Where to learn about LF digital options

[Robert Rothman]

I shoot 4x5 color landscapes, and while I have dabbled in digital printing, so far I have shot only on conventional film. Alas, I sense that the day is not that far off when LF film and processing (and possibly even scanning services) will no longer be available. For B&W shooters, I suppose it is theoretically possible to prepare one's own emulsions and coat one's own plates (after all, photographers did just that for a long time) but that's really not a viable option for color work. The bottom line is that like it or not, I suspect at some point I will be forced to enter the 21st century and start shooting digitally.

Having been living in a cave for a while, I know nothing about what options are available. I'd rather not give up using a view camera, and ideally I'd like to get a back or some other system that can be used with my existing camera and lenses (I own one of the last Vermont-made Zone VI cameras, and Schneider 210mm and Nikkor 120mm lenses). Affordability is also an issue.

Can anybody suggest a resource for learning about what, if any, products are out there that might fit my needs? Or is what I'm hoping for just impossible?

Thanks.


Robert Rothman

[Marc B.]

Swapping forums may be of more help for you.

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/large-format-cameras/
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/medium...digital-backs/

[B.S.Kumar]

Or,
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/fo...php?board=16.0

Kumar

[Frank Petronio]

I think that a wooden field camera and a pair of classic analog lenses isn't going to cut it whether you go with a now-vintage/out-of-production 4x5 scanning back or a more modern medium format back like a Leaf/Phase One. It simply isn't going to be strong enough for the scanning back and way too coarse and imprecise for the smaller medium format sensor. The sensors are only 36x48mm so a tiny amount of tilt has a greater effect and is harder to see, it is almost imperceptible on the ground glass.

You will likely get better results from whatever the current state-of-the-art digital SLR is available when color film finally bites the dust. A $3000 Nikon or Canon is a formidable tool. A medium format digital back is going to cost $6000 for a used one from 2007... prices only go up from there, new stuff is $20 to $40K plus expensive $5K lenses and accessories.... And that 2007-era medium format back? The newer Canons and Nikons likely produce better results and are more versatile, so it's hard to justify even if have the fun cash to blow.

B&W film will still continue to be available for some time even after Fuji and Kodak pull the plug on large format color film, so your equipment will not immediately become a bookshelf curiosity.... but for good quality color photography at a reasonable price, you'll be forced to go with a common DSLR unless you blow the big bucks on medium format digital system.

If money is tight, the $1000 - $1500 your system is currently worth won't get you very far beyond a nice consumer digital SLR.

Of course you can make shooting a DSLR as fussy as you want to be with tethered shooting and tilt-shift lenses. And you could also drop major bucks on one of the smaller medium format digital view cameras like the Silvestri, Arca, Sinar, Linhof, etc. But I wouldn't buy anything that exotic or expensive unless I had a solid business rationale.

For most shooting the DSLR is it, they won.

[Nathan Potter]

Frank is pretty much right, for better or worse. I came to the same conclusion and blew some $$ on a Nikon D800. Never used a digital camera before and so far find that camera awkward to use - but I'll get used to it. Give me my Kodachrome with my FE2s and I would be happy along with my Ilfochrome - but that is gone. For more $$ you can get a 28mm or 35mm shift lens for increased DOF and you can do panoramic work for still subjects. I'm using some older Nikon prime lenses with great success with the D800; and they can be inexpensive now. 36 MP gets you a lot of resolution but not quite the crispness I like for a 16X20 print. But some of the stuff I do does not require the ultimate in sharpness. So high rez full frame digital is what is probably practical for color.

However I have also stashed away a pile of Fuji Quickloads in my freezer (Velvia and Astia) generally of 2009 and later vintage. You can probably still do this by scanning various used markets. This stuff will be useful for 10 years + if you are going to scan and digitally process the films. Color corrections can be made digitally as the film ages. It sounds as though this approach would be attractive to you but the digital equipment investment is pretty serious $$ as well as stashing the color film.

Stashing Quickloads or normal film in a freezer is the best approach for using your current equipment depending on how much you shoot and how much you can afford to spend. I shoot at a limited rate now (I've gotten more fussy and have enough mediocre images on hand that I don't need more) so I'll consume only 100 to 200 films per year in color.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[SergeiR]

And that 2007-era medium format back? The newer Canons and Nikons likely produce better results and are more versatile, so it's hard to justify even if have the fun cash to blow

versatile - yes. Better results - no. Spoken not as a fanboy, but as a person who compares them using same lighting and similar focal lengths every now and then, when feel like it. Distginguishable after tedious processing on web size? no. On larger? Yes.

