Digital (Canon 5D/Betterlight/etc.) vs. Large Format Film

[audioexcels]

Don't want to cause any stir in this one and mods, if this is in the wrong section, please get rid of it:)!

Curious what people think about the different digital options out there vs. large format film?

I have these examples in mind:

Canon 5D vs. LF
Rollei w/digital back vs. LF
4X5 w/Betterlight back vs. LF

I keep hearing the Canon 5D is equal to 4X5 up to a certain enlargement size=20X24. If this is so, then the other digital systems I mentioned surely will be as good and better than a 4X5 analog setup.

I raise this question because why would people put so much time into LF if the digital is as good or better? Starting with the 5D..if it is equal to 4X5 up to 20X24 (quite a large print), and that's about as large as one will ever print, is there any point using 4X5?

I know people will raise the concept of price, but then, add up all of your LF equipment and also those that would have these fancier DSLR-4X5 w/Digital back systems would also have a nice beautiful 5Kish camera along with nice Schneider XL lenses, etc...so money is not that much different especially when you consider the scanner involved, the price of film, etc...

[Ron Marshall]

The first link is to a comparison between 6x7 and 12MP. The second between 4x5 and 39MP:

http://www.diax.nl/pages/start_mamiya_nikon_uk.html

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

A 39 MP back will permit a 20x24 print at 300 dpi. But, and for most poeple it is a huge but, the back is $30,000.

Besides, I may want to print considerably larger than 20x24.

[Sheldon N]

I've got both the 5D and large format (4x5 with good glass). Large format is better resolution by a fair margin, and that's scanning with an Epson 4870.

That being said I haven't printed larger than 16x20, and I don't think that there would be much of a difference at that size (maybe the slight edge to LF). The 5D is very, very good, and very easy to use.

I enjoy the process of LF much more, and that's why my 5D sits on the shelf every time I decide to "go shooting". Now if I'm shooting available light or doing portaiture, the 5D with fast glass is the easy choice.

Horses for courses, as they say.

[audioexcels]

I've got both the 5D and large format (4x5 with good glass). Large format is better resolution by a fair margin, and that's scanning with an Epson 4870.

That being said I haven't printed larger than 16x20, and I don't think that there would be much of a difference at that size (maybe the slight edge to LF). The 5D is very, very good, and very easy to use.

I enjoy the process of LF much more, and that's why my 5D sits on the shelf every time I decide to "go shooting". Now if I'm shooting available light or doing portaiture, the 5D with fast glass is the easy choice.

Horses for courses, as they say.

After reading the post above yours, it's making all the internet stuff so inconsistent that having responses by users of both high end DSLRs, other digital type "back" based systems, and LF film is greatly appreciated. It may be that there will not be a collective response that agrees one way or the other, but I'm wondering if there is.

One curiousity of mine about your post is that you say 4X5 scanned with the 4870 has better resolution by a fair margin over a Canon 5D. But then you say that at the print size of 16X20, which is the maximum size you have printed, the differences are not much and that the 4X5 "maybe" has a slight edg over the 5D.

Did you determine the far better resolution by looking at the two files (one from 4X5 and one from 5D) on the computer by doing magnifications of scenes or some other method to see that 4X5 is producing greater resolution by a fair margin? In other words, from what you can tell, if you were to print both files at a large size, take any print size in mind, that then is when you can really see how much more resolution the 4X5 has?

[Gordon Moat]

. . . . .

Curious what people think about the different digital options out there vs. large format film?

I have these examples in mind:

Canon 5D vs. LF

Okay, a few websites/reviewers have tested the Canon 5D, and C.Perez, et al, have tested many large format lenses. Erwin Puts, Zeiss, Kodak, and Fuji all have published figures for films capabilities, some reachable by mortals, others . . . who knows.

First off, if you fire off that shutter on a Canon 5D while shooting handheld, you will rarely ever reach the true resolution capability of the camera. I do not mean file size, since that is something people too often confuse with resolution; if I pointed a Canon 5D up in the air, what would be the resolution of the sky . . . (rhetorical).

So anyway, seems that 4x5 films and somewhat modern lenses hit near 60 lp/mm capability. Just using one test of the Canon 5D (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5D/page31.asp), we see that it hits 2300 lines per height (LPH) horizontally. We know the imaging CMOS is 23.9mm horizontally . . . so about 48 lp/mm. Hmmm . . . . more on this below . . . .

A few things tough to deny: the Canon 5D is potentially easier to use handheld than many 4x5 cameras; more long telephoto lenses are easier to use; the potential for a greater volume of shots could be greater with a 5D, if the photographer wanted that; the Canon 5D (or any D-SLR) is potentially more convenient.




Rollei w/digital back vs. LF

Depending upon which medium format digital back, and which company, then we might consider a few different aspects. First off is that the largest imaging chips are around double 35mm (full frame) sizes. Unfortunately, the individual pixel cell site sizes are in many of these larger than on the Canon 5D; so on a lp/mm resolving basis we could safely assume a lower number, since pixel cell site sizes are somewhat related to resolution (not file sizes). However, for a same size print, the chip total capture area is larger, so the potential is there to retain more detail, just comparing a similar image to one captured using a smaller D-SLR.

So a larger chip should bring one closer to 4x5, only on the basis of less increase/enlargement being required for a given print size. Unfortunately, the detail information contained in a 4x5 frame of film can potentially be quite high. In practice, it can depend more upon how much detail is in a scene, and the print size.

This is a good point to consider human vision and print sizes. In commercial printing, the assumption of perception of detail hovers near 6 lp/mm. Some people can resolve more than that, and might tell the difference between 6 lp/mm and 8 lp/mm on a print (and rare individuals can tell slightly greater detail). So it can become a situation of how much information is thrown away (or perhaps better stated not used). Obviously even a drum scan, and the best enlarger lenses, will loose some resolution. Our tested modern lenses for 4x5 in the near 60 lp/mm, or slightly greater range, might be more like 50 lp/mm . . . or maybe better stated an 8x enlargement might be a better practical limit, or 6x for really critical viewers.

Anyway, sharpening can influence the perception of a print from the viewer that might make one print seem more detailed than another. While sharpening techniques in the darkroom, or in mixed scanning to print, workflows is possible, the idea of controlling sharpening completely in an all digital workflow could potentially be more accessible.

Again there is the convenience factor of a smaller camera package compared to 4x5. The downside for most would be the high initial cost, or a lack of rental availability. of course it could come down to tool choices, or what to do to impress a client (just kidding).



4X5 w/Betterlight back vs. LF

Here the resolution difference is barely different enough . . . so I would call the Betterlight back and carefully done 4x5 too close to pick. So we have a different criteria, which might be convenience. Some people will like the convenience of film over using a digital back, and some will prefer the other way around. I think a well done print from either would be tough for an average (non-photographer) to state one method was better than the other . . . at least technically. Add in moving subject matter, and the Betterlight becomes tougher to use as the movement in a scene increases.





