Yesterday a guy from PhaseOne contacted me with some very attractive pricing on factory-refurbished digital backs for medium format (Mamiya, Hasselblad and Contax).
If you own a medium format camera with a film back, and are interested in the possibility of going digital, email me and I can give you details. The prices for these refurbished PhaseOne backs (with factory warranties) are generally about $3000 less than brand new.
Personally, I'm very interested in stepping up from digital SLR to medium format digital. You may be surprised at the prices between comparable DSLR and medium format rigs. The main advantage of the medium format digital backs - independent of megapixels alone - is that they use LARGE pixels (virtually no noise, more accurate tone and color rendition, etc.)
After shopping around for Mamiya and Hasselblad models made over the past few years, it looks to me like the cost of entry into large format digital might be just within reach for many more people.
I understand that landscape photogs need to balance size, weight, available accessories etc. with capture quality and resolution, and for this reason DSLRs will continue to rule. But for the best possible image quality available today, at a "reasonable" price, medium format is where it's at.
A side note, during my last trip to Monument Valley I saw what appeared to be a "typical" Japanese tourist making snapshots with a $30,000 Hasselblad H1 setup. Even though that rig is designed for high-end fashion/studio photography, I couldn't help but be a little envious.
Anyone have thoughts about medium format digital in the world of nature/landscape photography? And do cameras like Canon's Mark III series help make DSLR the clear choice going forward? I've never shot medium format digital so I am very interested to hear from those who have.
"And do cameras like Canon's Mark III series help make DSLR the clear choice going forward?"
At this time, I certainly think it would be prudent to wait and see what the 1DsMarkIII specs, price and IQ will be. That incremental MF image quality comes with a hefty price tag, and unacceptable limitations for those including wildlife as a significant interest.
When MF digital backs are $3,000, and not just $3,000 less than brand new, digital MF will be something for mortal photographers to consider. Until then, whatever Canon, Nikon, et al., has coming down the pipeline will be just fine.
Nat, I would love to be shooting MF digital and thought I would do a little background checking on these backs. The first thing I found was this article on Luminous Landscape.
Looks like Phase One is in the midst of a major trade-up program that has been kindly and cleverly devised to give their early adopters an affordable upgrade path, not leaving them with expensive and obsolete backs. It MIGHT be that the refurbs you are being offered are the "orphans" from that program, making the stated discounts look like better deals than they really are. Not knowing the particulars, I'm not saying this with anything approaching certainty; this is just pure speculation.
In any case, I think they remain unaffordable for li'l ol' amateur me. So I better hope that 120 film doesn't disappear for awhile yet!
I am very interested in MF digital and there is a part of me that does not care what Canon comes out with next. Aside from a higher MP count, greater dynamic range, and lower noise files I am particularly interested in medium format to escape the soft wides Canon produces. I currently use a 20D and a 17-40 L and have been disappointed with the softness and lack of detail in my images, particularly those that have a close foreground subject. I even sent in my 17-40 to Canon to have them take a look at it and fix it. When I got it back the images were slightly better but still pretty bad.
So to me MF digital is attractive not only because image quality from the digital back is superior to DSLRs but it allows me to NOT use Canon lenses.
While I would love to use a Phase back the price is prohibitive. I have closely followed Maymia's development of the ZD and at 10k for camera, back, and lens I must admit I am very interested. Of course I will want to take one for a test drive first, but I suspect my next camera upgrade will be to Mamiya instead of Canon.
Andy, I personally know several 20D owners with the same complaints. Those problems are specific to that model. I went from the 10D to the 30D and have been very happy with both. If you can upgrade to the 30D you'll see a marked difference in capture sharpness.
Concurring with Andy's reference I think that the new bar for entry to the high end is $10K for a complete system, which is clearly higher than DSLR territory. (But I have a friend who owned an older Mamiya 645 and found a used PhaseOne 18mp back for $2500; to me that sounds like an ideal scenario.)
I have been making beautiful, sharp, 20x30 inch prints from my early 6.3 MP 10D captures; the images from 30D are printing great at 40x60, so it also makes me wonder if it's really worth it. Of course, there is still a difference in the detail and accuracy of images made from smaller sensors vs. larger ones. (Owners of the 5D can attest to this.) But it seems to me that "apples to apples" medium format is still about 25-50% more expensive than DSLR.
Knowing that many people on this forum have been advocates of large format film for years, it surprises me a bit that so far the vote is clearly for DSLR and against medium format when it comes to digital. I suspect that in the next couple of years this will change... I don't think we've seen the end of medium format by any means.
Nat it is interesting that you say that about the 20D. I have often wondered the same thing as I look at web jpegs that appear sharper than my RAW developed TIFFS. I do plan on upgrading from the 20D in the future, but I am very interested in using medium format glass instead of Canons for my next camera. Of course it would be nice if the ZD package and the 1DsMkIII came out around the same time so I could compare!
