Your thoughts on digital sensor size vs film format

[Ben Syverson]

Instead of wasting time with a pointless ontological debate, why not just shoot with what you like?

[Mark Stahlke]

My monitor is 94 dpi.
Do I need a bigger camera?

Yes. One always needs a bigger camera.

[Darin Boville]

Although, more seriously, I think Don may be asking a slightly different question--here's my re-phrasing: Are certain kinds of digital capture near enough to LF (in terms of the physical size of the behind-the-lens area captured, not output resolution, etc.) to warrant equal participation on this board?

--Darin

[D. Bryant]

Do we need to rethink the definition of LF in the digital age?

Eventually we will. Photographers such as Charles Cramer already have. If you ever see any of his work you will be impressed. Christopher Burkett's Ilfochrome prints are beautiful and quite different that Cramer's prints but it's amazing to see what these digital backs can do in the hands of a skilled practitioner.


Don Bryant

[Ben Syverson]

Are certain kinds of digital capture near enough to LF (in terms of the physical size of the behind-the-lens area captured, not output resolution, etc.) to warrant equal participation on this board?

No. Period.

I doubt any moderator would disagree with me.

If the sensors ever reach 4x5, we may have more discussion, but until then, it's not an issue. Digital is just not large format.

[John T]

If the sensors ever reach 4x5, we may have more discussion, but until then, it's not an issue. Digital is just not large format.

Betterlight has made 4x5 digital backs for quite some time.

[Jim Michael]

My computer has four 3.5 inch disk drives for a total capacity of 14 inches. I guess it's time to upgrade.

You can stitch them together. I suggest using an industrial sewing thread.

[paulr]

No. Period.

I doubt any moderator would disagree with me.

I'm some people here may be unsophisticated enough to be moved by proof-by-assertion, but no one who's opinions you might care about.

I don't believe for half a second you've examined the best of what's possible from high end digital camera backs. Everyone I know who has done so disagrees with you quite emphatically.

At this point in history each technology offers a different set of strengths and weaknesses, including looking better at different size ranges. But they are in the same room, and in terms of look and quality would stand as reasonable alternatives for a good number of photographers.

I suspect that for most photographers, the deciding factors would be price and workflow rather than print quality.

[Preston]

If there was an affordable and 'field capable' 4x5 digital capture system that meets or exceeds the quality I require, I would do it. With color films becoming less and less available, and the cost of processing continuing to rise, a high quality digital system would be more cost effective.

--P

[paulr]

If there was an affordable and 'field capable' 4x5 digital capture system that meets or exceeds the quality I require, I would do it. With color films becoming less and less available, and the cost of processing continuing to rise, a high quality digital system would be more cost effective.

"Affordable" is always subjective and situational. From my perspective, nothing is close to affordable, yet. But people getting paid, or working with much higher volumes of images, will judge this differently.

No digital backs are 4x5, although the highest end backs compete easily with 4x5 quality, based on what I've seen. Plenty of solutions are field capable, depending on what you mean by 'field.' If you're going to be without access to electrical power for weeks on end, you might be better served by something all mechanical. If I had to go on a backpacking weekend with a camera, most of the digital technical cameras would be more appealing than my own fairly burly 4x5.