I keep hearing the Canon 5D is equal to 4X5 up to a certain enlargement size=20X24. If this is so, then the other digital systems I mentioned surely will be as good and better than a 4X5 analog setup.

Okay, on a number crunching approach, let us imagine no better than 40 to 48 lp/mm from 4x5; implying a maximum detail level of at least 8 lp/mm on the print, if not better . . . so maybe 20" by 24" is a good limit for 4x5 film and good techniques.

Then we take the 48 lp/mm test results for the Canon 5D, and the 23.9mm height, and spread that out to our 20" dimension on our print. That would leave just under 2.3 lp/mm on the print. So how good would someone's eyes need to be to tell the difference between a 20" by 24" from a 5D and the same size print from a 4x5? To put this another way, for 4x5 film to equal the Canon 5D at that print size, it would only need around 9 lp/mm capability, or in a more practical loss expectation we could state a need of closer to 20 lp/mm on the film . . . I think many people having used 4x5, even with quite old lenses, could probably achieve that.





I raise this question because why would people put so much time into LF if the digital is as good or better? Starting with the 5D..if it is equal to 4X5 up to 20X24 (quite a large print), and that's about as large as one will ever print, is there any point using 4X5?

I know people will raise the concept of price, but then, add up all of your LF equipment and also those that would have these fancier DSLR-4X5 w/Digital back systems would also have a nice beautiful 5Kish camera along with nice Schneider XL lenses, etc...so money is not that much different especially when you consider the scanner involved, the price of film, etc...


I can only speak for myself on this. What drives my imaging choices is not the theoretical potential, nor even the convenience. I am not so old and out of shape that I am likely to complain about carrying a 4x5 set-up, though I understand this is what drives some other peoples decisions. One big aspect for me is the movement potential in a 4x5, especially the selective focus capability. Another factor for me is what I feel is a composition advantage, though I do still use many smaller cameras, so I don't feel a need to approach every imaging problem with the thought of always using a 4x5.

Quite simply, the working method of when I use a 4x5 has more of a feel of me taking a sketchpad on location, and rendering a scene/subject by drawing. The view of the ground glass changes my approach. Even when I was doing fashion and lifestyle shots earlier this year, I chose to interact with my subject by standing to the side of my 4x5. The working methods are completely different. Sure, I could probably have a smaller camera (or D-SLR) on a tripod, and stand next to it with a cable release, but I don't work that way with smaller cameras. Using a 4x5 changes my approach to imaging.

I recall an exhibit at MOPA not long ago that was an all 35mm show. Most people have been driven by current marketing to expect anything 35mm to be an absolute disaster, and simply dire results. The reality is that content can overcome any technical shortcomings.

I have learned from painting that when you give enough detail, the minds eye of the viewer will fill in the details. This marketing driven push for MegaPixels and resolution, or the perceived need of one thing to be better than another, is simply confusing whether or not we can still enjoy viewing images. Pick the camera that becomes an extension of your creative vision, and hopefully does not get in your way; then ignore the numbers and technology . . . just go out and make more images . . . oh, and one more thing: visit museums any chance you get, and look at great images.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Walter Calahan]

No one camera can do it all. They are simply tools. Canon 5D is a wonderful camera. So is a Nikon F6, or a Leica M7, or a Hasselblad, etc. Large format is a fabulous tool.

Decide what you want to do with your photography, and then choose the tool you need to do it. It's more than resolution, or lines per millimeter. Photography isn't about engineer solutions, it's about self expression.

I've made images on 35mm Fuji Pan 1600 that has grain the size of golf balls when enlarge to 20x24, but the 'look' is right for the mood of the image. I've made 60x40" inkjet prints from a Nikon D2H (4 mp camera) that lack fine detail, but the 'look' is right for the mood of the image. I've made 8x10 contact prints from my 8x10 B&W sheet film which you'd think I should enlarge 'cause the film holds so much detail, but the 'look' was right for the mood of the image.

I wish people would stop getting hung up on the 'right' this, or the 'best' that, or the 'absolute' technical resolving power of a lens or film, and instead concentrate on making an image that pleases the maker and viewer.

When I see great photography, the last thing I think of is what camera was used.

[Bob McCarthy]

Gordon Moat, excellent writeup. You nailed the principal points.

The one fly in the ointment is 4x5 is a static system, not moving forward. No more R&D in film, scanning etc. Digital is still progressing radidly. Better raw converters (with every release of Camera raw), better sharpening, better local contrast control (Nikon Capture by NIK). Its a matter of time before digital surpasses film in every way but tradition.

I have recently begun stacking images in color with a D2x with shift lenses. Stacking in this discussion is stitching. PS3 does this extremely well. I have 6 panel images, that are enlargable to the size of a wall in the house in full resolution. Other than in-frame movement (not a LF strength either) stitching accomplishes everything one would want in a color print.

B&W is another world though. There is a smoothness, a emotional outpouring, that film can only do. Digital can't come close in my opinion. Maybe its the grain, the elemental form of the print to carry it. Digital can;t compete.

Yet,

But then does it really matter. Both can output remarkable work. I still am overwhelmed by any of AA's work in a show, done with 50+ year old lenses. He was a heck of a printer.

[Ken Lee]

"I raise this question because why would people put so much time into LF if the digital is as good or better? "

When time is money, photographers are clever enough to use the right tools for the job.

When you take time and money out of the equation, you end up with a different set of equipment, and a different method of using it: a different way of thinking...

...and if you're fortunate, you end up with a different set of images.

[Ed Richards]

Paul Butzi has some useful comparisons in this article:

http://www.butzi.net/articles/5dprintsize.htm

He moved to a 5D about a year ago from 4x5 and put some effort into working on the differences.

[claudiocambon]

A few months ago I started a thread about whether or not large format optics were unique in terms of their affect:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=23122

After virulent assertions one way and another, it got into the hard core physics of whether or not lenses of different formats produce unique looking images, or whether or not it is the relative level of resolution power afforded by the camera, be it digital or film. The discussion quickly went into the stratosphere (ie my comprehension was minimal), but I do remember that in the end the physicists decided that it was the former!

Having just returned from a 3 month stint lugging my Technika around (along with my 5D), of course I have an interest in justifying carrying that load. I will say, though, that after looking through contacts of the film, and test prints from the 35mm, they clearly feel like 2 different cameras, and 2 different ways of seeing. In turn, in terms of not just technique, but also content, they feel as if they portray two different ways of looking at time. I love the convenience of the 5D, and it helps me edit as I go, but I also came out of this experience loving my LF more than ever before.

[audioexcels]

Paul Butzi has some useful comparisons in this article:

http://www.butzi.net/articles/5dprintsize.htm

He moved to a 5D about a year ago from 4x5 and put some effort into working on the differences.

Paul has been excellent with all that he has posted on his site. I really respect someone that has done this kind of work for others that find interest. I like a couple of his Pacific Coast shots the most.

[Gene McCluney]

This comparing any digital capture system to using Large Format is silly. So what, if a digital camera can equal the resolution of 4x5.

