of a technical guy, but am actually wondering about the same thing. Not much help, but a few thoughts. I'm not to the point of selling gear I've collected for several years and dropping a few thousand for something I'm not sure about yet, but am sure thinking hard about it.

 

Incidentally, I somewhat agree with one of the comments in my thread that a flatbed scan of 645 is not much better than a dedicated film scan of 35mm. Once I pick a few of my best efforts, which is usually less than 5 or 10 a year, I send them off for a Nikon 9000 or occational drum scan. If a big issue is that you hate scanning, this is a cheaper option than a new camera.

I'm not a digital user yet, but am doing some research. I though this article called the megapixel myth was interesting. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

I hope not to start a long winded digital/ film debate, but am

considering cutting loose with a couple or few thousand dollars of my

hard earned money and want to make sure of things. I have been a fan

of matching camera to intended output. I shoot 645 and some LF

landscapes and manage to sell enough prints at 11X14 and 16X20 to cut

down my photo expenses and this also gives me some pleasure in knowing

others will have my photos to enjoy. I'm considering replacing my 645

with one of the 10+ mp DSLR options. I would mostly like to ask if

there are folks who have shot 645 or maybe 6X7 and then switched to

digital with as good as or better print results. (I get high quality

scans of my 645).

 

I've muddled through all of the Luminous Landscape comparisons

favoring or equaling digital in these respects, but also other

articles to the contrary. Much of the information seems slightly

academic. I?m hoping to add some personal observations to help my

decision. I do not shoot enough film to justify the purchase, but the

advantages of weight ( I hike many miles), improved DOF, better

latitude in high contrast light, and possible savings stream lining

post processing are attractive. But if I do not meet my output

objectives for decent resolution in prints, I?m sticking with film and

saving the expense.

 

Thanks for any help on this!

I'm seriously considering entry into the digital world with little

experience with digital or Canon equipment. The 5D has my wallet

spinning and with further consideration a used 1DS with the weather

sealing might also be a thought. I'm one of those folks who mediates

on large expenses for some time before jumping in, and the obvious

choice of the new 24-105mm lens in addition to the camera and computer

upgrades is going to be a reach.

 

I do mostly tripod mounted landscapes and the concerns I've read about

CA and importance of a high quality lens for FF digital have me

wondering how to balance economy and performance. My shooting range

would mostly be 24mm to maybe 85mm or a bit longer and the convenience

of zooms would be nice, though primes are not out of my consideration.

I don't really see the need for lenses faster than f4 and am yet

convinced of needing IS.

 

Are there some lenses out there, either new or used Canon and/or 3rd

party that I might do further research on performance and price?

I'm still thinking of the new 24-105mm as having some nice

qualities, but in addition to being a bit pricey the early reviews

indicate some softness in the corners in the wider ranges, which is

where many of my perspective would lie.