Digital back versus digital SLR?

[windhorse]

I enjoy very much using my old 4x5 workshorse with a couple of good lenses as well as a Mamiya 7 for moving subjects, and scan my negatives with an Imacon precision II scanner. But due to difficulties with rising film prices and availability I also have a (14MB digital) Kodak Pro SLR/n that I use with good quality refurbished AF Nikon lenses. The result is that I am running around with too many cameras and would like to simplify this by trading my way towards one single digital solution - most likely a preloved LF or MF digital back that can go on my LF camera or a MF body,

As I prefer using LF to an SLR, I am considering trying to trade my Kodak SLR/n and invest in a used MF or LF digital back - The 16MB Hasselblad H20 digital back is one option I am considering, as I could also mount it on my LF as well as shoot with a MF system - but am not sure if this may just be a waste of money.

What I am wondering about most is what difference if any I would see in color TIFF files from the 16MB H20 mounted on a LF or MF system compared to 14MB color TIFF files from my Kodak SLR/n (apart from the obvious extra 2MPs)?

Apart from the marketing hype is there any difference in the type of sensor technology used for MF/LF digital backs compared to digital SLRs or the way the sensor is mounted and works with the rest of the system.

Or is there no big difference between a LF or MF digital back and a digital SLR apart from the (very important of course) obvious differences such as square format of the Hassie back compared to the traditional oblong format of the SLR/n, weight and size, quality of the MF/LF lenses compared to my AF Nikkors (is there such a big between good 35mm and MF/LF glass) etc. I never use tilts and swings so this is not an issue for me though may be for others.

As I have already mentioned my preference is to shoot with a LF or MF camera rather than an SLR. But not if I have to pay twice the price for a digital back that delivers similar digital results in terms of resolution, shadow-highlight detail, performance in low light etc. as the digital SLR that I already have.

What would you do?

[Bob Salomon]

Look at the current issue of Photo Techniques for an article that is just about this. Complete with comparison images.

[Brian Ellis]

I thought that the H20 was recently discontinued.

[phototech]

I am currently shooting with a Hasselblad H2 and a CF39 back. This is used primarily in the studio. I can mount that back on my Sinar View camera or a Cambo Wide. The 39MP backs are the first that I have been happy with when compared to 4x5 film. I did rent a 16MP Sinar a few years ago and they really arent as portable and dependable as a good DSLR would be in the field. If you want to use the back in the field (with a view camera), you will need the proprietary macro back ($$$)so that you can utilize the ground glass, which will be the size of the sensor. Not great for previewing your shot.

If I were in your shoes, I might take a look at some of the new DSLR technology out there such as the Nikon D300 or Canon equivs. i am right there with you, I prefer to shoot with my view camera as well but honestly the only thing that comes close in resolution is the 39MP backs.

I live in Cincinnati Ohio. If you are anywhere close, we do have a good lab still processing a lot of film, Robin Imaging. Surrounding cities have lost their film labs and sent much business to Robin Img. It looks like they will be processing for quite a while.

best of luck! scott

[phototech]

Oh..one last point. There is much more money sunk into the development of the larger format chips (Hass, Phase, and Sinar). Much of the magic happens in the software. It is really difficult to produce a flawless sensor at that scale. The software or firmware actually makes customized corrections at the factory to maximize the sensors efficiency. In my view, yes there is a big difference but of course, you need to test specific products out for yourself, see if it makes a noticable difference.

I know that users of high end digital backs regularly "trade up" with the above mentioned companies to acquire new technology. Wonder what happens to all their trade ins? The grinder I guess.

[Gordon Moat]

You can find slightly older new and refurbished medium format digital backs, though shop carefully. I would suggest contacting Leaf, now owned by Kodak, since they have a very good track record with their refurbs. You can also contact PhaseOne directly, though I don't have any knowledge on refurb availability; they do offer a test and repair service, so that is another option.

The biggest sensor technology difference is that all MFDBs use CCD sensors, either from Kodak or Dalsa. Oddly enough, the sensor in the Kodak 14n is a CMOS made for them by Fill Factory in Belgium. The CMOS advantage is largely in reduction of processing and power requirements compared to a CCD sensor. The much maligned 14n is actually quite good within it's limits. Compare to a 16 MP MFDB, the individual cell sites will be larger, which could mean a slightly better sensitivity. Mostly you might see that in shadow detail, but on a computer monitor it might not be visible. So the end quality comparison tests would need to be done through prints, and thus the printing limitations become your quality limit.

Complaining of rising film prices while considering high end digital (even used refurbs) seems to me that you are a high end enthusiast, or possibly a speculative art photographer. Almost any commercial professional I have known either has film as a zero cost item, or at a slight mark-up. The reason I mention this is that I question the implied cost savings of shifting from film to a MFDB. What you might gain in cost difference you will loose in time . . . essentially you become the lab for everything, though I suspect you have some feel for that from using a 14n. I am not trying to criticize, but before you go into spending vast amounts on these things, perhaps you should draw up a business plan that evaluated cost to profit ratios.

As regarding a plan of action, you have a couple options before spending lots of money. First thing would be to rent a MFDB and actually try using it. If you decide that you like the working methods, then the next thing you could investigate is lease plans. It can make financial sense to rent or lease as needed, rather than purchasing. This can also fit into many business plans better.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[windhorse]

Thanks for your pointer to Mark Dubovey´s piece in the Photo Techniques article, Bob, which I found a pointer to on the magazine´s website. Just a pity that I live in a different part of the world. Is PT available outside the USA?

Brian you are right that the H20 digital back has been recently discontinued, which I hope is more likely to make used models more affordable for what Gordon decribes as “high end enthusiast/speculative art photographer” types like me who survives by jumping from one completed project to the next new one and keeping my head and expenses down, rather than following a business plan – though even to me the idea of giving some thought and asking some questions about the best way to replace a bunch of aging equipment with one single newer system seems to make financial sense.