This is like saying "4x5 is so good, why consider 8x10 or 11x14, or 12x20." Each camera/film size has its own strengths and weaknesses, and unique abilities. To turn ones back on LF film options just because a file from a digital camera can make as sharp a large size print as film is just ignoring all the other "reasons" for shooting Large Format.

[Brian Ellis]

I own a 4x5 camera and a Canon 5D. I have three lenses for the 5D, two of which are Canon L lenses and the third, which I almost never use, isn't. For 4x5 I have 5 lenses, the most used are a 210mm APO Symmar and a 135mm Rodenstock. 4x5 film is scanned on an Epson 4990, both types of photographs are printed on an Epson 3800 (2200 until very recently, with the 2200 being used in conjunction with a RIP for b&w printing).

I haven't made a detailed comparison of prints from the two systems. I pretty much just look at the prints and if they meet my technical standards then I'm happy (obviously content is a different matter). I'll read Paul Butzi's mentioned by Ed comparison with interest. My impression is that up to about 16x22 (roughly the largest print I've made with either system) there's no perceptible difference in terms of technical quality between the two systems much of the time. However, if I need a lot of depth of field I sometimes can get that with 4x5 by tilting or swinging. With the Canon I have to get it, if at all, by stopping down to the smallest possible aperture. That isn't always good enough so I sometimes end up with areas in the print that are fuzzy when they should be sharp (the benefit of being able to immediately see a photograph on the LCD screen of a digital camera is vastly overrated IMHO, the screen is too small even on the 5D to be very useful except to see the histogram).

Most importantly, there's a big difference for me between the pleasure of the 4x5 process and the 5D process. And much more personal satisfaction when I make a good photograph. When I use 4x5 I spend a lot of time finding the best possible composition and making the exposure. I seldom make more than one photograph of a subject. If it turns out to be a very good photograph I take a lot of personal pride in that. With the 5D after making what I think is the best photograph I usually make several more from different positions just in case the first one isn't the best. If when I edit I find that one in the latter group is the best I feel more like the camera made it than I did.

Offsetting all of that of course are a lot of things that tend to favor the 5D - ability to easily make a large number of photographs of the same subject and then pick the best when editing (offset by the lack of personal satisfaction with that approach discussed above), time and money saved by using and "processing" a digital card vs buying and processing film, ability to easily hand-hold if I want/need to, ability to switch back and forth among different "ISO" speeds, the list could go on and on.

When digital first started making inroads on film - back when prosumer digital cameras got up to about 3mps - I never thought I'd see the day when there'd even be a legitimate comparison between 4x5 film and digital. And now that day has clearly arrived and I'm thinking it's just a matter of time, and not a long time, before affordable digital cameras will surpass 4x5 in terms of technical quality of photographs. That doesn't mean 4x5 film will totally disappear in our lifetimes but it's a little discouraging.

[Gordon Moat]

Gordon Moat, excellent writeup. You nailed the principal points.

The one fly in the ointment is 4x5 is a static system, not moving forward. No more R&D in film, scanning etc. Digital is still progressing radidly. Better raw converters (with every release of Camera raw), better sharpening, better local contrast control (Nikon Capture by NIK). Its a matter of time before digital surpasses film in every way but tradition. . . . . . . . . . .

But then does it really matter. Both can output remarkable work. I still am overwhelmed by any of AA's work in a show, done with 50+ year old lenses. He was a heck of a printer.

Thanks for the compliment Bob. You bring up an interesting concept, which leads me to wonder what could be better in 4x5. After seeing some Edward Burtynsky large prints from 4x5, I have to wonder what I would want to be better.

So one thing I have wanted was Kodak E200 in 4x5 sizes, just because I like the push capability of this film. Unfortunately I am in the minority on that, so I will have to stick to 120 rollfilm in a holder on the back of my 4x5.

Fuji recently developed and released a new T64 Tungsten film, with even lower grain than before (actually matching Astia 100F). Kodak recently improved all their Portra films, though I have to admit to not using much C-41. Film improvements continue, but not in leaps and bounds of technology. However, I do wish for a low grain and higher ISO (or push capable) colour transparency film in a Readyload/Quickload packet system . . . somehow I don't expect that to happen.

New 4x5 cameras continue to come out, though new lenses much less often. I don't think that is a bad situation, since I feel we are at a point of a mature technology that can be used very effectively to create quite good results.

Scanner improvements are indeed quite slow, since they are mostly driven by the pre-press, graphic arts, and printing industries. The best systems are incredibly good at getting everything off the current films, and could easily meet the technical changes of any future film technology. The only real improvement here that I could imagine would be that high end quality at reduced prices. Of course, good refurbished deals do crop up every few months on high end scanners.

I have seen some massively huge images in museums and galleries and I have to wonder at what more could I want in capability. I have also met, or read about, commercial photographers generating huge revenues with equipment technically inferior to what I own, yet I find nothing technically lacking in any of their images.

I suppose this can be like owning a Bugatti Veyron, a Koenigsegg, or Ferrari Enzo; while all are quite capable of extreme velocities and accelerations, the realities of the average road with winding corners and short straights, not to even mention traffic and law enforcement, makes that technical capability more of a bragging right than something the average individual can achieve. I hate analogies, but honestly using a 4x5 is beyond the printing needs of many photographers; we simply don't need all the detail there, nor do we need the technical capabilities for many shots. So to imagine something even better might seem cool, like a supercar, though we are less likely to get near the limits of performance in our usage.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Bruce Watson]

Two of the things missing from this discussion are dynamic range and weight.

Dynamic range in a digital sensor is related to the size of the sensor well. Bigger wells can capture more photons, etc. Unfortunately, bigger wells also cost more money to manufacture, all other things being equal. So, two sensors of the same resolution, one being a full sized 35mm replacement, and the other being sub-35mm, the bigger sensor will typically deliever more dynamic range. Something better than most tranny films, but less than negative films.

As you move up to the MF digital backs you find that the manufacturers of these backs are more interesting in image quality and therefore make bigger sensors with bigger sensor wells. The Phase One P45+ for example claims 12 stops of dynamic range. In most real world circumstances this is good enough and pretty much equals color negative film. Modern B&W films have still more flat line response curve to go (100TMAX supposedly is good for something like 22 stops in the lab, but this is not of practical benefit to anyone in the field).

The Better Light scanning backs are good for even more. IIRC the claim is 14 stops, which is excellent. The Better Light scan backs also do away with the Bayer matrix (they make three separate exposures for R, G, and B as the sensor array moves across the frame) which makes the back free of most all digital artifacts like halos.

Then there is the idea of how much it all weighs, compared to film. The big component here is batteries and battery charging equipment. If you shoot near your car or in the studio, this isn't even an interesting discussion. But if you like to put your kit on your back and hike into the wilderness, this becomes much more interesting. The Better Light people told me a few years ago that the batteries, cables, PC, etc. added 20 lbs (9 Kg). For a hiker, this is nearly out of the question.

