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

[norly]

hehe, yes that would be sight.

Thank you so much for the inputs, Ive had a lot of fun reading all the posts, and they have give me some new things to think about. The goal for me was to get deterrent from buying a new system, partly because it is a lot of money, but mainly because I am not 100% sure I will enjoy working with it as much as I do with the 4x5.

There is a lot of cons/pros to the digital system, most of them based on my personal way of working. I thought I would list the good stuff about my 4x5:

-No batteries.
-The viewglas, its a pure joy to work with it in all weather/light conditions.
-It never failed, I never lost a frame due to a technical error, only human ones
-Works in all temperatures, I've shoot polar cold and desert hot.
-My clients usually don't want more the 70 mb files and thats easily covered with the imacon.
-Still no batteries
-Its not a DSLR, I really don't like working with those cameras. Ive got a H500c for the small stuff.
-I have done a lot of 2 meter Analog C-prints and the quality is super.
-The grain that comes with film is nicer then the lack of resolution effects you get from digital.
-My LF camera is a pice of art
-I don't need to be that afraid of loosing it, since the value is relatively low.


To be honest these post has helped me to take a step back and revaluate my need for a digital system. Many thanks to everyone.

[timparkin]

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.

That's ignoring metamerism and the goal for 'pleasing' colour as well.. The huge investment in Portra wasn't solely to get accurate colour..

Metamerism is much more important, especially for landscape photographers but it often bits digital photographers. e.g. the Leica M8 had excellent delta E values but shoot some fabrics and you ended up with purples instead of blacks.

Chlorophyll in landscapes causes similar problems - checkout my Big Camera Comparison (google it) and look at the landscape shots. No matter how you calibrate the film/digital response, certain colours in the scene won't match. Film seems to get it best if you look at aesthetics of colour.

Tim

p.s. In museum repro tests, film gets delta E of between 4 and 6 and digital can get delta E a bit less than this. Given that you can only really differentiate these levels of delta E in a low contrast clinical environment, it's irrelevant.

[timparkin]

I just got some scans from Lenny's 8000dpi scanner and here's a sampling (Thanks Lenny!) As you can see, the detail produced on 4x5 is substantially greater than that produced by the IQ180 (and that was mounted on an ALPA using the best Rodenstock Lens, focus bracketed and tested across all apertures)

[norly]

I just got some scans from Lenny's 8000dpi scanner and here's a sampling (Thanks Lenny!)

And the film was?

[timparkin]

And the film was?

Provia taken on an Ebony 45SU with a Fuji 240A lens

[Greg Miller]

That's ignoring metamerism and the goal for 'pleasing' colour as well.. The huge investment in Portra wasn't solely to get accurate colour..

Metamerism is much more important, especially for landscape photographers but it often bits digital photographers. e.g. the Leica M8 had excellent delta E values but shoot some fabrics and you ended up with purples instead of blacks.

Chlorophyll in landscapes causes similar problems - checkout my Big Camera Comparison (google it) and look at the landscape shots. No matter how you calibrate the film/digital response, certain colours in the scene won't match. Film seems to get it best if you look at aesthetics of colour.

Tim

p.s. In museum repro tests, film gets delta E of between 4 and 6 and digital can get delta E a bit less than this. Given that you can only really differentiate these levels of delta E in a low contrast clinical environment, it's irrelevant.

I should remind that I stated that color accuracy isn't necessarily the end goal of all genres. But it is quantifiable, which "pleasing" is not. I used to prefer Velvia, but it certainly isn't color accurate, and it's color palette is not something that I personally find pleasing any longer. Pleasing is very subjective and personal.

The Leica M8 was released in 2006. My comment was about current DSLRs. The M8 also has a reputation for its color flaws in certain areas like black fabric ("We ran into some image-quality surprises along the way, including an abnormally high sensitivity to IR radiation that produces a purple cast on some dark fabrics and objects" - PopoPhoto), and is hardly representative of current color accuracy in even entry level DSLRs of today. Even at the time this Popular Photography test found in JPG mode "barely made it into the Extremely High rating, with an average Delta E of 9.98. That's not bad in itself, but noticeably lower than the excellent color accuracy (Delta E of 8 or lower) of many DSLRs in its resolution category." (in RAW mode it measured much better).

A seven year old camera with known color issues is hardly representative of current technology. But even so, with a Delta E of 9.98, it's overall color accuracy is better than any positive film out there.

[Tobias Key]

I would be dubious about buying into a MFDB. DSLR's are getting closer to them all the time. Digital is all about R&D resources and all the MFDB are relatively small companies comared to the DSLR big boys. Also they can't recoup investment in their pro cameras buy trickling down innovation into their consumer ones. Look at this review


http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800...ase-one-iq180/

In it's conclusions

"And we were stunned just how close the D800E ran the IQ180 when the files were printed at 60×40 inches, which is bigger than many dining room tables."

I would be concerned how much future there is in a MFDB when cameras like the D800E are getting you in the neighbourhood at a fraction of the price. The D800E is not as good as the IQ180 but then Iphones aren't as good as compact cameras, and that market is going down the toilet.

[Drew Wiley]

The bottleneck is that lenses have become so advanced that any future improvements
are merely going to be incremental and can't keep pace with the rapid evolution of digital
capture. At some point, there's simply no away around a bigger capture surface if you want high image quality. Somewhere down the line someone will invent a true electronic
substitute for film. Imagine something just like a conventional 4x5 holder. I don't think it's
beyond the realm of impending technology at all. But would there be any financial incentive? If you don't have to buy an expensive proprietary camera too, and don't have
to buy film as a repetitious expendable, who in the damned instant-obsolescene electronics
industry would even want to bother? They'd probably buy up the patent and table it.

[Jim collum]

I just got some scans from Lenny's 8000dpi scanner and here's a sampling (Thanks Lenny!) As you can see, the detail produced on 4x5 is substantially greater than that produced by the IQ180 (and that was mounted on an ALPA using the best Rodenstock Lens, focus bracketed and tested across all apertures)

Thank you Tim... this is probably one of the clearest answers I've seen to the MFD ( ... or D800, D30, Nokia cell phone) can out resolve 4x5 film ( or 8x10 film ) debate

[Frank Petronio]

Thank you Tim... this is probably one of the clearest answers I've seen to the MFD ( ... or D800, D30, Nokia cell phone) can out resolve 4x5 film ( or 8x10 film ) debate

Yeah that is quite definitive. And while the Fuji 240/9 is no slouch, it's an older design lens on a wooden camera no less!