Michael Anderson shoots with the digital hassy. I am sure he can provide you with much info (though I think he may be away right now). I think Matt Anderson does too.
ok. thanks.
the hassy system is quite unuseful for wilderness landscape photography, so I also hope for some other systems as well. not many chances here, I guess... (that stuff is just sooo expensive! )
georg
you might want to try over at dpreview.com there's plenty of MF users...though not sure how many do landscape. Also check over at luminous-landscape.com I know Reichman is big on MF, and I think he doesn't do just hassy.
Did you have a specific question? I shoot MF exclusively. I wouldn't bother with dpreview.com I would stick with luminous-landscape.com and getdpi.com.
Some excellent landscape photographers use Hasselblad so I wouldn't necessarily call it useless.
Most of the time I use a Phase One back with a Cambo technical camera. I have been extremely happy with my results. Enough so that I just ordered the 60MP back. One thing is for sure, you have to try them and print the images large to get a feel for the difference.
That said, the newer 35mm D3, D3x, 5D2 and others have done a good job of closing ground with low end MF.
If you primarily print 16x20 or smaller than I would stick with one of the newer 35mm and spend your money on a trip to Alaska or something.
Georg - May I ask what about the Hassleblad system makes it "quite unuseful for wilderness landscape photography" as opposed to other systems? I'm just curious, since I would think it would excel there.
the downside of the hassi system:
no good wide angles (with the t/s adapter - which I would view as mandatory - the shortest lens would be a 40mm or so... )
there is just NO way around tilt and shift ans scheimpflug and all - no matter any possibilities in postprocessing and all softwares and what you here about that stuff.
f 11 as best f stop11 I use f 32 - f64 on my lenses!
most of all - the energy! - I go on extended wilderness trips often with no way of recharging for a week or more - hassi representatives told me that that would never work out. with the 50MP back you use one akku cell in 3 hours of shooting - in warm conditions.
and it's heavy. much heavier than my Toyo system. and if you drop it on a mountain trek or use it in salty/wet/humid conditions as I would do 100 days a year..??
I don't see any need in using the 20MP hassy it's either the 50 or 60 but for the time being it'll be no hassy at all.
hope that answers that.
but, yes, a cambo or linhof or sg with a digital back - who has experience in the wilderness with that stuff? I mean really far beyond of any concrete.
The potential loss of that kind of money if I dropped it in a river or whatever is enough to put me off. While I love 4x5 field cameras and the MF system would be a fit for me in that regard, my plan is to eventually buy something like a D700 plus a couple of T/S lenses.
Hmm...I think i'll just stick with 35mm DSLRs for now until i actually make money from photography rather than spend money on it. I would imagine some sort of camera insurance for an expensive hassleblad would be necessary and probably expensive itself.
Georg - I understand the desire for the resolution of MF, and digital being a much more feasible alternative to film when in the backcountry, but if you're really out there (like I love to be too), then the modern 35mm systems really aren't a bad alternative. With a full kit (5DII, 16-35, 24-105, 70-200, tripod + filters etc) I'm carrying about 15 lbs of gear.. I can't imagine carrying much more than that for an extended trip. Then considering the fact that it's totally reasonable to get a 20x30 out of such a system, it seems the compromise is not all that limiting. While the tilt/shift range and options aren't the same as they are for LF, canon does make a 17, 24, 45, and 90 mm TSE lenses (recently added the 17). The battery life is pretty darn good too, I can get 2-3 days of intense shooting with live view out of a charge, if you condition yourself to avoid live view and extensive previewing it'd get even better.. and the batteries are pretty small. For many (but clearly not all) scenes panoramic stitching is a possibility, which would let you surpass even the 50MP backs pretty quickly. In the end.. the 35mm system seems to be ideal IMO for the more adventurous trips.
Joseph Holmes has done a lot of experimenting with MF digital. He has a lot of interesting articles on his web site. I've also emailed him with some questions and found him very friendly and responsive.
Charles Cramer is also shooting MF now. I believe he's using his Mamiya system. You might want t try contacting him too.