My concern with my usual bargain basement approach of shopping carefully and trying to ride the wave just behind the cutting edge is that as phototech points out “much of the magic is in the software” which I learned by buying the Kodak SLR/n for a bargain price soon after it was discontinued, then had to watch the firmware for this camera age as other manufacturers continued to update firmware for their products.

Thanks for the advice,

Peter

[Gene McCluney]

The difference between a full-frame 35mm DSLR such as the Kodak 14/n, and ANY digital back for medium format is...with the full-frame DSLR all your lenses give you the same field of view as you would get with a "film" 35mm SLR, thus all your wide-angle lenses will remain wide angle.

On ANY medium-format digital back, the sensor is not as big as the film frame the camera would take, thus your extreme wide-angle lenses become normal or moderate wide angle, and your normal lenses become short telephoto lenses. There is NO medium-format digital back that gives you a 6x6cm sensor, and even the biggest is just shy of 6x4.5cm. Some of those 16mp digital backs have a sensor about the same size as a 35mm film frame...pretty small.

[Bob Salomon]

Peter,

While I wouldn't know what PT's distribution is outside the USA I do know that it at least was sold in the UK. I am sure the PT web site can answer questions regarding their foreign distribution.

[adrian tyler]

there are quite a few dedicated digital forums out there with some interesting information. i realise that sooner or later i'll be "digitized" but i stepped back last year and invested in a high end flatbed scanner instead. the basic reason was that if i want mf digital and movements, i not only need the back but new cameras and new lenses too, which i'm not up for.

now if there was a 6x6 mf back out there i'd get one in a second, but as it it is at the moment there are too many compromises to be made, so much so that perhaps the canon d5 seems the more sensible option in terms of "value per pixel".

[Gene McCluney]

now if there was a 6x6 mf back out there i'd get one in a second, but as it it is at the moment there are too many compromises to be made, so much so that perhaps the canon d5 seems the more sensible option in terms of "value per pixel".

THE 35mm formfactor DSLR's are the best value now, because they are popular enough to be made in vast quantities, bringing the purchase cost down.

[Doug Dolde]

I just had a brief go around with a Canon 1Ds Mark III. To make a short story of it, I was so disappointed with the files that I quickly flipped on Ebay for a small profit.

I am coming from shooting 4x5 transparency film and the files, while clean and crisp, just have no character. I am wondering if ANY digital camera files including the high end ones have any character either. I suppose they do but are out of my price range.

[Kirk Gittings]

What do you mean by character exactly?

[QT Luong]

Doug, what do you mean by "no character" ?

The nature of digital capture is that the files are very "neutral", but they have much more room for artifact-free adjustments than film scans, so it's up to you to obtain the look you're after in post-processing.

[Doug Dolde]

Whatever. You can have your damn DSLRs. These things are little more than a computer with a lens attached. Takes all the fun out of shooting.

[Anupam]

Whatever. You can have your damn DSLRs.

Well, that's very helpful. Why interject in the discussion to begin with, then? Or did you see a chance for a spot of digital-bashing?

[Gene McCluney]

Whatever. You can have your damn DSLRs. These things are little more than a computer with a lens attached. Takes all the fun out of shooting.

He he. I am amused, but I can understand since you are coming from a large format background. You "can" make your high-resolution digital captures have character, but it is not automatic. None-the-less, the qualities specific to 4x5 and up are hard to achieve in a DSLR style camera. In my business I shoot digital because I have to (client requirements), but I am blessed that I still have clients that appreciate and request 4x5 color transparencies.

[Kirk Gittings]

Whatever. You can have your damn DSLRs. These things are little more than a computer with a lens attached. Takes all the fun out of shooting.

Digital put all the fun back into my commercial work which had become drudgery because of endless scanning of film. My personal work, which is all 4x5 film, is more fun too because it is a change of pace from the daily commercial workflow. It is all gooood.

[QT Luong]

Here's an article by Mark Dubovoy
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/digital-world.shtml
It's LF + MFDB vs MFSLR + MFDB rather than DSLR vs MFDB, though.

[Ben R]

In comparing the character between the digital files and 4X5 I think the inherent disadvantages of what is a tiny format in comparison are more to blame than the medium. The lack of tonality, of texture of the 35mm format in comparison to 4X5 may possibly be made up for 'character' wise by the vagriancies of the films grain, something that digital is too clean to have. What in fact digital does is show the smaller formats inherent disadvantages without films advantage of using character to distract you from that fact.

That is not to say that it's bad, just that it is still 35mm....

[darr]

Here's an article by Mark Dubovoy
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/digital-world.shtml
It's LF + MFDB vs MFSLR + MFDB rather than DSLR vs MFDB, though.


Mark's article, Battle of the Digital Giants, How much more do digital backs, combined with medium- or large-format cameras, offer than high-end DSLRs? can be found in the current (January/February 2008) issue of Photo Techniques. I highly recommend reading it. Mark's findings show that the large format digital lenses (Rodenstock HR) he used coupled with a Phase One P45 back and Linhof box was far superior to other digital alternatives. I am waiting for the day when I can afford a digital back for my Arca 6x9 FC.

[Doug Dolde]

I should say that I also owned a Contax 645 kit a while back with the Kodak Pro Back. Actually I liked this a lot more than the Canon even though the Canon has more megapixels.

But still I found it sorely lacking compared to 4x5 film. It was however much more of a real camera versus a computer with a lens and didn't have that silly 2:3 aspect ratio.

[Ben R]

I don't know. I'd take a 5X7 aspect ratio any day over the stubby, almost square, doesn't know what it is and outmoded 4:3 ratio....