These are just some other things to consider. I'm not saying any of this is either good or bad. I'm just pointing out that this exists, and anyone contemplating these things might want to include them in the decision. Resolution is only part of the equation.

[RDKirk]

Butzi says:

At around 15x22, the lack of high frequency detail will start to show in the print from the digital capture, and so a print from a really detail rich source (large format film) will beat the 5d print on resolution but only break even on noise. At this scale, the 5d handily beats the bejeebers out of 35mm film, and edges out medium format film, which beats the 5d on resolution but loses on noise.

At around 20x30, the sparseness of detail is pretty obvious, and FOR MY CURRENT WORK I'd not really want to display prints from the 5d larger than this. Work which is utterly independent of rendering of detail (say, stuff like Stieglitz's cloud equivalents) might well benefit more from the lack of noise and since detail doesn't matter might look great at sizes larger.

I use both a 5D and 4x5 for portraits with enlargements up to 30x40. The 5D is my choice for portraits where the head size on the original image will be fairly large and/or the final enlargement will be modest. The 4x5 is my choice when the head size on the original image will be small (groups, for instance), and the final enlargement will be 30x40 or 40x50.

I've found true what Butzi says, but I explain it this way:

It depends on the detail requirements for your subject and your intended enlargement size. If the original digital image is able to capture the detail you want, you can interpolate it to nearly any size.

But then, the type of subject also comes into play. Viewers expect a landscape to reveal more and more detail as it's enlarged or as they move closer (and viewers tend to move as close as physically possible to a photograph). When the viewer is close enough (or the image is enlarged enough) to reveal the limits of the resolution of the image, the viewer becomes disappointed. Because of this, the resolution requirement of landscape photography is essentially infinite--you can't get too much detail.

OTOH, people have limits to how much detail they want to see in a portrait--few people want to see skin flakes and hair mites, no matter how close they get or how much the image is enlarged. Generally, if the eyelashes are sharp, the image is accepted as sharp.

Eyelashes are easy to interpolate--they're just dark lines. If the eyelashes are resolved in the original digital portrait image, it can be interpolated to nearly any size successfully. It's when they aren't resolved in the original image--when the scale is too small for the format--that the image disappoints viewers when the head size is enlarged to a point that viewers expect to see sharp eyelashes.

That's why you can hear portrait photographers boast about 20x30 enlargements from a 4mp image while landscape photographers shake their heads. It depends on both the subject and the degree of enlargement.

[RDKirk]

To turn ones back on LF film options just because a file from a digital camera can make as sharp a large size print as film is just ignoring all the other "reasons" for shooting Large Format.

If one does such a thing, doesn't that just mean the only reason he was shooting large format was for the sharpness? What does that have to do with the reasons anyone else is shooting large format?

[Harley Goldman]

I have a 5D and scan most of my 4x5 on an Epson 4990. I have some film drum scanned, but for this I will just compare to the 4990 scans. Printing at 16x20, I feel the film gives me prints with more fine detail than the 5D and smoother tone transitions. From a couple feet away, both yield very nice prints, but eye-balling them, I think the scanned 4x5 gives me a better print. The difference is not very big, but I feel is discernable.

[archivue]

i use both 4x5 and 5D... for my personal work i consider 16x20 prints to be too small... so i use 4x5 or 8x10 camera.
For professional work, when the goal is a book, most of time i use 5D.
5D is better for low contrast scene... but with very hight contrast scene, it becomes horibble !

[archivue]

to be fair, you should compare 4x5 to 5D with TSE lenses... movements !
I have the 24TSE, and the 45TSE... With the 24 and Mouvements, the 5D doesn't shine !

[Marko]

to be fair, you should compare 4x5 to 5D with TSE lenses... movements !
I have the 24TSE, and the 45TSE... With the 24 and Mouvements, the 5D doesn't shine !

There is no fair comparison between a DSLR and 4x5. If a $2500 5D, not to mention $7000 1DsII, could really compare with LF, nobody at their right minds would be buying $30000+ MF digital backs to use on $3000 cameras.

It is all a function of two variables - quality and economy.

[Doug Dolde]

I thought I posted this before but maybe it's gone. A very reputable Phase One dealer, Capture Integration, posted three raw files: Canon 1Ds Mark II, Phase One P30, and Phase One P45. If you download the raw files the difference between the Canon and the Phase One files is like night and day. They make the Canon look like a cheap toy (which by comparison it really is.)


http://www.captureintegration.com/comparison/Phase-One-P45-vs-P30-vs-1DSMkII.html

Also I simply can't understand why some of you guys are comparing a 5D to 4x5 film scanned on a cheap Epson scanner. This in no way represents the potential of 4x5 film and is not a fair comparison.

The reason I shoot 4x5 is BECAUSE of that potential and of course the economy over a hi-res digital back. If I were only going to scan 4x5 on an Epson I surely would shoot digital and save myself a lot of hassle.

[Dave Parker]

I thought I posted this before but maybe it's gone. A very reputable Phase One dealer, Capture Integration, posted three raw files: Canon 1Ds Mark II, Phase One P30, and Phase One P45. If you download the raw files the difference between the Canon and the Phase One files is like night and day. They make the Canon look like a cheap toy (which by comparison it really is.)


http://www.captureintegration.com/comparison/Phase-One-P45-vs-P30-vs-1DSMkII.html

Also I simply can't understand why some of you guys are comparing a 5D to 4x5 film scanned on a cheap Epson scanner. This in no way represents the potential of 4x5 film and is not a fair comparison.

The reason I shoot 4x5 is BECAUSE of that potential and of course the economy over a hi-res digital back. If I were only going to scan 4x5 on an Epson I surely would shoot digital and save myself a lot of hassle.

Hear, hear Doug..

You summed it up!

Dave

[Ed Richards]

> Also I simply can't understand why some of you guys are comparing a 5D to 4x5 film scanned on a cheap Epson scanner. This in no way represents the potential of 4x5 film and is not a fair comparison.

Because it is all we can afford to do. Drum scanning costs either a lot of money or or a lot of time (finding the scanner, getting it going, mastering the scanning, finding parts or a replacement when it dies, etc.) Assuming a low price of $85 per scan with postage for a commerical scan, $30K only buys about 360 scans.

[Doug Dolde]

I agree drum scan prices are a killer. That's why I use jaincotech.com for Imacon 949 scans at $14 each including dust spotting. (They don't have a fixed price...you have to get a quote.)

Ask for Guatam Pai and tell him I sent you.

For real drum scans West Coast Imaging does a great 200mb 8 bit scan for $50. And sometimes they have sales.

[Dominique Labrosse]

I thought I posted this before but maybe it's gone. A very reputable Phase One dealer, Capture Integration, posted three raw files: Canon 1Ds Mark II, Phase One P30, and Phase One P45. If you download the raw files the difference between the Canon and the Phase One files is like night and day. They make the Canon look like a cheap toy (which by comparison it really is.)


http://www.captureintegration.com/comparison/Phase-One-P45-vs-P30-vs-1DSMkII.html

Also I simply can't understand why some of you guys are comparing a 5D to 4x5 film scanned on a cheap Epson scanner. This in no way represents the potential of 4x5 film and is not a fair comparison.