Floris - thanks for the suggetion, but digital SLR's, as handy as they might come, are out of question for my kind of work. they are just miles and miles away quality-wise. I'm working and making a living in an extremely small niche of photography, depending on satisfied customers who not so much look at their budgets but on their final products. That keeps about 1 trillion of competing photographers off our backs.
I'm not so much thinking of making a switch of systems yet, but I alway try to keep up to the state of the art of digital photography, just to know what's going on. (so I know both sides, in opposite to most digital shooters who know LF only from hearsay) Having just talked to representatives of hassi and linhof had me puzzled of how far away those systems seem to be away from being truly considerable for outdoor-field work. OP magazine makes you think all the landscape photographers switch to digital now, which is complete nonsense (some do because thei're getting old, not wanting to schlepp so much gear... ) but most just use it in addition.
I just returned from an 8 day seakayak trip in Croatia - no electricity but lots of salty water and spray - I just can't imagine having that done with a 30.000 - € setup (=40.000,- USD)
actually I don't mind the money so much but the fragility of the gear you're getting for it.
thanks for all you're time so far and I still hope for more hints and advices!!!
Yes, here's a hint Georg: I have heard of LF before I even saw it in action (Lon Overacker) , soon watching Andreas Resch doing it and one day maybe also you?
And I appreciated many prints based on LF. I guess I am not the only digi-shooter who appreciates the level of detail and color-rendition of a LF-print. I even consider it from time to time cause I wonder the sense of satisfaction one gets from having a favourite own piece in LF-resolution, not just as poor 12Mpix-digifile.
Here's another hint: 4X5 is just half of the resolution of 8X10 so still quite some room for quality-improvement going from 4X5 to 8X10
thanks Marc, actually I did know that.... I have 20 8x10" filmholders already because I will eventually buy one, but not make a total switch. 8x10 is just a tad too much load for wilderness trips.
georg
Jerry, I mainly shoot for large wall calendars, but there are always requests for large reproductions and fine prints from 50" up. (up to 15 feet actually) So I want high end usage available for ALL my work (I have a fairly small output with maybe 1500 fresh images/year), not wanting to think about what camera to bring on what outing - I can't seperate it. One systems gotta fit all. But it has to be wilderness-fit... So far I don't see anything as adaptable as a classic 4x5" - but I'm not getting any younger either...
thanks for the hint - didn't know Nye uses a Phase one.
georg
When you say big calendars are you talking 14 inches or 20 inches or even bigger? I used to shoot 4x5 exclusively for about 5 years. Over the past 5 or so years I've incorporated, into my calendars, LF images along side with my 5D images and no one has been able to pick out the LF images. I do use the TS-E lenses so I have the ability to have rise/fall/tilt on the same axis. I'd never go back to film. With Genuine Fractals I'm getting 6x7cm quality enlargements with the advantage of digital capture.
Jerry, most calendars in the 20 inch range but quite a few larger ones. I can pick out the LF images from 5D ones out any time, I don't care so much if my clients do. (in very rare occasions I need scans from old 35mm slides and some clients never realize there's a difference...) But you're right, with the T/S lenses the quality is in the 6x7 range easy. I just can't believe how digital D-SLR shooter specialzing in landscapes can live without T/S lenses...
But like I said, I need very large, very high quality images for maybe 15-20% (max) of my total income and that alone means I can't compromnise.
georg
Yeah, at 20" you'll be able to pick out the LF image but not your clients, at the smaller sizes you will not. Well, that is if the person preping the images for press knows what they are doing. Most prepress people don't care but when I prep images, being a photographer makes the difference. I'm 100% positive that not you or anyone else, that didn't know my images from posting here on NPN and my websites, could pick out the LF images from the 5D images. I've worked really hard to make sure that it's impossible. For my new book "Blue Ridge - Ancient & Majestic", it will have a few of my 4x5 images mixed in with images from my old 1DsMK1 and 5D. The full-bleed double page spread size will be 20" x 12.25" and I'll be shocked if anyone will be able to see the difference.
