I agree that Phase One is the best option right now. The question is going to be what camera body and optics will we be left to shoot with?
You can use just about any of them on the View Cam you already own. IMO this is the best option for the high resolution backs due to the movements.
The Fuji H1 may be the only new system left and that seems iffy too (as well as being an overpriced plastic POS).
Totally agree here but hey, it does have that spiffy built-in pop-up flash!
,
Jack it seems to me though, that the issue with a VC becomes effective focal lenght of your lenses and making them work. The image area is smaller tahn 2 1/4 right? For architecture needing a 90 on 4x5, I would need a what 30mm lens? Where is the lens and how do I make that work on a VC. Also focusing and movements on a projected image smaller than 2 1/4 square would be a nightmare.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
I stand corrected on Hasselblad/Imacon then, and I realize Phase One overall offers the best MF digital back solutions right now. But I doubt Phase can feel very comfortable relying on a bevy of discontinued, increasingly obsolete camera systems (assuming Hasselblad/Imacon eventually goes down) for their corporate survival. If Phase ends up being the last man standing in MF digital, then I still think they need control of some type of camera system to survive against increasingly high resolution Canon and Nikon systems. Yet apparently the Contax system was not good enough (otherwise why would they not have adopted it by now?) and Michael Reichmann (who is close to Phase One) is saying he now believes the Contax system is dead as a doornail. If the Contax wasn't good enough, then I doubt the Mamiya would be either (assuming Mamiya eventually goes down). So who is left? Does Phase buy the rights to the H1/H2 system if Hasselblad goes down? I don't think anyone sees them fabricating a new system from scratch.
If you are a high volume pro who can write off his/her digital back investment in a year or so, none of this matters much. But my point is that if you are a high-end amateur shooter examining MF digital as a replacement to 4x5 ("close enough" resolution to 4x5, far more versatile and convenient), you probably don't want to make such a large investment in a product until its long-term market viability has been demonstrated ("long-term viability" also includes more accessible pricing). I personally am in that boat at the moment.
Perhaps the "best case" scenario for MF digital is that Phase acquires a camera system from somewhere, and joins Canon and Nikon as the primary trio of stable, established DSLR manufacturers. To achieve this, Phase will need a camera system and much lower pricing. The problem is, this is an enormous step up from where Phase stands today. Do they have the capital and savvy to pull this off? Will they fail? Will a larger player buy out Phase instead? It's hard to see MF digital making much headway in the market beyond its tiny niche until such questions are answered.
I'm a 'low volume' amateur (not that many sheets of film shot per year - certainly not enough to show an advantage to buying a $20K+ digital back amortized over even 5 years), and I don't want to spend hours futzing with PCs, Macs, backs, software patches, upgrades & assorted digital knick-knacks.
I like the 5x7 aspect ratio better than 4x5/8x10, and it gives for me an acceptable size for viewing transparencies or contact prints (4x5 is too small for me), and it provides potentially superior technical quality over 4x5 film and any non-scanning digi back now and probably for a least a few years. Tying in affordability for a non-pro, probably for many years.
Plus, viewing the larger 5x7 groundglass is easier and more pleasurable than 4x5 for me. Also, the overall 5x7 kit is much lighter/smaller (esp. due to film holders) than an 8x10 kit. Color film for 5x7 is very limited, but sufficient (Provia 100F, EPY, EPR, 160NC via - some available through Midwest, Badger, ViewCamera, possibly others); and if you want to buy holders for 13x18cm there are other emulsions available but have to get them from Europe). I store a stock of film in the freezer, so even if it's discontined I'll be able to shoot for a few years more (and processing 5x7 is harder to find even now, but via mail order there should still be plenty).
For those 4x5 shooters who don't find the aspect ratio ideal and who want to easily stay ahead of the quality of non-scanning digital backs for the next few years, and/or would find the viewing of 5x7 transparencies or contact prints a desirable end-result (in addition to superior quality for very big enlargements) moving up to 5x7 might be worth considering.
These film vs. digital comparisons always make me laugh. They always end up "proving" that digital is equal or better to film, but their photos prove differently. So which is it?
Mr. Cramer's photos do not prove that the P45 is better than Velvia. Maybe its his scsnning technique, maybe its his Photoshop technique. Who knows. But this article just proves that Velvia resolves better and has better color saturation than the P45 back does.
It's funny how these people claim one thing but have a hard time proving it. He mentions how Velvia has a "slight" edge over the P45, yet his photos show Velvia in the lead by a wide margin.
Jack it seems to me though, that the issue with a VC becomes effective focal lenght of your lenses and making them work. The image area is smaller tahn 2 1/4 right? For architecture needing a 90 on 4x5, I would need a what 30mm lens? Where is the lens and how do I make that work on a VC. Also focusing and movements on a projected image smaller than 2 1/4 square would be a nightmare.