Don't forget, one of the biggest problems with medium format is acceptable depth of field. Which is why most photos I took were at f16 or f22. This translates to slow shutter speeds, so anything that moves (wildflowers in a breeze, trees in a breeze, etc) becomes problematic. This is why I sold my MF system after 10 years. I'm sure digital MF will allow for higher ISO settings, thus alleviating some of the shutter speed problems, but you will still need f16 or above.
Posted by Kalin Wilson on July 12, 2007 at 10:51 PM
The current issue of Reichmann's Luminous Landscape Video Journal shows Reichmann, Charles Cramer, and Bill Atkinson shooting in the redwoods with P45 (39mp) backs, either on medium format bodies or 4x5. Also, Cramer has a couple of articles comparing P45 file to 500mb 4x5 scans (see here.
The results are intriguing, wish the cost was anywhere near a ballpark. A back that you could move between your 4x5 and MF body offers a lot of possibilities. Better start saving!
Posted by Mel Ladewig on July 13, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Andy,
I think you need to consider your choices regarding MF. For the most part, a MF lens used on a 35mm will not be very wide. Another thing to consider is that the 35mm format often has available sharper lenses than larger formats (for a given field of view). A pentax MF lens is not necessarily going to be able to resolve more lp/mm than an equivalent 35mm lens. Also since the focal length is much longer, the depth of field is reduced for a given distance to subject requiring you stop down more to have the same range of acceptable sharpness (which Don mentioned). But just like crop versus full frame, the larger the capture, the larger the photosites and the greater the detail that can be captured.
I can't really say anything for your 20D, but my 17-40L and my XT produce very pleasing results. It isn't quite as sharp as my 50/1.4, but its the next sharpest thing in my bag. Perhaps your 20D should go to Canon for calibration with your 17-40L. Focus calibration has a range of tolerances on the camera body AND the lens. If your body is +2 and your lens -2, and both are in specifications, you'd still have a net difference of 4 which may be outside of spec.
Ultimately, I do think that medium format has the ability to produce a better image than 35mm in many situations. At the current stratospheric prices, its just not attainable for the average photographer. But there is a right camera for a task. Often 35mm is going to win out for weight, focal length, availability of lenses or some other factor. Sometimes large format is going to be better suited for the ability to use camera movements and for the big sheet of film behind the lens. Sometimes digital medium format is going to be the best choice for the ability to capture fine detail.
Mel-
Posted by Jesse Speer on July 13, 2007 at 12:24 PM
I always be shooting with a dSLR - given how I move around in the outdoors, but I'd a have the new P45+ if I were loaded. When I'm old and my knees give out, I'll probably be able to afford one.
Initially I was looking into the medium format back market, but now I am back to looking at the 5D. The cost is just too much at the moment, and frankly how many potential customers could spot the difference? Maybe at 24x30 and up, but I think most people wouldn't be able to tell from a reasonable viewing distance...
In terms of the Canon lens quality discussion... Has anyone tried using Zeiss optics via an adapter? How many times do some of you (Todd, Erik, Jesse, others) find that Canon lenses, especially wides, are disappointing you on your 5D? It looks like the 17-40L is a favorite amongst many folks, so I assume the performance reflects that.
This guy is pretty high on the Zeiss stuff attached to a 1DMkIII...
I have been tempted to try Zeiss lenses on my Canon. It sounds like I should look into sending my 20d in to get looked at. In the mean time I might go try my 17-40 on a 30d somewhere and see what it looks like. I agree that just upgrading to the newest Canon would me a much cheaper route.
I am a bit surprised though by the tendency to recommend 35mm over MF. I personally have never shot MF but I have seen many good landscapes that were made with MF. Dont you LF guys have to use small apertures for your images too, even worse than MF? Im not sold on the ZD yet, but it is very intriguing......
andy
Posted by Kalin Wilson on July 14, 2007 at 3:25 AM
For my LF shooting, which is still in it's infancy, I use tilt/swing for DOF/focus and aperture for sharpness if the light allows, usually f16-f32 (mid range). Having movements lets you use wider apertures and still get the DOF you want. So I choose aperture based on the sharpest performance of the lens, if I can.
Kalin, that is a good point. I have been hearing of these Hartblei lenses for 645 that allow for movements. Has anyone had any experience with them to know if they are any good or not? That might be a good way to get around high apertures and slow shutter speeds while still maintaining acceptable DoF.
Posted by Kalin Wilson on July 14, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Can't help you there. Guess you'll just need to move to the dark side (LF)
Discussion
15 repliesIf you own a medium format camera with a film back, and are interested in the possibility of going digital, email me and I can give you details. The prices for these refurbished PhaseOne backs (with factory warranties) are generally about $3000 less than brand new.
Personally, I'm very interested in stepping up from digital SLR to medium format digital. You may be surprised at the prices between comparable DSLR and medium format rigs. The main advantage of the medium format digital backs - independent of megapixels alone - is that they use LARGE pixels (virtually no noise, more accurate tone and color rendition, etc.)
After shopping around for Mamiya and Hasselblad models made over the past few years, it looks to me like the cost of entry into large format digital might be just within reach for many more people.