As for landscape photogs not using TS-E's, well most have never used large-format and do not know the advantages and most that use TS-E's really do not even use them correctly. Like using tilt and then stopping down to f/22 for maximum depth of focus and degrading the image severly with defraction. I rarely ever shoot with an f/stop smaller than f/11 when using tilt. And lets face it, zooms are so easy and if speed is a must then zooms are the only answer. For me, I'm sticking with both TS-E's and zooms if needed. I look forward to getting the new TS-E 17mm and TS-E 24mm MK2. I not happy that the 24mm is 2x the price of the older MK1 version! It's going to hurt a little for sure and this is exactly why I have not upgraded to the 5DMK2. I feel that lens sharpness is much more important than the megapixels. When you look at the MTF data of the new TS-E's look to be very sharp!
Jerry, yes, I believe you. It's not the resolution or sharpness that tells the difference in those smaller sizes it's the competent use of T&S. Since you come from LF you sure know how to use it. Still I need the same quality in ALL my sizes...
Books are more or less byproducts for us and I confess I never do the prepress.
f11 - there are still limits you face when only be able to stop down to f11 without degrading image quality. the extremer angles of fg to bg can't be stopped down with f11 (it's not the ideal f-stop, it's just the f-stop with the best optical resolution in digital capture) and while it will not be visible in smaller sizes it will be very, very visible from 20" up!
For me it is just too tempting to have my best shots available in 60x50" print size without any quality compromises - it's the reason why I go out no matter the weather and take photographs. I don't wanna ever give that up. (but I guess, due to age and ache I eventually will....)
georg
No, at some point you'll make the move to digital. Just as lots of the large-format guys have and are doing. Carr Clifton has abandoned LF and moved to 6x7cm with intentions of moving to digital in the future. David Muench as well as Tom Till are using Canon digital more and more (I think that Tom has totally moved to digital). Bill Neill is now shooting Canon EOS digital with limited TS-E usage. Charles Cramer and Joe Holmes are shooting the P-45 and P-65 PhaseOne backs. It will happen at some point. Hell, I said I would never leave LF and I'm still "eating crow" of my stanch resistance. I'm not saying that you should move to digital only telling you my story. But just remember, it's your photographs they are after and not the size of the file or the resolution! Don't get too hung up on detail and resolution as the motivation not to make the move if it's available and a desire to make the move. If you're not read just hang for a little longer because it will be here in no time!
I hear ya, Jerry. Definitely. But all those LF'ers have come of age a bit, havn't they? So, comfort and age and all that comes with it, plays a big role in them moving to digital. some of them don't make any hard wilderness trips, some do shoot LF more than what you read... it's not all about moving to a BETTER system but to a more comfortable one. It's a compromise no matter from where you want to look at it. I AM keeping my eyes open, tough, I just can't be convinced at the moment, or so it seems...
georg
I moved to a better system and not for comfort or age. Digital capture is much more forgiving as to the dynamic range it is able to capture. Cleaner files that are much more forgiving and allows one to create a more pure and natural scene, for some it allows for massive amounts of manipulation also so there is a downside. Not being teathered to a films rendering is awesome! As for weight, my EOS system weighs pretty close to the same as my Ebony RW-45 and lenses.
As for Charles Cramer, he moved to digital for the same reason as I did, freedom! It had nothing to do with age or weight. Same for Joe Holmes and William Neill. None of these guys are still shooting large-format.
DIgital capture for me, as a book publisher, is really the only way to go. For even the largest coffee table books and calendars produced here in the US big film is just not needed and is a ball and chain. For the fine-art photog that can't break the fine detail issues, well LF is still viable. And at $5+ a photo, it's expensive as hell and I've paid for my switch 5 times over! Again, good luck with your research and if you have any questions that I can help you with let me know. I've been there and done that when it comes to the switch!
Jerry, you made the switch thar works for and thats fine. as I said, books play a small role in our income. (we stay away from publishing) to compare your switch IS completely different because you clearly switched to a lower level quality wise. without going too deep here, but digital d-slr's are not even close when it comes to the level of detail, sharpness, and much much more compared to LF film. dynamic range - yes, but even that is depending on the kind of film and quality of a scan. does that play a role in book publishing? guess not. does that play a role in worldwide calendar business - you bet! with galleries? yes. with fine art print buyers? yes. etc.
