Large Format Displacing Your Old Medium Format?

[Doug Dolde]

I only use 4x5 at this point. My main problem with it is the cost of getting a high quality scan.

I've also tried a Contax 645 system with the older Kodak DCS 16 mp back. I found the files far behind a high quality scanned 4x5 transparency. No surprise there to you or me. The Kodak files had pretty good detail but I felt like I was shooting with Astia. Poor color to my eye anyway; well maybe it was too accurate of color and didn't have the look of film that I like so mich.

But the digital world has come far since the Kodak backs. I know digital is in my future and hopefully not as a supplement but rather a replacement for 4x5 film.

I may try a new Nikon D3 or the Canon 1DsIII soon.

[Richard Raymond]

I am still using my RB system with my 8x10. I find that I shoot a few more frames per photo stop if using the RB. Also, I seem to use a bit more color with the RB than the 8x10. Perhaps it is in fast changing light situations and I still don't trust myself to take just that one best shot with the 8x10. Systems are a digital SLR, RB-SD and 8x10. I have older 35mm film cameras, Nikon F3s and such but they are mostly used by my kids.

[Uri Kolet]

Every car trunk needs a tripod; never sell unused photo equipment; keep buying more photo stuff: it's still a lot cheaper than a boat. You can never have enough expired film

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yeah, but I don't have a car. Maybe I can start leaving my extra tripods in other people's trunks for when I visit.

[Gary Tarbert]

I only use 4x5 at this point. My main problem with it is the cost of getting a high quality scan.

I've also tried a Contax 645 system with the older Kodak DCS 16 mp back. I found the files far behind a high quality scanned 4x5 transparency. No surprise there to you or me. The Kodak files had pretty good detail but I felt like I was shooting with Astia. Poor color to my eye anyway; well maybe it was too accurate of color and didn't have the look of film that I like so mich.

But the digital world has come far since the Kodak backs. I know digital is in my future and hopefully not as a supplement but rather a replacement for 4x5 film.

I may try a new Nikon D3 or the Canon 1DsIII soon.

Those 2 cameras are good , but will not come close too well scanned images from 4x5.
Cheers Gary

[PViapiano]

Nope...all my cameras get used: dSLR, Mamiya RZ and the Ebony 4x5.

Specific purposes for specific cameras, and none of them will replace another. Just doesn't make sense to me...

The only things I'd like to add are a Mamiya 7II and a 35mm shooter. My dad's ancient Praktica (for sentimental reasons and stored in another city since his passing) or a new Bessa would round out my collection nicely.

Also, I'm having too much fun in my new darkroom to spend that much time shooting digital. I want negatives to print!

[Andrew O'Neill]

My photography started in medium format...Mamiya C330. I then moved into an RB67 Pro SD. I switched to LF after about 3 years with the RB67 and never touched it. That was back in 93. All my gear was ripped off out of my house a couple of years ago but has all since been replaced, including the RB67 outfit. A body, 3 lenses (55mm, 127mm, 355), 2 holders, 1 instant film holder, and 1 bellows shade...all sparkling new. Never used. Just sitting there. I love LF too much.
I know "another guy" who has a Hasselblad outfit and it contemplating selling it. He says he'll get next to nothing for it.

[audioexcels]

I shoot the D200 for trivial stuff, but use the F6 (35mm) for shooting stock. I shot a couple of images of the Hawaii Superferry Alakai yesterday with the D200 for my blog (I'll be writing about it over the weekend). The D200 is going to Nikon on Monday for repairs (focusing issues).

I see you like to go wide quite a bit. Some even look like shots with a 65mm or smaller on the 4X5. There's some in there with other focal lengths, but curious, being a landscape shooter (as well as shooting other subjects), take that Oregon photo as an example where you are sitting atop the bluffs and want to take in that angle to get as much of the landscape into the photo, what focal length do you find is necessary on things like this? I'm sure you have been around the N. Cali coast, but trying to get a lot of context into the image on either N. Cali or Oregon bluffs is very difficult (at least for me, even with a 21mm lens on 35mm, I could have wanted smaller focal length).

There's some very nice ones in your site. Good stuff to see. Will follow your Blog for an update with some of the images from the Hawaii Superferry Alakai (what is this event by the way?).

[Doug Dolde]

Those 2 cameras are good , but will not come close too well scanned images from 4x5.
Cheers Gary

Yes but only in terms of resolution. Dynamic range is way better for one thing. Ease of use is another. Then there is always stitching to get the resolution back.

[darr]

Yes but only in terms of resolution. Dynamic range is way better for one thing. Ease of use is another. Then there is always stitching to get the resolution back.

Doug,

Not meaning to hi-jack this thread but I have been thinking about HDR. I have looked at a lot of shots that have been done nicely with HDR techniques (cartoonish color is not what I call nice) and since I have a D200 I will be trying it soon with CS2. I have given thought to a technique where one could shoot multiple 4x5" shots bracketed, and then scan and tone map. Is this just too much work, memory crippling, etc. to think about seriously? Would the results just be closer to stitching from dSLR shots? Thanks in advance.

Darr