Good points Kirk --
However Rodenstock and Schneider have come to the rescue and now provide a range of digital-specific lenses that are shorter focal lengths with smaller IC's, but also have higher resolution capability to meet the demands of the small pixel-pitches of these high resolution backs. As for wides, you can currently get a 24mm, 28mm and 35mm that will allow movements with these backs (though the 24 is pretty tight). The sensor diagonals are about 60mm, so the 35's coverage is very close to the 90 on 4x5; the 28 about a 70 and the 24 about a 60.
As for focus, if you run the back tethered to a computer you get perfect, digitally-confirmed focus with the software. If running un-tethered, keep in mind you can "zoom" in on the image to 100% view on the rear LCD, and since feedback is essentially instant, you can confirm critical zones are sharp or make the necessary corrections and re-shoot. It's like having built-in polaroid at full print size available at all times!
And a PS here: Once you have manually focused with a loupe, then confirmed that focus with tethered digital focus, you will quickly realize how inadequate our eyes really are
Cheers,
A couple people touched on it but I'd still like somebody to tell me how you focus and employ movements on a slightly less than 6 x 4.5cm square in the middle of your gg. Really ... I want to know.
People keep quoting $ figures as regards the logic of getting into a new top of the line digital back. For some reason everyone is being overly optomistic. That is ... low by about half. If one is a view camera enthusiast right now and does not own a MF camera or a top of the line Mac or PC it seems to me the entry fee would be closer to $50k than the 20 0r 30 I keep hearing. Even if you decide to stay with the view camera you're going to find you need a new one of those most likely and some absurdly high priced digitar lenses. If you want to print your own throw in another several thou as you're going to need the best RIP as well. Can't skimp now can we? Then if you are not a PS guru already it's either going to take you a couple years to get on top of that or a few more thou in the best tutoring to cut the time. As per my question in my opening paragraph I think you'll also find that shooting tethered is still required in this game even though supposedly not. The MF digital fashion shooters I listen to over on RG.com are mostly shooting tethered. I think that's because this is the only way they can actually SEE what they're doing. That's another three grand ... and a giant hassle to boot.
If I really had the digital bug I'd just go 35mm. Sensors are not film. 35mm is no longer 35mm when talking sensors and digital capture and reproduction. I don't think MF digital capture will survive another five years except through discontinued hardware.
These film vs. digital comparisons always make me laugh. They always end up "proving" that digital is equal or better to film, but their photos prove differently. So which is it?
In my case, I happen to agree Dean, and feel scanned 4x5 is still the gold-standard.
However, digital is quickly closing that gap and I suspect that when we see 50MP of direct digital capture, we will have equaled the best scanned 4x5. As Richard pointed out, you could then move to 5x7 or 8x10, but the lenses and media become more restricted. I think the real answer is more on the line of where Frank was going -- how big do you really need to print and at what quality?
If you never print larger than 16x20, you're not going to see much difference between a well-printed 39MP direct digital file, a print from a 4x5 drum-scan, and a traditional wet print. At 40x50, we'll have a different ballgame. So at exactly what mega-pixel count this transition will actually occur is again open to argument, but personally I feel that at 24x30 the differences remain academic. Since 24" is as large as I can print on my printer -- and as large as I really care to print anyway -- then for me, 39MP is going to be adequate.
But, it will not be better than scanned 4x5... Cost and convenience now become other significant parts of this equation, and of course each of us will have to weigh those for ourselves based on how much we shoot, to what end purpose, our budgets, etc...
Cheers,
Matthew,
I can't find the backup files for the Imatest run I made. Here is another fellows tests on a Canon 20D. This has smaller pixel dimensions and considered to have a bit lower DR than the 5D.....and at least one stop lower than 16 bit digital backs. But, as you can see, it easily reaches 9.92 stops. This is more than sufficient as it beats ANY color slide film I use. Even if it matches or doesn't quite match color neg film, as most film users find better color from scanned chromes, I consider it a wash.
My expectation is that smaller, specialized companies like Better Light and maybe Phase One will continue to build small runs of highly priced, high resolution digital backs for legacy medium format cameras and 4x5s. But because the volume will be low, the prices will remain high. On the other hand, companies like Canon and Nikon have pretty much reached the limitations of their current lens designs and performance. Simply to remain competitive, I suspect they will eventually introduce a new digital format that breaks it's ties with 35mm, and allows higher quality lens designs.
There is more margin for them to sell a rack of $2000 "L" or "Pro" lenses than there is to sell another 35mm based body. Look for cheaper bodies and really expensive high end lenses to follow. Nikon especially built its business around selling people lots of lenses -- they need to figure out how to do that again.
Then again, most amateurs are more than happy with crappy plastic $200 18-300mm f/5.6 zooms that distort and CA like crazy, so I am probably full of it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks