tom wallace

<p>I'm not sure there is a good solution to your problem -- in general, cheap, good optics, and very reliable are not easy to find simultaneously. However, I have experience with some of the cameras mentioned in similar conditions:</p>

<p>Mamiya 7 II - I have used mine in conditions down to -30 Celsius (and up to +45), and had no problems. Be aware that this camera has an electronically controlled shutter, and if the batteries die, the camera is useless. When I did my work, I would spend no more that a few hours in the cold, and then return to a reasonably warm (0-10 C) vehicle; I also had many spare batteries. Mamiya made an external battery holder that allows the battery to be kept inside your clothing where it will stay warm while powering the camera; if you choose this camera, and intend to use it for prolonged periods in the cold, I would consider finding one of these. The wide angle lenses for the 7 series, which are the real gems that make this camera worth having, have large exposed glass surfaces that are difficult to keep clean in rain or dust. The camera and lenses are not, by any reasonable definition, cheap, even if you buy them used. Their resale value is quite good, so it might be that you could buy what you need and sell it when you're done.</p>

<p>Fuji GA645 and GA645W - I have both of these, they are inexpensive and the optics are stellar. They are also electronically controled autofocus cameras that are completely dependent on batteries, and if there is an external battery holder available, I am not aware of it. However, you could buy 3 of each of these and enough batteries to last the rest of your life for the price of a Mamiya 7 and two lenses. The cameras are giant point-and-shoots with a sliding cover that protects the lens, and are much easier to use in bad weather than the Mamiya 7. It is true that 645 has less ability to enlarge than 6x7, but with a fine grained film like Provia I have not been unhappy with the 645's output up to perhaps 40 x 60 cm, and have gone larger depending on the subject matter.</p>

<p>Other options - I would also consider a mechanical 645 (like the older Mamiyas) or 6x6 (like the Hasselblad); they do not have the battery dependence issues of the 7 II or the GA645, they are relatively cheap, and they are not so large as to be a burden to carry. The ability to use a film magazine for rapid loading is worth considering -- if you've ever tried to load a camera like the Mamiya 7, or even the almost automatic loading GA645, in the wind, rain, or dust, you'll appreciate the ability to simply switch magazines. A modern weather sealed digital like the Canon 1Ds Mk III, or the less durable but cheaper 7D, could also be an option. If I were in a must-get-the-shot situation in really harsh conditions, I'd think about a weather sealed digital with a single zoom lens simply because the camera never needs to be opened and because CF cards are much easier to change and protect than rolls of 120 or 220 film.</p>

There are not a lot of comparisons of the sort you're looking for; I don't recall seeing any tests that specifically compared B&W performance. The most thorough comparison (in terms of number of cameras tested) that I recall is the Luminous Landscape "Measuring Megabytes" test (Canon 5D, 1Ds, 1DsII, 3 Phase 1 backs from 22-39 MP, and a 6k Betterlight scanning back, along with 645 and 4x5 film):

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml

 

You can take a look at these images and see what you think. When I look, I see what my own testing has also shown: a 12 MP DSLR is in between 35 and 645 in terms of resolution and perhaps equal to 645 in perceived image quality when both are shot at ISO 100-200. (At ISO 1600, the DSLR is hugely superior to 645, but that's irrelevant for landscapes.)

 

My experience with a Canon 5D, 645, and 6x7 doing B&W and color landscapes leads me to grab the 6x7 when I want to make a print larger than 16x20. It's to some extent a judgment call, since the 5D produces essentially noise-free images at ISO 100-200; I still find that the higher resolution of 6x7 is much more important than the difference between the slight grain of ISO 100 film and the undetectable digital noise of the 5D at the same ISO.

I have both, and I use a workflow similar to yours (scan on a Nikon 8000 for the M7, output both to Epsons and Lightjets). I believe that at the relatively small sizes you're considering, the 5D will produce images quite close to the M7 in quality. You may even like the fact that the 5D at ISO 100 produces images with even less noise (i.e. grain) than Velvia.