In your situation I would have made the same switch and it's great that you are so happy with your system but that doesn't have anything to do with one system being superior then the other. it depends on what you want. I want to get the best print quality out of my best shots and I want to take my gear on a six week seakayak trip to west canada (I have a feeling joseph holmes, charles cramer won't be joining me on that one with their systems...). I'm lurking at digital MF for that reason, not at digital slr's... for costs: since we are not producing too many images a year, we still fare much cheaper in LF than with a full Hassi system for example. (it helps being sponsored by Fujifilm... )
thanks for your insights!
georg
Georg: To answer your original question: I have shot everything from 35mm, 4x5, 8x10, to digital slr. I just bought a medium format digital setup and will be running it through it's paces this month. Drop me an email at the end of the month and I can give you my observations/opinions since it sounds like I'm as picky as you are about final print quality on very large pieces.
It's a Leaf Aptus 75 (33mp) and a Mamiya AFDII body and lenses. From a test shot I did in the front yard last week, I'd say the resolution is VERY close to 4x5. Most people would have an extremely difficult time telling the difference on a 30x40" print. The dynamic range is much better and no film grain. Just not sure how I'll like/dislike the lack of tilt/shift on this setup vs. the large format which is why I'm hanging on to the large formats until I test it further. Stay tuned.
I also switched from 4x5 to MF digital a little over a year ago. I'm shooting a Leaf Aptus 75S on a Contax 645. For the most part I'm happy with the results. I can do things that I could never do with 4x5.
Probably the most advantageous aspect is the increased dynamic range, probably equivalent to color negative film. Add to that the ability to do blended exposures for even more DR. Stitched panoramas are another big plus. I'm easily getting a 65+ megapixel file from stitching 3 frames then cropping to 1:3. Never had it this good with a 617 film camera.
As far as the resolution goes I agree with Tony it's about as good as 4x5. In fact there is better sharpness and detail for the average shot. Probably due to it being so easy with the Leaf. Getting a better shot with 4x5 takes a lot more skill and care. With 4x5 the drum scan expense plus film and processing easily exceeded $60 per shot.
However there is a certain look to 4x5 film that I can't seem to reproduce even with this high end digital setup. I can't define it but am sure you know what I am talking about. And the process of shooting 4x5 is indeed more satisfying to me anyway. Digital is almost too easy.
Would I make the switch again? Not sure. Probably a Nikon D3X would give 80% the quality of the Aptus at a much lower price. Given the chance to do it over, I might keep the 4x5 and buy a D3X for those shots that 4x5 doesn't do so well.
Doug, a big thanks for that answer. this really sounds honest, objective and like a real-life experience.
What about the batteries, tough? What about the tilt and shifts ? Never need an aperture larger than 11? What about soft corners?
I just checked the new Linhof Techno - looks like a great tool! With the Aptus (or any larger backs), it would be quite a neat combination! I just wonder about the small image on the screen compared to the large image of my 4x5"..?
(btw: I estimate my 4x5" costs at around 5,-€ per sheet + € 30,- drum scan. (which I'll get on demand from a friend of mine) - this is still ok, considering my not so big output)
I'm still in the air with these questions...
georg
Discussion
33 repliesthanks for any replies!
georg
the hassy system is quite unuseful for wilderness landscape photography, so I also hope for some other systems as well. not many chances here, I guess... (that stuff is just sooo expensive!
georg
Some excellent landscape photographers use Hasselblad so I wouldn't necessarily call it useless.
Most of the time I use a Phase One back with a Cambo technical camera. I have been extremely happy with my results. Enough so that I just ordered the 60MP back. One thing is for sure, you have to try them and print the images large to get a feel for the difference.
That said, the newer 35mm D3, D3x, 5D2 and others have done a good job of closing ground with low end MF.
