Why should I NOT buy a IQ back and ditch my 4x5s?

[norly]

Hi.
Ive now spoken with everyone I know and it didn't make me wiser. So lets try with all the ones I don't know. You guys.
Can you please explain to me why I shouldn't sell my analog 4x5 systems and buy a new digital one based on a linhof techno and the IQ180?

My lust for thing tells me this is an awsume idea to spend more money on a 12 cm piece of electronics then what a new car costs.

My logic tells me this is ridicules and 4x5" has worked just fine for the last 10 years of pro work.

Please help me decide against it...

[Daniel Stone]

is 4x5 not giving you what you want?

I've used an IQ180, its a back capable of tremendous detail, but at a COST(not just $$$-wise):

1. Computer to process those IIQ files(Raw files). Your average "bargain" at Fry's/Computer World won't work very quick... You'll need some serious computer muscle to process out those files.
2. Lenses for that Techno: Image circle is pretty small. Definitely NOT like most 4x5 lenses which provide some(or ample) movement abilities.
So if you ever plan on using movements, you won't have much to work with before reaching max image circle...
3. What are you trying to get out of your photographs? If you're not technically proficient enough to use a 4x5, you're really going to botch up focusing/composing a MF view camera. FYI. Hard facts bud...

Lastly, it seems you like "new toys". I can't tell you how to spend your dough, but I work on sets almost every time with people who use/rent these backs(and the P+ series), and they're finding that getting accurate focusing with them can be a PAIN. Not to mention that most of the lenses for MF systems(Hasselblad H, V, Phase/Mamiya, etc...) literally CANNOT resolve to the necessary level to obtain what thes 80mp sensors are capable of delivering. You'd need the the best MF Rodenstock/Schneider lenses designed to work with these backs, and those are EASILY another $3-8k EACH, depending on model.

A nice, used Howtek/Aztek drum scanner will cost you less to run(if its a clean one from a good owner) in the long run than an IQ180, and with well-shot 4x5 chrome/negs, you can expect to see some fantastic results, to say the least! I've scanned some 4x5 transparencies I shot a few years ago, and they have so much fine detail(at a 30x40 print size too), I'd move to 4x5 only if I didn't like contact printing 8x10 b+w so much!

-Dan

[Ken Lee]

See IQ180 – First Three Months – Impressions by Joe Cornish in the online magazine On Landscape, a wonderful web site.

If you have sufficient funds for one, why not purchase another for me? I'll be happy to evaluate it.

[norly]

is 4x5 not giving you what you want?

Very good question. I think my answer is YES!. I am actually having a workflow I really like. And a camera system I know always works and are very comfortable with. Ive been working professionally with my equipment for ruffly 10 years now and always considered the digital backs quite pointless ( <-- highly personal opinion only based on my personal kind of works). But the new ones are nice (I worked with them on several occasions, both on arcaswiss rm3d and the F-line), thats why I am thinking of going down the dark side. Also the feeling of not being dependent on film producers, labs, scanners and stuff like that is appealing.

Image circle is pretty small. Definitely NOT like most 4x5 lenses

Also a good point. I quite often end up with up to 20mm lateral shifts, and that works ok on my analog lenses.

See IQ180 – First Three Months – Impressions

Tried to pay for the 14 day access, but my account stops working. Ill send them a mail and will get back to this.

Still there is a lot of benefits to digital... i think

[Lenny Eiger]

Well, there are a few points. The first is that the IQ180 can't outdo a 4x5 scanned well. Not even close, no matter how much Luminous Landscape is paid to tell us that. Tim Parkin at On Landscape is the source of this.... he did the research and his engineer brain pulled out the essentials. A 4x5 at 4,000 ppi yields 320 megapixels. There are issues with what lenses can actually do, so the number is far from exact. However, it's a starting point, the digital camera also has lenses and a Bayer chip. My issues are more with tonal reproduction than with sharpness and I also like depth of field very much and these digital lenses are tuned for the opposite, so it isn't a good match for me.