I.e its pretty darn impossible to beat laws of optics.

[Frank Petronio]

You're right, probably. I do wonder where a new Nikon D800e with good lenses would intersect with an earlier medium format digital back? 2004, 2007, 2009?

For that matter, the old Better Light scanning backs made larger files than any medium format backs. I wonder how those older files compare now that some of the higher end medium format backs are approaching scan back resolutions?

[DolphinDan]

Hi Robert,

Here is my 2 cents worth, take it with a grain of salt...

Photography is my hobby. I shoot both digital and film but prefer the look of film to the look of digital; that is my personal opinion.

I own a MFBD and gear (Phase One initially 39MP P45+ digital back, currently 60MP P65+ digital back, and 645AF camera and a couple of the P1/Mamiya digital lenses) and briefly had a BetterLight Scanning Back (the 6000 series 48MP back). The scanning back had to be shot tethered to a laptop and required an IR filter to be placed on the lens; in addition the scanning back required a dedicated power supply. The whole setup took up a lot of space, even when packed. If you have an assistant to pack and carry this gear, then no problem. But if you are working alone as I do, then you will find it difficult to hike far with this gear. I found it comparable to carrying my 8x10 camera and gear. I quickly found the scanning back extremely tedious to use. Also, exposure times frequently went over 1 minute. To get a decent exposure (1 minute or under) with f16 or f22 required shooting at midday on a sunny day. I was not that much of a glutton for punishment, so I sold the scanning back after a couple of months. On the other hand, I found that I could use modern analog lenses (Rodenstock SIRONAR-S and Schneider SUPER-SYMMAR) and get good results/resolution with this back. Higher resolution backs like the 8000 and 10000 series; I do not know. Stephen Johnson uses a BetterLight scanning back, as does Jim Collum. I do not know how BetterLight images compare to the P45+ or P65+ images because I gave away my laptop with the BetterLight images on them years ago.

My Medium Format P65+ digital back requires apertures of f8-f11 to avoid diffraction issues, IMHO. Compared to my former 12MP Nikon D700, the P45+ and P65+ images look better. I found that older Mamiya analog lenses worked fine with the P45+, but not the P65+. For 60MP and up MFDBs, you really need the latest and greatest digital lenses that cost $2-5K. If you are feeling adventurous and have about $12K to burn, then you might look at the Pentax 645D camera with integrated 40MP digital back and get a couple of lenses with the $ left over. The older Pentax 645 Auto-Focus analog lenses *should* work fine with this camera *if* my experiences with the 39MP P45+ digital back and Mamiya lenses are any indication. The weight of my MF digital gear is comparable to my LF film 4x5/5x7 camera and gear.

Frank is right about using your LF gear with a MFDB; if you are lucky you might get 20MP of resolution (again IMHO). And forget about wide angle lenses; the 645 sensor makes even a 65mm LF lens look like almost a normal lens. You really need the latest digital lenses (Phase One, Hasselblad; or Rodenstock or Schneider digital lenses plus a technical camera-which will cost you thousands of dollars) to get the ultimate resolution from the MFDBs. Prices on MFDBs may have come down since the D800 came out. I heard from a pro photographer friend that photographers are dumping their Medium Format Digital gear for the D800. So you *might* get lucky and find a MFDB and camera and a couple of lenses (relatively) inexpensively.

Regarding the D800 and other high (>21) MP cameras, I recommend looking at this Luminous Landscape article:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...solution.shtml (scroll down to the end and Table 3)

For DSLRs with full frame/35mm sized sensors like the D800, you have to shoot at an aperture of around f5.6 to get 36MP of resolution. So then you have to think about focus stacking (shooting several images focused at different distances in the scene) and blending them together to get adequate depth of field (for landscapes if that is what you shoot).

Finally, consider that digital cameras lose their value pretty quickly. So I would not buy a new DSLR or MF camera and digital back for this reason.

Bottom line: I agree with Frank. Get a DSLR for color work and shoot B&W film with your LF gear. *If* you have the money and don't mind losing it to depreciation, then you might try out medium format digital gear.

Hope this helps...

Namaste
Daniel