 

At larger sizes, however, you'll see the 6x7 has a significant resolution advantage. If you were to do a 80x100 cm print, you'd find the M7 noticeably better.

Updating CS2 (which you did) doesn't update ACR. You need to download the Camera Raw 3.4 update, unzip it to get the updated filter "Camera Raw.8bi", and move that filter into the right folder for CS 2 to find it. On my system, that's "C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop CS2\Plug-Ins\File Formats".

I have used both the Mamiya 7 and the Fuji GA645 extensively as travel cameras. Both have excellent optics and are very good choices for this purpose. Here's a summary of pros and cons:

 

Mamiya 7:

Pro: excellent lenses, extremely quiet leaf shutter and manual advance, can carry extra lenses for more versatility if needed.

Con: lose it, get it stolen, drop it off a cliff? $1700 to replace it with a decent used one, or $2300 for new.

 

Fuji GA645 (I have both the 60mm and 45mm fixed lens models):

Pro: looks unobtrusive like a point and shoot, excellent lens, autofocus (if you like autofocus), smaller and easier to pack than the Mamiya, 1.5x as many shots per roll, good used ones are $500.

Con: autofocus is accurate but slow and somewhat noisy, as is auto film advance, 645 is slightly lower quality that 6x7 even with the excellent lens.

 

I like them both and take the one that fits my needs on each trip. I've also been thinking about a Fuji GS645 to avoid the autofocus and noise issues, but I don't have actual experience with one yet.

I think the best answer to the film vs. digital question is -- it depends on a lot of factors, including how you balance the tradeoff between grain and resolution.

 

I shoot regularly with a 5D, 645, and 6x7, and I would call the resolution of the 5D somewhat better than 35mm, but worse than 645, and certainly no match for 6x7. This is assuming that a slow, high resolution film is used in the film cameras (I usually use Provia), and that the film is scanned on a decent scanner (I use a Nikon 8000).

 

I have done 24 x 30 prints from 645 that my 5D can't match for resolution -- to me, 645 starts showing a resolution advantage over the 5D above 11 x 14. That's to some extent a judgement call, but I don't think anyone who claims the resolution (in line pairs resolvable across the width of a picture) of a 5D (or a D200, D2x, or 1Ds) is equal to a 645 or 6x7 with Provia is credible. It's not even close, and the difference is obvious once you get to a large enough print.

 

On the other hand, the "grain" (noise) in a digital camera image is almost always less than the grain you see in scanned film at the same ISO rating (I'm talking about good APS or FF sensors here, not tiny digicams). The digital noise advantage gets bigger at higher ISOs: the 5D is somewhat better for grain/noise at 100 ISO than 35mm Provia, but it's a lot better at ISO 400 than any 400 speed 35mm film, and when you go to ISO 800 or 1600 the difference is so large that I actually prefer the 5D to 645, even though the 5D has lower resolution, because it's so much cleaner.

 

Bottom line, when you compare pictures of a given size with digital and film, you're balancing resolution against grain or noise. People who are bothered more by low resolution tend to prefer film, and people who are bothered more by grain/noise tend to prefer digital. Although I think the resolution and noise differences are inarguable, figuring out how to balance the two is not -- it's a matter of taste, subject matter, and print size, and the fact that the comparison changes with ISO further complicates the issue.

 

If you're near a large city, you can probably rent both a 5D (or a 1Ds) and a 6x7 and do the comparison for yourself. There are other differences as well -- the 5D will handle much like your 10D; there's no 645 or 6x7 that will do that.

 

If you have the opportunity (renting, or begging/borrowing if you can't rent), I'd strongly recommend comparing the 5D with 6x7 yourself. It will let you make your own judgement on the resolution/noise tradeoff and all the other factors, which is much more reliable than taking advice from know-it-alls like me on the internet.