The reason I shoot 4x5 is BECAUSE of that potential and of course the economy over a hi-res digital back. If I were only going to scan 4x5 on an Epson I surely would shoot digital and save myself a lot of hassle.

I work with files from most of the popular pro-level dSLRs on a day to day basis. I have found that 5D files are cleaner than 1DSMkII and D2X files. I suspect this is because they are from a chip that uses larger photosites. Physics tells us that the larger a photo site the lower the signal to noise ratio.

Photosite site size on the 5D chip as I understand it is about 8.2 micron. Which is similar in size to those of the Phase One P25+ (22MP MF back) 9 micron. I suspect both have similar signal to noise ratios. I think this, combined with a price tag that though high is not in the stratosphere, is why the 5D has such a large following. Add photo stitching and L series glass into the equation and suddenly the 5D becomes a really attractive tool. I just wish I was not so invested in Nikon gear so I'd have an excuse to buy one.

By this argument I mean not to suggest that a 5D is in any way better or worse than 4x5 or digital MF backs (I have limited experience examining files from the latter). I just wanted to point out that the physics of some MF back chips compared to the 5D chip says that the signal to noise ratios of each should be similar.

[audioexcels]

I work with files from most of the popular pro-level dSLRs on a day to day basis. I have found that 5D files are cleaner than 1DSMkII and D2X files. I suspect this is because they are from a chip that uses larger photosites. Physics tells us that the larger a photo site the lower the signal to noise ratio.

Photosite site size on the 5D chip as I understand it is about 8.2 micron. Which is similar in size to those of the Phase One P25+ (22MP MF back) 9 micron. I suspect both have similar signal to noise ratios. I think this, combined with a price tag that though high is not in the stratosphere, is why the 5D has such a large following. Add photo stitching and L series glass into the equation and suddenly the 5D becomes a really attractive tool. I just wish I was not so invested in Nikon gear so I'd have an excuse to buy one.

By this argument I mean not to suggest that a 5D is in any way better or worse than 4x5 or digital MF backs (I have limited experience examining files from the latter). I just wanted to point out that the physics of some MF back chips compared to the 5D chip says that the signal to noise ratios of each should be similar.

It's not the clean file above ISO 400 like the Canon 5D is, but if you use all Nikon glass, do your shooting primarily around 50-100ISO, you should have a look at the Kodak SLR/N. It is a fabulous camera and one who has used all these top end DSLRS says it has a better output than any full framer on the market when used within its limits (low iso). I don't shoot high iso anyhow, so a camera like the Kodak would be great for me in spite it looks a bit intimidating in size (well, how can I say such a thing when I've got whole plate and a possible 8X10 coming soon and have had 10X12 cameras). Anyhow, it's the best bang for the buck for the landscape/studio/still composition type shooter in the DSLR world IMHO...

[Harley Goldman]

Doug,

The reason for comparing the 5D to a cheap scanner is easy. I think 4x5 and a cheap scanner (4990) exceed the quality of a single 5D frame, which by clear inference, means a drum-scanned 4x5 will far exceed a single 5D frame. It is a very valid comparison. It puts the 5D into perspective.

[Robert Payne]

I have some close up, head and shoulders portraits taken on the 5D on my hard drive.

If I bring them into PhotoZoom Pro, I can enlarge them to ANY size, and I mean ANY size I want, and they will print with incredible skin texture and detail, probably too much for a portrait.

However, if I take that same 5D and try to shoot something that requires distant-detail (ahem, a landscape, perhaps?), then it just won't cut it for a 40x50. EVEN if I mount the 5D on a Cambo Ultima view camera with Rodenstock HR digital lenses, it's not going to cut it for the larger prints SOME of us want.

This is where 4x5 film and the newer MF digital backs come in. The 39MP backs do a better job of giving us that infinite detail we're looking for in a landscape, and 4x5 and larger film are the same and/or better when done correctly.

It depends so much on what you shoot, it's insane.

[David Luttmann]

I thought I posted this before but maybe it's gone. A very reputable Phase One dealer, Capture Integration, posted three raw files: Canon 1Ds Mark II, Phase One P30, and Phase One P45. If you download the raw files the difference between the Canon and the Phase One files is like night and day. They make the Canon look like a cheap toy (which by comparison it really is.)


http://www.captureintegration.com/comparison/Phase-One-P45-vs-P30-vs-1DSMkII.html

Also I simply can't understand why some of you guys are comparing a 5D to 4x5 film scanned on a cheap Epson scanner. This in no way represents the potential of 4x5 film and is not a fair comparison.

The reason I shoot 4x5 is BECAUSE of that potential and of course the economy over a hi-res digital back. If I were only going to scan 4x5 on an Epson I surely would shoot digital and save myself a lot of hassle.

While I agree that the 1Ds Mk2 doesn't hold up to the D Backs....the 1Ds Mk2 sample in your link is focussed on the background....leaving the persons face blurry....giving the impression of lower rez.

I don't put much credit into samples provided by groups who can't even figure out how to focus a camera.

[David Luttmann]

Try your pixelography on a 20 minute or so exposure or a long 2-8 hour star trail photo and see how it works... if the batteries will even hold up.

Open the shutter for 2-4 minutes and see how it does during very dark storm clouds and lightening strikes.

Take it out in the field in below zero weather and set it up for awhile and see if it will keep on exposing the image without problem.

Try matching even a basic 4x5/8x10 setup for the $1500 or under range.

Try doing the entire photography/development/print cycle without any electricity and see how the pixelography stands up. Very expensive shelf art under those conditions.

For what it does, it can do it well. But the idea of just replacing LF gear with pixelography gear is foolish. If you are going to change push it where you think you are limited with your current stuff. 'same old stuff' using new and vastly more expensive gear is not an improvement.

Never heard of Pixelography.....is it similar to Grainography?

[Dirk Rösler]

There is no fair comparison between a DSLR and 4x5.

I think the comments were more directed at TSE lenses and movements (my interpretation anyway), and I would be interested to hear more experiences on that, rather than format issues.

[Marko]

Try your pixelography on a 20 minute or so exposure or a long 2-8 hour star trail photo and see how it works... if the batteries will even hold up.

Open the shutter for 2-4 minutes and see how it does during very dark storm clouds and lightening strikes.

Take it out in the field in below zero weather and set it up for awhile and see if it will keep on exposing the image without problem.

Or perhaps try doing held-held candle-light shot in the evening, followed by mid-day sun-lit seascape without having to change film.

Maybe even shoot an entire social gathering and have printed photos for all the guests by the time they leave.

Not to mention shooting an event on one side of the world and have the image at your editor's computer in as little time as it takes to get to the nearest phone. For those equipped with satellite phones/links, it takes less than writing this message.

