"Digital" View Camera II

[John Brownlow]

Apologies if I've made this point before but for me there are some hidden benefits to using film which were important factors in my switch back from digital (a 1Ds Mk I and all the goodies).

1. total non-reliance on batteries or access to power supplies

2. Not having to deal with the digital archiving problem to such a huge extent

3. (Most important) Because the cost of shooting film is the *film* rather than the equipment, it is possible to shoot in various formats using lots of different wonderful cameras. For example... I use a 4x5, a Noblex 6x12, a Rollei SL66, a Fuji 6x9 rangefinder and a Fuji 6x17 rangefinder. They are radically different cameras which offer radically different views of the world. My aim with the 1Ds was to replace all of my cameras with a single one, but in fact it imposed a single way of working which killed my photography for two years. Go figure.

[Frank Petronio]

What it really points out is that for most practical field work and nearly all commercial work, the current professional camera choices are down to either:

1. A Hasselblad H system with the 22 mp backs of choice – using a larger 39 mb doesn't matter because the lenses won't perform well enough for the larger chip. And the other medium format competitors are nearly out of production.

2. A Canon/Nikon/Leica DSLR set up with selected lenses (carefully tested > $2000 "pro", Zeiss, "L", or Leica lenses)

3. A clusterful confabulation of cables, doohickies, and mad gadgets like Michael or Flescher are using -- scan backs, 39 mb backs, geared 6x9 cameras, expensive digital lenses, electronic shutters, etc.

Even if money was no object -- most photographers will probably settle on the H2 and a 22mp back for the best ratio of usability versus image quality. And, if you're doing around $120K/yr of commercial work, your film/lab fees are easily $15K/yr, so it is easy to rationalize spending $30K on a Hasselblad system. You'd have to be doing quite a bit better to justify all of Michael's gear (all three systems, probably $100K of gadgets).

IMHO the smartest photographers will avoid all three digital options and use large format film for the best quality, price, and usability. They can always rent a digital back for certain jobs, and nobody cares whether you shoot film or digital for your personal work and portfolio.

Afterall, if scanning is such a pain in the butt, maybe you're scanning too many crappy photos. Become a better editor and photographer, and then the time spent scanning will be more fun.

[Don Miller]

I'm contrary today.

- one back could be used on both MF and LF equipment.

- film can still be used on the view camera when necessary.

- many people have many projects near the car. The arguments against digital sound like outdoor photography only takes place on multi-day alpine hikes. The car is a wonderfully reliable power system.

- 3lb laptops are common and cheap for someone buying a $30K back.

I'm sure MR isn't getting rid of his Canon gear. He's using what he thinks is the right tool for the job based on his criteria. This criteria includes entertaining us (photographers) with bleeding edge antics. Why take comfort in explaining why it's such a bad thing? It's his money and his projects.

[John Brownlow]

You can't use the same back on MF and LF, unless you count a 6x9 arca as LF. If you try to use it on your 4x5 kit the ridiculous sensor size screws you completely. All of your lenses become telephotos.

[Don Miller]

O.K. semantics. change LF to view camera.

[John O'Connell]

Reichmann carries a rollfilm back and some film with him to avoid the death-by-battery issue.

I for one would love to be able to shoot with a one-shot digital back on a fully geared view camera in the field, with an assortment of the finest modern lenses. When I'm rich and these backs cost as much as a 4x5 camera, not a car, maybe I'll indulge.

What kills this stuff for me is that the sensor size is 49x37 and you're evaluating the image on a groundglass through a loupe. I don't think I'd wind up with very many sharp images working on such a small groundglass area.

[Don Miller]

What kills this stuff for me is that the sensor size is 49x37 and you're evaluating the image on a groundglass through a loupe. I don't think I'd wind up with very many sharp images working on such a small groundglass area.





That will be interesting. Being a little off with focus may kill the advantage of such a high res sensor. I know I would produce more and better photos with that sensor on an H2.





I assume this back can be shot tethered to a laptop. It seems with movements and without auto focus that would be the way to go. Or only shoot at infinity with no movements

[John Brownlow]

I'm not so sure about the focus issue. Obviously it is critical for some people but when you're shooting landscape like Michael does (and I do predominantly in LF) the subject is often 15 feet away on a 90mm @ f/32. There is plenty of room for less than critical focus. In fact in situations like these I rarely use a loupe and simply judge it from the reflex finder. I don't have a problem with sharpness.

(I have other problems but not sharpness...)

[Emre Yildirim]

- 3lb laptops are common and cheap for someone buying a $30K back.

I'm not sure if they're that common. Here is a short list of high-end laptops that would be suited for this type of equipment (keeping in mind that the large image files need good processing power, lots of RAM and a decent size display):

17-inch PowerBook G4 - 6.9 lbs
MacBook Pro - 5.6 lbs
Dell Inspiron 1705 - 7.61 lbs
Dell XPS M170 - 8.6 lbs

The only laptops that are 3 lbs (with standard battery) is the Sony VIAO TX series. Unfortunately these come with rather small, 10 inch screens, 512MB RAM and cost $3000. The display is only 0.18 inches thick, so I don't think I could take one of these out into the mountains.

So in the end, laptops are still pretty heavy.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Why do you need a laptop with a non scanning back? Just brings lots of batteries and a portable harddrive device like Epson or Jobo makes.

Film still sounds easier for my shooting, so even if I could justify the expense I don't think I would.