I understand that landscape photogs need to balance size, weight, available accessories etc. with capture quality and resolution, and for this reason DSLRs will continue to rule. But for the best possible image quality available today, at a "reasonable" price, medium format is where it's at.
A side note, during my last trip to Monument Valley I saw what appeared to be a "typical" Japanese tourist making snapshots with a $30,000 Hasselblad H1 setup. Even though that rig is designed for high-end fashion/studio photography, I couldn't help but be a little envious.
Anyone have thoughts about medium format digital in the world of nature/landscape photography? And do cameras like Canon's Mark III series help make DSLR the clear choice going forward? I've never shot medium format digital so I am very interested to hear from those who have.
At this time, I certainly think it would be prudent to wait and see what the 1DsMarkIII specs, price and IQ will be. That incremental MF image quality comes with a hefty price tag, and unacceptable limitations for those including wildlife as a significant interest.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/phase-one-
Looks like Phase One is in the midst of a major trade-up program that has been kindly and cleverly devised to give their early adopters an affordable upgrade path, not leaving them with expensive and obsolete backs. It MIGHT be that the refurbs you are being offered are the "orphans" from that program, making the stated discounts look like better deals than they really are. Not knowing the particulars, I'm not saying this with anything approaching certainty; this is just pure speculation.
In any case, I think they remain unaffordable for li'l ol' amateur me. So I better hope that 120 film doesn't disappear for awhile yet!
So to me MF digital is attractive not only because image quality from the digital back is superior to DSLRs but it allows me to NOT use Canon lenses.
While I would love to use a Phase back the price is prohibitive. I have closely followed Maymia's development of the ZD and at 10k for camera, back, and lens I must admit I am very interested. Of course I will want to take one for a test drive first, but I suspect my next camera upgrade will be to Mamiya instead of Canon.
Concurring with Andy's reference I think that the new bar for entry to the high end is $10K for a complete system, which is clearly higher than DSLR territory. (But I have a friend who owned an older Mamiya 645 and found a used PhaseOne 18mp back for $2500; to me that sounds like an ideal scenario.)
I have been making beautiful, sharp, 20x30 inch prints from my early 6.3 MP 10D captures; the images from 30D are printing great at 40x60, so it also makes me wonder if it's really worth it. Of course, there is still a difference in the detail and accuracy of images made from smaller sensors vs. larger ones. (Owners of the 5D can attest to this.) But it seems to me that "apples to apples" medium format is still about 25-50% more expensive than DSLR.
Knowing that many people on this forum have been advocates of large format film for years, it surprises me a bit that so far the vote is clearly for DSLR and against medium format when it comes to digital. I suspect that in the next couple of years this will change... I don't think we've seen the end of medium format by any means.
The results are intriguing, wish the cost was anywhere near a ballpark. A back that you could move between your 4x5 and MF body offers a lot of possibilities. Better start saving!
I think you need to consider your choices regarding MF. For the most part, a MF lens used on a 35mm will not be very wide. Another thing to consider is that the 35mm format often has available sharper lenses than larger formats (for a given field of view). A pentax MF lens is not necessarily going to be able to resolve more lp/mm than an equivalent 35mm lens. Also since the focal length is much longer, the depth of field is reduced for a given distance to subject requiring you stop down more to have the same range of acceptable sharpness (which Don mentioned). But just like crop versus full frame, the larger the capture, the larger the photosites and the greater the detail that can be captured.
I can't really say anything for your 20D, but my 17-40L and my XT produce very pleasing results. It isn't quite as sharp as my 50/1.4, but its the next sharpest thing in my bag. Perhaps your 20D should go to Canon for calibration with your 17-40L. Focus calibration has a range of tolerances on the camera body AND the lens. If your body is +2 and your lens -2, and both are in specifications, you'd still have a net difference of 4 which may be outside of spec.
Ultimately, I do think that medium format has the ability to produce a better image than 35mm in many situations. At the current stratospheric prices, its just not attainable for the average photographer. But there is a right camera for a task. Often 35mm is going to win out for weight, focal length, availability of lenses or some other factor. Sometimes large format is going to be better suited for the ability to use camera movements and for the big sheet of film behind the lens. Sometimes digital medium format is going to be the best choice for the ability to capture fine detail.
Mel-
In terms of the Canon lens quality discussion... Has anyone tried using Zeiss optics via an adapter? How many times do some of you (Todd, Erik, Jesse, others) find that Canon lenses, especially wides, are disappointing you on your 5D? It looks like the 17-40L is a favorite amongst many folks, so I assume the performance reflects that.
This guy is pretty high on the Zeiss stuff attached to a 1DMkIII...
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog.html#20070606Canon1DM3HighlightDetail
I am a bit surprised though by the tendency to recommend 35mm over MF. I personally have never shot MF but I have seen many good landscapes that were made with MF. Dont you LF guys have to use small apertures for your images too, even worse than MF? Im not sold on the ZD yet, but it is very intriguing......
andy