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

[Drew Wiley]

Appropriate shot, Darr ... because that particular car "as is" will have better resale value
in five years than any digital back being sold today.

[darr]

Drew, you may be right, but a lot of film cameras have dropped to the cellar as well. Have you priced them lately? I bought my P45 used and have used it for three years now and have no intention on upgrading--some of the medium format digital shooters with newer digital backs have regretted making upgrades to newer ones. Something about preferring the look of the older ones. Different strokes for different folks.

[timparkin]

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

Having chatted with Joe further since the article the summary is probably thus..

- IQ180 makes a wonderful tool for producing great work
- Colour isn't better than film but is good enough - looks more like neg than transparency but you can get E100G style with a bit of effort
- Having to do an LCC for every shot is a pain
- You need a good scanner to get the most out of 5x4 (I offer drum scans for a resonable price - I suggest buying your own drum scanner though if you have the time/inclination, they aren't that expensive and the results transform 5x4 results)
- Velvia has colour you really can't replicate on digital yet
- You can't get the dynamic range of Portra on digital yet but you can get away without grads most of the time
- You can't beat composing and focussing on a full ground glass. IQ180 is tiny in comparison
- Linhof technical camera is good but not as mature as good 4x5 technical cameras
- A Chamonix based 4x5 kit will be a lot lighter than the equivalent IQ180 system
- insurance..

My recommendations - if you can justify the money, the IQ180 is a fantastic tool for commercial photography. The colour and dynamic range are by far the best on the market. If you are shooting for 'art' or as a hobby, you can't beat 5x4 yet..

Take a look at the comparisons here

http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12...ra-comparison/

Tim

[Greg Miller]

[QUOTE=timparkin;901405
- Colour isn't better than film but is good enough - looks more like neg than transparency but you can get E100G style with a bit of effort[/QUOTE]

Most recent testing has shown that even most cheap DSLR's have a lower Delta E than almost any neg film tested, and all pos film. Not that color accuracy is the benchmark for all genres of photography, but for those seeking color accuracy, good digital would indeed be better than film. Whether someone prefers the look of neg or pos or dig comes down to personal taste, rather than an absolute right or wrong.

[Lenny Eiger]

Most recent testing has shown that even most cheap DSLR's have a lower Delta E than almost any neg film tested, and all pos film.

At this point I think it would be useful to reference the sources, rather than just say "recent testing". I have been very unhappy with certain testing, especially that of Luminous Landscape. Tim Parkin and his cohorts are experts, they can show you their research, tell you how they arrived at their conclusions. When you want to contradict him, which you are certainly welcome to do, you should quote someone or something so the rest of us can read both references and make a good choice as to the data.

As I read this it sounds a little rough. I don't mean to be. What I am trying to say in an non-personal, non-attacking way - is let's be fair.

Lenny

[Dakotah Jackson]

Your old 4x5 and holders will never leave you with a dead battery, or connection problems, or faulty memory cards.

Try a test or three and see if the images meet your needs. If so - use whatever works best for you.

[Greg Miller]

At this point I think it would be useful to reference the sources, rather than just say "recent testing".

Lenny

How about all of them? Try to find any test of current DSLRs that has a Delta E of over 10. Then try to find any test of E100G that has a Delta E of less than 13.

[Henry Ambrose]

If you're working all the time, I can't imagine scanning that much film. I used to do it and its a huge time suck, though the results are wonderful. Now, there comes a balancing point with time and money. If that IQ180 and camera and lenses sets you back over $50K, you better be doing some good paying work each and every week of the year. That's over $2K per month to pay it off over two years. I suspect a $7K DSLR (or cheaper) would suffice and leave you lots of money in your pocket.

The first question might be, how good a file do I have to deliver to make my clients happy?
Unless you're working at the very top of the game no one needs or expects files any better than typical DSLR files.

[Brian C. Miller]

How about all of them? Try to find any test of current DSLRs that has a Delta E of over 10. Then try to find any test of E100G that has a Delta E of less than 13.

For those of us not in the know, could you please post a link or two? I did a Google search, and it came back including things like a car, an energy drink, and a four-eyed opossum from Venezuela.

[welly]

a four-eyed opossum from Venezuela.

I'd like to see this.