Chucking it and going to DSLR?

**rdenney** · 2-Jul-2010, 13:54

Originally Posted by dh003i

I just use the effective f-stop = sqrt(375D) rule of thumb, where D is the focus-spread of furthest and nearest points in focus. This works fine so-long as you are in diffraction-limited territory or nearly-so. (and I've done a calculations that account for the actual sharpness of some of my LF lenses at f-stops where they won't be diffraction-limited, like f/11 or f/16...despite that, it doesn't really make any difference for what f-stop you should use for optimum sharpness).

For full-frame/35mm lenses, that rule might not work as well, because they're not as close to being diffraction limited. But also for lenses with DSLRs, it is unnecessary as you can just take a couple of shots and see what works best.

My point was that depth of field is a gross effect, while diffraction is a fine effect. Yes, they do meet in the boundary condition. But one optimizing for diffraction might well create far more fuzziness than they can tolerate because of lack of depth of field.

Rick "whose subjects are rarely flat" Denney

**dh003i** · 2-Jul-2010, 15:04

Originally Posted by rdenney

My point was that depth of field is a gross effect, while diffraction is a fine effect. Yes, they do meet in the boundary condition. But one optimizing for diffraction might well create far more fuzziness than they can tolerate because of lack of depth of field.

Rick "whose subjects are rarely flat" Denney

Oh yea, I agree completely with that. That's why I use the method I referred to above. Even after movements and whatnot, I usually end up around f/32 or f/22, but sometimes approaching f/64.

**Richard M. Coda** · 2-Jul-2010, 18:58

I have been photographing with LF since 1981. I just turned 50, so that's almost two-thirds of my life. Started with 4x5, moved to 8x10 a few years later, and most recently to 11x14. I have also owned a Fuji S2 and now own a Nikon D300. I have to tell you... all that stuff about a DSLR being as good as LF is just bunk. Mostly older guys who find LF inconvenient. There is no way (laws of Physics apply) that a DSLR can match the resolution of LF film. Comes close with 4x5, but anything larger is just not possible. My 11x14 has 100 times the resolution of a D300... and movements!

I will ALWAYS use LF. Know what I use my D300 for? Mostly snapshots and scrapbooking for my wife. Occasionally, some product shots for my graphic design business.

**paulr** · 2-Jul-2010, 19:37

I'm not ready to scrap my 4x5 ... but truly, the only reason I don't have a dslr is expense. The good ones cost more than I've ever paid for a camera. Luckily I don't gravitate toward having a whole arsenal of lenses.

i wish these debates didn't have to become so dogmatic. The whole "another one bites the dust" angle is so silly. It's not like your army has gotten weakened by a defection. Someone's just decided they want to use a different kind of camera than you. Power to them!

As far as which is better, the questions are the same as always when comparing gear. Better for what? A camera with a tiny digital sensor is probably not going to be as good as an 8x10 at producing results that look like an 8x10 camera's. But who says that this is everyone's goal? There are things the dslr will do better, just as there are things a 4x5, a hasselblad, and a minox have always done better.

**Brian Ellis** · 2-Jul-2010, 23:59

Originally Posted by Richard M. Coda

I have been photographing with LF since 1981. I just turned 50, so that's almost two-thirds of my life. Started with 4x5, moved to 8x10 a few years later, and most recently to 11x14. I have also owned a Fuji S2 and now own a Nikon D300. I have to tell you... all that stuff about a DSLR being as good as LF is just bunk. Mostly older guys who find LF inconvenient. There is no way (laws of Physics apply) that a DSLR can match the resolution of LF film. Comes close with 4x5, but anything larger is just not possible. My 11x14 has 100 times the resolution of a D300... and movements!

I will ALWAYS use LF. Know what I use my D300 for? Mostly snapshots and scrapbooking for my wife. Occasionally, some product shots for my graphic design business.

Not everyone judges a photograph by its resolution or how it conforms to the laws of physics. As Ansel Adams said, there's nothing worse than a sharp photograph of a fuzzy idea (or something along those lines).

**AJ Edmondson** · 3-Jul-2010, 07:53

I moved away from 8x10 about a year ago but I still use 4x5 and, now, a Sony A850 DSLR (about three months) - full-frame, 24M. The DSLR is great for some outings though I still have difficulty considering anything "hand-held" as serious. Truth is I also still have difficulty seeing in color (though obviously digital will do B&W also). It's great to have the option of digital but I don't think I am ready to drop LF for digital alone! Quality of the full-frame, RAW images on the Epson 3880 have not disappointed me in any way but... it isn't silver... and I suppose 50+ years of "silver" does predispose me even if I can't find anything to gripe about!

**paulr** · 3-Jul-2010, 12:40

Originally Posted by Brian Ellis

Not everyone judges a photograph by its resolution ...

And some work will actually be worse if too sharp, grainless, pretty, or polished. I can think of a number of artists whose visions are well served by the grit and grain of 50s and 60s era 35mm film.

**JeffKohn** · 3-Jul-2010, 14:01

Originally Posted by Richard M. Coda

I have been photographing with LF since 1981. I just turned 50, so that's almost two-thirds of my life. Started with 4x5, moved to 8x10 a few years later, and most recently to 11x14. I have also owned a Fuji S2 and now own a Nikon D300. I have to tell you... all that stuff about a DSLR being as good as LF is just bunk. Mostly older guys who find LF inconvenient. There is no way (laws of Physics apply) that a DSLR can match the resolution of LF film. Comes close with 4x5, but anything larger is just not possible. My 11x14 has 100 times the resolution of a D300... and movements!

I don't think there is anybody (at least not anybody with credibility) claiming that a DSLR will match 8x10 or 11x14 film for resolution. That's just silly. Now when you start talking about high-end MF digital backs versus 4x5 film, it's not so clear-cut IMHO.

And of course, stitching with digital changes the equation somewhat, but stitching isn't always practical or desirable.

**Findingmyway4ever** · 9-Jul-2010, 15:51

I'm still curious why people fall back to b/w work when discussing digital and analog tools? I shoot primarily color, but I have far better results with film. My computer skills maybe need excelling a few years or something, but I see things with my film images, color wise, that look better than what I can pull out of a digital image. I will say that software technology has come a long long way and it's phenomenal what can be done with digital images that was such a struggle dealing with in the past.

**shadowleaves** · 12-Jul-2010, 19:44

At least Pentax 645D.

Originally Posted by jdavis

Not sure if it is my mood, but suddenly today I started thinking about giving up the 4x5 and buying a DSLR.

So - if you we're to switch to DSLR, what camera would you buy and why?

I shoot mainly landscapes, flora, and am interested in large wall prints up to 16x20.

You can talk me off the ledge if you like!