Those are all just straight out-of-camera uses. Photoshop lets you do much, much more. Such as pulling a dynamic range out of a single raw image that you could only dream of with film. Or stitching a perfect panorama. Or tweaking the tonality. Or successfully doing million other things that would pathetically fail in the traditional darkroom...

If I wanted to put it in a simple sound-byte, I'd just say: Digital doesn't stink. :D



Try matching even a basic 4x5/8x10 setup for the $1500 or under range.

Basic? How about a 10 MP DSLR with an 17-85mm image-stabilized zoom for about a grand, give or take? That would be the approx. lens coverage equivalent of 75mm - 400mm in 4x5 terms. Can literally hand-hold in candle light, but a if you wanted a tripod you could get a perfectly usable one that's cheaper and lighter than the head only you would need for 4x5. No film holders to load and schlep, only a couple of miniscule memory cards that cost less than a pair of new film holders but capable of holding several hundred shots each.



Try doing the entire photography/development/print cycle without any electricity and see how the pixelography stands up. Very expensive shelf art under those conditions.

Why would anybody want to do that? Far as I know, 19th century ended more than hundred years ago... But even if I really wanted to, people were busy inventing stuff during all that time, such as laptops, batteries and solar power chargers.

Let's see:

Canon 400 XTi with 17-85mm IS lens and a battery ~ $1000
Tripod ~ $100
13" MacBook ~ $1000
Solar Battery Charger ~ $100

Total: $2200, all brand new, retail. These are quality options, similar budget configuration could be had for roughly 60% of the money, also brand new, retail.

Compare that to a similar 4x5 setup, new, say over at Badger... And that's even without an enlarger and also discounting the fact that a laptop is a multi-use item.

Pixelography? Maybe. But it still doesn't stink. :D

[Marko]

I think the comments were more directed at TSE lenses and movements (my interpretation anyway), and I would be interested to hear more experiences on that, rather than format issues.

Somehow I interpreted the question and comments more in line of resulting image quality.

Maybe you are right, but I don't think those lenses can really compare either. It's the equivalent of hand-held LF - it can be done, but it is definitely not the format's forte.

[David Luttmann]

True Marko....

Or maybe we could ask him not to use any film or chemicals to make his image. I wonder how he lights his enlarger without electricity?

Nothing like a stupid post like that.

[audioexcels]

I have some close up, head and shoulders portraits taken on the 5D on my hard drive.

If I bring them into PhotoZoom Pro, I can enlarge them to ANY size, and I mean ANY size I want, and they will print with incredible skin texture and detail, probably too much for a portrait.

However, if I take that same 5D and try to shoot something that requires distant-detail (ahem, a landscape, perhaps?), then it just won't cut it for a 40x50. EVEN if I mount the 5D on a Cambo Ultima view camera with Rodenstock HR digital lenses, it's not going to cut it for the larger prints SOME of us want.

This is where 4x5 film and the newer MF digital backs come in. The 39MP backs do a better job of giving us that infinite detail we're looking for in a landscape, and 4x5 and larger film are the same and/or better when done correctly.

It depends so much on what you shoot, it's insane.


I would love to make responses to everyone because each person has had a wonderful response. I'm very happy how this thread has turned out because it has brought in so many perspectives, a lot of data, opinions, variation...maybe others see it as redundancy, but it's been very fruitful for me, especially if I were to pose the topic on another forum that doesn't have such a great group of people as there are around here. Thanks everyone so much!!!

Now to respond to the above...The point made about the subject matter and what one takes photos of most or perhaps, rather, what one has the most interest in shooting when the day is done. I love taking photos of my wife. I love viewing photos of people in documentary type situations such as vacations where scenes of people from around the world are in the context..."in the moment scenes" of people. I love seeing photos of animals, and really the subject matter begins to become irrelevant in the end in what I love to view. But what I love to take photos of, excluding my wife and other beautiful girls;), is nature. Nature is by far the most significant context for me. For a long while, I was way into sunsets and must have had 1000's of sunset photos (digital of course). But a point raised in this discussion was about the use of an Lf to get one shot of a particular subject and to get multiple angles/shots of the same subject. The person said that being able to just shoot away a bunch of different photos in such a short time of one subject and being able to pick out that right one as opposed to having only one or two chances of that right one with the LF setup didn't seem like photography to him...in other words, the redundancy of the digital leads to things like me capturing too many shots of various sunsets to even think about, and then have people looking at my photos on my computer and basically getting bored after seeing only the 200th shot of the sunset collection...I loved and do love being able to capture all the different things taking place especially when there is an exceptional sunset taking place. There was one, for example, that was absolutely out of this world and going through phase after phase of different coloration, clouds floating around...and then in the background was a single and then a double rainbow...just so much to capture in only one sunset. How to do so with an LF setup??? But when I would go over what would be about 200-300 shots, especially a comparably best sunset I have ever seen, I would only select a few, basically a handful or even 10 that I considered "truly" breathtaking shots. Surely, there are 100 more that would qualify, but these "select few" were ones "I" would take over any of the others which means I could have an LF setup and simply utilize the time/space in a patient manner to get these same shots, but with a much higher level of detail/resolution/etc. In the end, I find it to be lots of fun being able to unload tons of shots with the digital...but do not find any actual manifestation of these shots into print as being anything special but with select few of the tons...

Getting back to the point...It is great to learn more about the various views on enlargements, the potential of them, even the potential being dependent on the context (i.e. portrait vs. landscape)...and in the end, it comes down to the fact that we all love taking photos and finding ways to capture something that we see and even do not see;), with lots of the troubles and miracles that come along the way. Just having the ability to shoot with a digital capture or with an LF setup or with a polaroid setup, etc. etc. etc. brings all of us something that we can cherish so much for the fact that it exists and we can make wonderful use of these tools while appreciating so much that we have such tools. Imagine if photography did not exist..what would we be doing instead? Of course we do many other things, but taking photography out of the equation is like taking reproduced/home hi-end music out of the equation...well, at least for me it is!

I can say that I love the many types of camera systems I have used due to what they can and cannot do. I like them in the same way as I love to listen to my home system=you can either go and buy tons of classical music or learn to like the fact that you can hear all the horrible compression of cds, especially from the 70's and 80's;).

On a final point to what is likely a ramble on to many around here...LF is simply the first and last format of choice for me...I love the feeling that another poster described as standing around his scene that involves a model and looking at different ways of approaching the scene due to having that nice big view. I love this same "freedom" from the finder on my eye...Sure, you still have to look through some sort of glass, and even a loupe;), but it's simply a very "comforting" feeling being able to feel this free flow of taking photos. I love the simplicity of the LF system...it's like a very well designed home amplifier that has a few parts in the chain rather than some highly complicated circuit with a gazillion parts/mechanisms, etc.

Well...keep up the posts everyone as I've been very appreciative of everyone that has contributed. This is a really wonderful forum.

Regards!!!!

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

Just as an echo to the original question, there are some interesting views by 3 European architecture photographers, just published in the last issue (#1653, Jumy-August 2003 ) French magazine « le Photographe ».

http://www.lephotographe.fr/home/couv.php?id=28
http://www.lephotographe.fr/

Since few of you will have access to this article in French, I take the liberty to make a summary here.