I use both on a 5D, and I find them similar in performance. Both are just OK wide open (a bit soft in the corners), and improve noticeably when closed down a couple of stops. In the middle apertures, I'd call both the 24 f/2.8 and the 35 f/2.0 very good performers.

Type 55 is probably the easiest way to get started in 4x5 black and white; it's somewhat contrasty, but it's a beautiful fine-grained film. If you have a cheap 4x5 (like a Speed Graphic) on a tripod, a used Polaroid film holder, a bathroom sink, and a couple of clothespins to hang the negative while it dries, you can get beautiful 4x5 negatives. These you can either print conventionally on an enlarger, or scan with an inexpensive flatbed scanner.

 

Type 55 is really Polaroid film -- you shoot it, pull it out of the special Polaroid holder, let it sit for a while, and peel it apart. The developed print and negative are there. The negative is perforated, so you can tear it away from the rest of the paper package (sometimes this is a little messy because the leftover developer gunk is still on the negative). The negative only needs dunking in a clearing solution (some people just use water) and washing, which can all be done in the light.

 

That interresting 'frame' is the result of the paper packaging that holds the print and the negative together. You won't see it on the print, because the print has a white border, but it will show if you scan the negative or print it conventionally with an enlarger.

 

As others have said, the print and the negative require different exposures; I usually shoot the negative at ISO 25; I may shoot a print at 50 to check exposure and composition, and then shoot another at twice the exposure to get a good negative.

 

If you're interested in trying this, here's what you need:

 

1. Any working 4x5 camera with a lens and shutter (a working Speed Graphic is usually $200-$400).

2. A tripod (you're shooting at ISO 25, so no hand holding).

3. A Polaroid holder for Type 55 film (about $200 new, but you can find used ones for $50 pretty easily).

4. A tray to clear the negatives in and a way to hang them to dry,

5. Access to either a B/W darkroom with a 4x5 enlarger, or a computer with a flatbed scanner, to make prints.

 

This is a great way to get started with large format; if you can borrow a darkroom or already have a computer and scanner, the rest of what you need costs less than a digital SLR body.

A Pentax 67 is quite easy for me to use hand held, and I have small hands. Since the Pentax has been in production for decades, used bodies and lenses are readily available at reasonable prices. I believe that the Pentax is the lightest 6x7 SLR available, followed by the Bronica GS-1; the RB is *much* heavier than either.

 

If you live near a large city, it's likely there's a camera store where you can rent an RB and a Pentax for a few days. I did this with the Pentax and the Mamiya 7 before deciding which one to buy. (I chose the Mamiya, but the Pentax was not far behind.) You'll also feel better about what you buy having tried it yourself.

Hmm. Lex, since Gone With the Wind won an Academy Award for best *color* cinematography when it came out in 1939, one would expect it was actually shot in color. In fact, I believe both Gone With the Wind and The Wizard of Oz were originally shot in three-strip Technicolor, which exposed three separate B&W reels simultaneously through filters.

Well, there are big differences between these two choices: film size, setup convenience, and movements. It sounds like you're thinking about the choice in terms of resolution only, and I think that's missing the point. If you don't often go bigger than 20x24, the resolution differences due to film size and/or lens sharpness will be minor. (The yowling sound you just heard is the vocal minority that disagrees.)

 

If you do mostly architectural or landscape photography, you'll probably want the movements (even if you think you can live without them now); if you want something that doesn't necessarily need a tripod, has a built-in meter, and can be out of the bag and shooting in 10 seconds, you'll want the Mamiya.

 

The ability to shoot fast and leave the tripod at home was what convinced me to go with the Mamiya, but I grew up on 35mm, and my shooting style reflects that. There are still times when I wish I had at least some front movements (rise and tilt), but the Mamiya does 90% of what I need.

 

The question you've asked is something like, "Since a Volvo station wagon and a F350 pickup truck both have similar top speeds, is there any reason to get the pickup?" Well, there are good reasons to get either one that have nothing to do with top speed, and if you don't consider those reasons carefully, you might not get what you really need.