Chucking it and going to DSLR?

[mikeber]

I did the opposite way - from DSLR to 4X5.
Since before using DSLR, I was shooting mainly 35mm, I looked for new experiences and the 4x5 was the answer.
The way I see it - I don't need many photographs. I took a lot and now I am interested in a certain look and feel. However, when I work commercially, time is paramount and I'll do anything it takes to finish the project on time. Therefore am using DLSRs for the majority of assignments.
I do not carry a small point and shoot at all times, and don't feel I need to be always on alert. However, when I shoot for pleasure, the 4x5 fills the need. Not so much for sharpness, but the camera movements make the pics look differently.
My advice - you don't need to sell your LF equipment - just buy a DSLR and use it for a few months. But aside from landscapes, maybe with the DSLR, you can switch your focus and take more candid pics or do some photojournalism. A Nikon D700 can be an eye opener allowing you to work at very low light levels, but for max resolution, you'll need the top of the line from Nikon or perhaps a Canon 5D Mark2.

[Allen in Montreal]

OK, I'll bite.

I shoot every day, all day long, with a DigitallyShitLoadedReflex,
I can honestly say, you really don't want to dump your gear for the 49 cents you will get for it, to turn around and spend 4900 on stuff that will be outdated faster than a half filled bottle of D-76!

Do you really want to give up taking a glass of wine into the darkroom, turning on the stereo and making a beautiful print for burning your eyeballs out in front of an LCD?

Forgo that lovely air dried glossy look of Fiber Based paper for a pile of shredded recycling because the ICC thingies did not do their job and you blew a box of paper and crate of ink that is worth more than gold?

Seriously, don't dump your gear, buy a digi if you wish, but don't dump LF, you will regret it. It is like giving up wine, cheese and baguette for water, Nutella, Corn Flakes!

But if you must go Digi,

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/promotions/h4d-launch.aspx

I have been testing a canon 7d this week, don't buy one yet! The focus gets mushy.
The 5d Mark ll is probably the best camera for the money.
But your fingers never smell like Fixer after a session with the 5d.

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!

[Ed Richards]

I shoot 4x5 and a D700 Nikon FF digital. I had hoped that the digital, perhaps with a TS lens, would substitute for the 4x5 in many situations, but I find I still shoot 4x5 for stuff that stands still and has manageable light ranges. But when things move, or when the dynamic range is too wide, I shoot digital. I can do HDR that does not look like science fiction, and handle 20+ stops of DR. By things that move, I mean people - street shooting, festivals, music performances.

Since I do not usually make big prints, I could probably do fine with the D700 for a lot of my work, but I still like the look of the 4x5 film images better. I also use movements a lot, and TS lenses are not that great. But I only shoot black and white in 4x5. If I were a color photographer, I would shoot digital and never look back. Digital is great for color.

Frank makes the important case - the best camera is the one you use. If you are not shooting very many sheets of film, you would clearly be better off with digital - even if you do not shoot it either, it is easier to carry so you enjoy the trip more. I am trying to shoot 1000 sheets a year, and usually do hit at least 500. I also shoot probably 10K digital images in a year, and keep a 1000 or so. I quit shooting LF about 20 years ago because I found was not taking any pictures, and only got back to it about 5 years ago. If I find I am not taking pictures again, I will just do digital. But do not sell your gear until you are sure you want to make the change permanent.

[Darin Boville]

I just finished one of the Aperture books that I will be using to share my work--it offers a few images from several projects I have made over the past ten years.

Here's a list of the cameras I used for each project:

Stills from Digital Camcorder

4x5 Field

Desktop scanner

4x5 monorail

P&S digital

DSLR

DSLR

4x5 monorail

4x5 monorail


So i would definitely not use just one camera

--Darin

[rphenning]

I had the full canon setup. 2 1D bodies, L lenses, flash, etc. bought it all and barely used it for 6 months. Sold it all and bought a 4x5 and LOVE it.

To address your question though if I had to go back I would go with the 5d Mark II or original 5d and then pig out on the lenses, I am thinking 35 1.4, 85 1.2, and 135 2... HD video is rad so I would probably get an external mic and some goodies for that.

[rphenning]

oh yeah and all the guys who spent 8 large on the last 1ds are about to easily have their "investment" halved by the new 1d, I think. So yeah, digital is a joke. Film is great.

[JOneZero]

There's no reason why the two can't compliment each other. Me, I work with a D200 and a 4x5. I frequently use the D200 to scout locations and do test shots... I tend to use the digital like Polaroid, except sometimes the test shots do turn out to be usable on their own. The D200 can get into places where the 4x5 just can't go.

Processing-wise, my house isn't really set up for a full blast darkroom and 4x5 enlarger. So I develop the film myself, and then scan on an Epson v700. These scans are mainly for indexing and filing, but occasionally one pops up that I can work with on the Epson. Mostly though, on the rare occasion that I get one I'm *very* fond of and want to print, I mail it out for drum scanning. I work on that (huge) file, and then send it back for printing.

Anyway, for me the D200 has been a good workhorse camera for a few years now. I still use my trusty F100, too, also with the hybrid film/digital approach above. I'd like to get a D700 for low-light stuff but jeepers who can justify the price tag of one of those babies. Plus next year it's obsolete. If you do get a DSLR, I recommend getting one with the full 35mm sensor size.

My $0.02 NZD.

[douglas antonio]

i too shoot both. 4x5 for clients and personal work and digital for clients. since i knew they don't need very large formats, a 10.2mp canon was okay and i did not buy it – they had to ;-)). i would recommend you to try and rent one or two models plus a decent lens from a place like calumet and try it out. i have had different nikon and canon cameras in hand for shootings and while they came up with excellent results they were very different in handling – puzzling at least for me. see which one suits you from results, handling and price and then buy the one that fits best. someone mentioned it already: the day a model is released, it's outdated. don't worry about that. just go for the best pictures you can achieve.

[chino79]

I am going the other way. I have started on digital and I now am pursuing Large format. None of my customers generally require large prints, so for me digital is better for work. Film is great for my own use.
I personally recommend a Canon 5D II, 21 megapixel is good for prints up to 27 inches without interpolating, on the longest side at 200 dpi (from memory), Sony has 24 mpix, Nikon also has D700 at 21 mpix I think.

Well for me the canon wins hands down. All are great cameras but Canon has a beautiful range of Tilt and shift lenses 17mm, 24mm, 45mm and 90mm, now they are expensive and don't have the some range of movements as a LF camera but for digital, they are almost the only option. If you don't care about tilt and shift lenses then pick whatever brand you desire they all have great models.

[Duane Polcou]

When shooting landscapes, I like to bring both. Scouting a position and setting up a view camera on a tripod and examining the ground glass and just taking my time to enjoy the process is as much a reward for me as is producing and selling a fine print.
But the DSLR is great for telephoto and bracketing exposures in situations of insane contrast to combine later in post.

That having been said, the Sony alpha 900 is the least expensive full frame 24mp sensor camera yet. Sooooo nice.