The 3 photographers are Gilles Aymard from Lyons, France ; Toon Grobet from Belgium and Gerry O'Leary from Dublin, Ireland. G. Aymard and T. Grobet work alone and for a better response to the short delays and tight costs imposed by their clients, they do all of, or most of their work with a full 24X36 digital SLR. G. Aymard had switched from the 4x5" to the 6x9cm format (with the Arca Swiss 6x9) to increase its productivity, some years ago; he still uses 6x9 on film for part of his job while T. Grobet is almost 100% digital-capture.

Gerry O'Leary of Dublin manages a fairly big studio and still uses the 4"x5" on film. He considers that distortion in lenses designed for 35mm SLRs is a pain, as the boss of the studio, he does not want to see time spent bis his employees in post-production correcting this.

So one of the major issues is time spent in post-processing. All 3 professionals insist on this aspect. For example it is faster to do a lens shift and correct the perspective on location vith a view camera than doing it by post processing, although correcting perspective appears at a first glance as a fairly easy task ; my kids would love playing with this feature but I do not pay them for that ;-)

An interesting note about the market of architecture photography mentioned by the 3 Europeans is that when digital camera appeared, many of their clients considered that they could make their architecture pictures themselves without need for hiring a professional. Apparently, what could be argued for pack-shots of cereal packages does not apply to architecture photography where there is a real added value by the professional photographer. So the clients eventually came back.

All 3 professionnals are still not ready to work with a $30,000 medium-format digital back for different reasons, mostly the initial cost with respect to the service provided either by a 24x36 digital SLR or 4x5" on film.

OFF-TOPIC I was very interested to read that Dublin is as of 2007 a boosting city wth many brand-new buildings waiting for top-class professional architecture photography.
I had seen the gigantic renovation work of Potsdamer Platz in Berlin in the nineties, and to a lesser extent but still quite impressive, the renovation of Warsaw (Poland) around the Culture Palace.
I did not expect to see Dublin experiencing such an architectural boost.

So, for our readers on the other side of the Atlantic, whether of Irish origin or not, remember that Shannon is the nearest European airport from the East Coast of America, and besides stout, celtic music and curragh boats, there is something happening in Ireland now ;)

[Stefan Lungu]

True Marko....

Or maybe we could ask him not to use any film or chemicals to make his image. I wonder how he lights his enlarger without electricity?

Nothing like a stupid post like that.

Well, to think a


Canon 400 XTi with 17-85mm IS lens and a battery ~ $1000

Will give you high quality images - and that is this thread about - is a very high risk assumption.
But, of course both have some truth in what they say, I don't understand why take it that personal.
There are people here that use both film and digital and have shared the experience they had with both. The only thing I have learned is that both ways have strengths and limitations and you simply have to take the best suited tool for the job. I would not try to take pictures of my son with a Sinar ( didn't tryed it with the Mamiya RB either for that matter ), but go with the Sinar for architecture, stills and landscape if you have the time. Let's face it : my whole Sinar setup including tripod and head, Sinar F, six film holders, a Sironar-N 150 MC and a SA 90 MC have cost me about 1000 EUR. Getting a TS lens for the Canon would cost that much...

Regards, Stefan

[Kirk Gittings]

I keep hearing the Canon 5D is equal to 4X5 up to a certain enlargement size=20X24. If this is so, then the other digital systems I mentioned surely will be as good and better than a 4X5 analog setup.

...

I use a 5D and this that you are hearing is a complete myth. It is a myth started by people coming from 35mm film, who do not have very high (large format) standards. I virtually test this every week as much of my commercial work is done with a 5D, but I also shoot and scan 6x6 film, 6x9 and 4x5 every week. In the real world, a very very careful worker with a 5D can produce images that will be comparable and slightly exceed 645 medium format film shot with Zeiss lenses and drum scanned or even 6x9 scanned on a mediocre flatbed up to about 16x20. But the 5D cannot compete with 4x5 at even 11x14 unless you are not very demanding in your final output.

[Robert Hughes]

The one fly in the ointment is 4x5 is a static system, not moving forward. No more R&D in film, scanning etc. Digital is still progressing radidly. Better raw converters (with every release of Camera raw), better sharpening, better local contrast control (Nikon Capture by NIK). Its a matter of time before digital surpasses film in every way but tradition.

On the other hand, the potential quality of the standard 4x5 analog format is so far beyond the needs of the average user that, by specs alone, it will never be obsolesced by digital.

I come from an audio recording background, and have seen wondrous advances in digital recording since the early 80's. Nine times out of ten, a high end digital recording of a live mic sounds indistinguishable from the original feed. But engineers still use analog recorders, and not just for their quirks; they sound fabulous, they are more user friendly in practise, and most clients don't care so much about the format anymore. I use modern digital gear but I'll continue to use my analog multitrack until it dies of old age, or I do, whichever comes first.

[Marko]

Well, to think a


anon 400 XTi with 17-85mm IS lens and a battery ~ $1000


Will give you high quality images - and that is this thread about - is a very high risk assumption.

But, of course both have some truth in what they say, I don't understand why take it that personal.

Stefan, if you go back and read it more carefully, you will notice three things that you missed the first time:

1. It was me who stated earlier in the thread that DSLRs cannot compare with 4x5 as far as quality is concerned, because if they could, nobody would be buying many times more expensive MF digital backs.

2. What you quote here was only a part of a response to the poster who stated that one cannot put a digital setup for anything close to $1500 and that digital is useless without electricity available.

Therefore, the post you are replying to was not about comparing image quality but about comparing the economy of two different setups. Those are very different aspects.

3. It was not personal, it was simply a response to a silly game of name calling.

[Marko]

Dakotah,


Well guys, not everyone lives where there are power lines coming in or even regular power available. With a nice blizzard, wind storms and the like being without electricity is something that we can rely on for a number of weeks out of each year.

Well, what can I tell you? Google is my friend and it can be yours too. Simply type in "Solar Power Charger" or "Solar Power Generator" and let it search. You might just find what kind of things people invented in the last hundred years or so...

Of course, you will have to initially do it during those periods when you do have electricity, since you obviously already have a computer.


The fine examples you bring up of pixelography convenience just don't apply to the LF gear.

...

Pixelography has its advantages but it has major disadvantages.

Frankly, I find this name calling game just plain silly, even infantile. How does one argue with an infant? Much less explain the meaning of the phrase "Horses for courses"...

Very literally in this case, since cars were invented even later than electricity...

:rolleyes:

[Rakesh Malik]

When digital first started making inroads on film - back when prosumer digital cameras got up to about 3mps - I never thought I'd see the day when there'd even be a legitimate comparison between 4x5 film and digital. And now that day has clearly arrived and I'm thinking it's just a matter of time, and not a long time, before affordable digital cameras will surpass 4x5 in terms of technical quality of photographs. That doesn't mean 4x5 film will totally disappear in our lifetimes but it's a little discouraging.