However, let's just say you pay around $50K for that back. First of all, it will be obsolete in a year or two. If you a commercial shooter, for example shooting catalogs, and have made 50K with it in that time, then fine... If you haven't then you will be stuck with a dinosaur, and likely drooling over the next model. This can get expensive. If you have been shooting film during that time, then the extra years until film is gone will mean that you can buy that same back for a fraction of the cost. (The newer one will still be 50K or more.) All the while you will have more quality. Maybe a little more time getting there, maybe not, but more quality nonetheless.

They will ultimately get to a place where digital can match the quality of film - to everyone's agreement. It will likely include a full size (4x5) sensor, they will probably get rid of the Bayer chip and use a different strategy, or maybe light field cameras will come into their own. I will gladly move over when they get there. I don't really care about the process of developing film, altho' I like the results. When the results match, and the prices come down, then who would bother developing film? (Except maybe those folks who make their own for fun...) However, they aren't there yet, and until they are committed to getting there and not just satisfying the needs of smartphone users and the like, they won't get there. Of course, photography as we know it could also disappear by then....

Lenny

[darr]

Owning a digital back will save you a tone of time. I ran out of time for film processing and scanning. I grew to dread the scanning part a lot!

I shoot a P45 with an Alpa Max and two lenses (SK 47 and SK 72). I also use the P45 in the studio with an Arca M Line 2 with a SK 120 macro lens and a Cooke PS945. I have zero problems with focus or LCC issues. There are good deals on used digital backs right now; I would not go to the 180 unless you need the megapixels. I use a Dell workstation with 24 GB of ram (I am told over-kill) and run Capture One, Photoshop CS6 and Lightroom 4 all at the same time--zero computer problems!

If I were you, I would buy into Medium Format Digital (MFD).

PS: This is not the best forum for MFD. I would visit: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/medium...digital-backs/ for info.

[darr]

As far as focusing goes, I shot this using a hyperfocal technique (easy):

1946 Clipper Deluxe
Alpa Max | SK 47 | F11 | P45

[Frank Petronio]

Note that for yourself to be really reliable and trusted, you need redundancy. Buying one medium format digital system may work out fine for the serious amateur or artist, but when you have to complete the shoot no matter what glitches occur, you need a near duplicate system as back up (and also to run two sets without breaking down between takes.) That's what the people who do this for a living have to do.

On the other hand, you can pick up a used Sinar F and a 210 Symmar-S or Sironar and knock yourself out for $500.

In any event, I think it'd be more professional and better to have two somewhat older, medium quality systems than to put all your eggs in one basket for one state of the art system that is overkill for 99% of the jobs anyway.

[Bob Salomon - HP Marketing]

If I was trying to make that decision I would get in touch with the back dealer and have him bring the back to my place of business and have him set it up shooting next to my analog system and compare what the results are.

That means he shoots on a digital view camera like the Techno (you are doing landscapes) or an M679 (studio work) with digital lenses compared to your view camera with analog lenses and compare results head to head.

Otherwise all you are getting are personal opinions. And whatever ones you accept may be wrong for your needs.

And yes, you may feel better with a backup but lots of places rent when you need one. That doesn't mean that you have to be invested in redundant equipment.

[Frank Petronio]

Well I wouldn't buy one for work unless I had a retainer and long term contract sufficient to buy it outright... or incoming business was so darn profitable that it didn't matter.

Renting something last minute/day-of might prove difficult, even if you're in a major metro area.

And I'd look close at that new Nikon D800 which is a pretty good jump in image quality from previous full-frame 35mm-sized systems. I'd expect to see a lot more downward price pressure and competition in the next couple of years.

Pop $10K - less than half of a MFDB - on the Nikon with good lenses and backup - and keep shooting 4x5 for the highest quality stuff. Then you can have a decent production camera that can pay for itself easier (more versatile as well) and continue to enjoy the 4x5 too.

How are you scanning? If you just throw the 4x5 film onto an Epson, then the results will be closer to digital than if you are getting good drum scans for everything.