I don't think it will happen until we get a new sensor technology. Don't forget that most of the data coming from today's 35mm and most medium format cameras is interpolated, not captured, due to the fact that current CCD and CMOS sensors are monochromatic.

Jenoptik and Mamiya have features that work around this in various ways; Mamiya's newest digital back lets you pull the Bayer filter out of the back so that you can use the sensor's full resolution for a shot, and Jenoptik has a feature that catpures 4 frames, one for each color (2 for green due to the fact that silicon has low sensitivity to green), and combines them to form a full-resolution color image.

Foveon is doing something like this also, and BetterLight has been doing it for quite a while, actually capturing full color... and even the Foveon sensor interpolates from 4.7 megapixels to 14 megapixels. At least they're starting with pixels, rather than partial pixels like everyone else in 35mm.

In the end though, I use 4x5 because I enjoy it. I prefer it to using 35mm, because of the groundglass focussing, and the main reason I don't use anything bigger is weight -- I routinetly carry my kit pretty far offroad.

I don't mind that people use and are satisfied with digital... but the ones that claim that digital has better resolution than film seem to be trying to justify their use of digital rather than film. People have already commented on the sheer detail as well as the sharpness of my LF images -- and they've only seen web-sized images (1600 pixels on the long side) -- and I'm a beginner at photography AND scanning.

It makes me look forward to the time when my skills catch up to my gear... which is further incentive to keep learning (as if the fact that it's so much fun on its own isn't enough). :)

Of course, having said all that, I'll probably be getting a dSLR sometime in the near-ish future (how near depends mainly on my budget :)), mainly for use in macrophotography and record shots when hiking, and that sort of thing. That they don't have the resolution of LF film doesn't make them suck, as at least one other poster has already pointed out.

[David Luttmann]

Dakotah,



Well, what can I tell you? Google is my friend and it can be yours too. Simply type in "Solar Power Charger" or "Solar Power Generator" and let it search. You might just find what kind of things people invented in the last hundred years or so...

Of course, you will have to initially do it during those periods when you do have electricity, since you obviously already have a computer.



Frankly, I find this name calling game just plain silly, even infantile. How does one argue with an infant? Much less explain the meaning of the phrase "Horses for courses"...

Very literally in this case, since cars were invented even later than electricity...

:rolleyes:

Marko,

Maybe he can try some of that pesky electricity with a Betterlight on his 4x5....then he'll be able to see what a view camera is really capable. Of course, he'll have to move away from that nasty Grainography process.

[Stefan Lungu]

Stefan, if you go back and read it more carefully, you will notice three things that you missed the first time:

1. It was me who stated earlier in the thread that DSLRs cannot compare with 4x5 as far as quality is concerned, because if they could, nobody would be buying many times more expensive MF digital backs.

2. What you quote here was only a part of a response to the poster who stated that one cannot put a digital setup for anything close to $1500 and that digital is useless without electricity available.

Therefore, the post you are replying to was not about comparing image quality but about comparing the economy of two different setups. Those are very different aspects.

3. It was not personal, it was simply a response to a silly game of name calling.

Sorry Marko, I reread the thread more carefully and I think you are right on many points. I also think that depending on the purpose, a 6MP P&S has it's place as well as a 8x10 and for me it's not about one or the other. I prefered to stay with my old 300D and get some nice Leica glass around it. On the other hand, what I liked about the Mamiya RB is that it operates without batteries. But for me the main point remains, as you say "Horses for courses", and also a problem of personal taste in enjoying to work with one tool or the other and also the pleasure of learning the tools...
Regards, Stefan

[Marko]

Marko,
I probably know more about Solar power and have installed and worked on more Solar systems than you have read about.

Probably. But then again, probably not. I can't really say because I don't know anything about you. Just as you know nothing about me.


As for the snide remarks on pixelography and film, this is a LF forum and most here shoot film in their view cameras. A $20,000 digital back is not to be found in the workflow of most of us. Even many who can afford one don't use them for many reasons.

Yes, this is an LF forum and yes, very few here use those expensive digital backs. But I'm fairly certain that even fewer participants live in such primitive conditions. What does this have to do with calling them "pixelography", "digitoys" or similar silly names?


Maybe one of these days you and your pals will be in areas of the world where Ugly Americans are treated as they deserve while you come in and tell everyone how to do things your way. There are other ways of doing things and very real limitations in many places across the globe, including right here in the USA.

Me and my pals? Ugly American? Wow!

Looks like somebody woke up on the wrong side of the rock, as the commercial goes...

:D

[Marko]

Sorry Marko, I reread the thread more carefully and I think you are right on many points. I also think that depending on the purpose, a 6MP P&S has it's place as well as a 8x10 and for me it's not about one or the other. I prefered to stay with my old 300D and get some nice Leica glass around it. On the other hand, what I liked about the Mamiya RB is that it operates without batteries. But for me the main point remains, as you say "Horses for courses", and also a problem of personal taste in enjoying to work with one tool or the other and also the pleasure of learning the tools...
Regards, Stefan

No problem Stefan, like you said, it's all about enjoyment and learning. :)

[RDKirk]

I have some close up, head and shoulders portraits taken on the 5D on my hard drive.

If I bring them into PhotoZoom Pro, I can enlarge them to ANY size, and I mean ANY size I want, and they will print with incredible skin texture and detail, probably too much for a portrait.

However, if I take that same 5D and try to shoot something that requires distant-detail (ahem, a landscape, perhaps?), then it just won't cut it for a 40x50. EVEN if I mount the 5D on a Cambo Ultima view camera with Rodenstock HR digital lenses, it's not going to cut it for the larger prints SOME of us want.

This is where 4x5 film and the newer MF digital backs come in. The 39MP backs do a better job of giving us that infinite detail we're looking for in a landscape, and 4x5 and larger film are the same and/or better when done correctly.

It depends so much on what you shoot, it's insane.

What you said is just what I'd said above.

As for film being superior to digital when the weather knocks out the power...well, when that happens in my house, I stop fooling around with photography, light a fire, and fool around with my wife.

[Neal Shields]

Take, as I have, a unfolded newspaper and pin it to the wall. Fill the view finder of both a digital camera and a 35mm camera on tripods and take a picture. Use a 40 power loupe ( I salvaged mine form an old microfilm reader) and read the paper on the negative and blow up the digital on the screen and read the paper. Now half again the distance and try it again. You will still be backing up with film long after you can't read the newspaper from the digital file.

You will find, (as athe FBI did in a 2 year study) that 200 asa film is about the same as a 16 meg camera.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2002/swgitfield1.htm

It is also interesting to note that Zeiss reproduces 80 to 400 lp/mm on film.

http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9?Open

My point is that it doesn't need to be debated because it is so easily measureable.

Note many people that get different results are measuring scanner resolution not film resolution.

[Marko]

As for film being superior to digital when the weather knocks out the power...well, when that happens in my house, I stop fooling around with photography, light a fire, and fool around with my wife.

What's weather got to do with that? :D