If you primarily print 16x20 or smaller than I would stick with one of the newer 35mm and spend your money on a trip to Alaska or something.
no good wide angles (with the t/s adapter - which I would view as mandatory - the shortest lens would be a 40mm or so...
there is just NO way around tilt and shift ans scheimpflug and all - no matter any possibilities in postprocessing and all softwares and what you here about that stuff.
f 11 as best f stop11
most of all - the energy! - I go on extended wilderness trips often with no way of recharging for a week or more - hassi representatives told me that that would never work out. with the 50MP back you use one akku cell in 3 hours of shooting - in warm conditions.
and it's heavy. much heavier than my Toyo system. and if you drop it on a mountain trek or use it in salty/wet/humid conditions as I would do 100 days a year..??
I don't see any need in using the 20MP hassy it's either the 50 or 60 but for the time being it'll be no hassy at all.
hope that answers that.
but, yes, a cambo or linhof or sg with a digital back - who has experience in the wilderness with that stuff? I mean really far beyond of any concrete.
georg
Kent in SD
Joseph Holmes has done a lot of experimenting with MF digital. He has a lot of interesting articles on his web site. I've also emailed him with some questions and found him very friendly and responsive.
Charles Cramer is also shooting MF now. I believe he's using his Mamiya system. You might want t try contacting him too.
- Dan.
Floris - thanks for the suggetion, but digital SLR's, as handy as they might come, are out of question for my kind of work. they are just miles and miles away quality-wise. I'm working and making a living in an extremely small niche of photography, depending on satisfied customers who not so much look at their budgets but on their final products. That keeps about 1 trillion of competing photographers off our backs.
I'm not so much thinking of making a switch of systems yet, but I alway try to keep up to the state of the art of digital photography, just to know what's going on. (so I know both sides, in opposite to most digital shooters who know LF only from hearsay) Having just talked to representatives of hassi and linhof had me puzzled of how far away those systems seem to be away from being truly considerable for outdoor-field work. OP magazine makes you think all the landscape photographers switch to digital now, which is complete nonsense (some do because thei're getting old, not wanting to schlepp so much gear...
I just returned from an 8 day seakayak trip in Croatia - no electricity but lots of salty water and spray - I just can't imagine having that done with a 30.000 - € setup (=40.000,- USD)
actually I don't mind the money so much but the fragility of the gear you're getting for it.
thanks for all you're time so far and I still hope for more hints and advices!!!
georg
And I appreciated many prints based on LF. I guess I am not the only digi-shooter who appreciates the level of detail and color-rendition of a LF-print. I even consider it from time to time cause I wonder the sense of satisfaction one gets from having a favourite own piece in LF-resolution, not just as poor 12Mpix-digifile.
Here's another hint: 4X5 is just half of the resolution of 8X10 so still quite some room for quality-improvement going from 4X5 to 8X10
Sorry man, could resist that one
georg
Granted of course not all scenes can be done this way, but surprisingly many can, and with the software available it's really very easy.
Georg
What is your main focus with reproductions, is it large prints (over 24") or book, calendar and offset press media?
thanks for the hint - didn't know Nye uses a Phase one.
georg
When you say big calendars are you talking 14 inches or 20 inches or even bigger? I used to shoot 4x5 exclusively for about 5 years. Over the past 5 or so years I've incorporated, into my calendars, LF images along side with my 5D images and no one has been able to pick out the LF images. I do use the TS-E lenses so I have the ability to have rise/fall/tilt on the same axis. I'd never go back to film. With Genuine Fractals I'm getting 6x7cm quality enlargements with the advantage of digital capture.
But like I said, I need very large, very high quality images for maybe 15-20% (max) of my total income and that alone means I can't compromnise.
georg
As for landscape photogs not using TS-E's, well most have never used large-format and do not know the advantages and most that use TS-E's really do not even use them correctly. Like using tilt and then stopping down to f/22 for maximum depth of focus and degrading the image severly with defraction. I rarely ever shoot with an f/stop smaller than f/11 when using tilt. And lets face it, zooms are so easy and if speed is a must then zooms are the only answer. For me, I'm sticking with both TS-E's and zooms if needed. I look forward to getting the new TS-E 17mm and TS-E 24mm MK2. I not happy that the 24mm is 2x the price of the older MK1 version! It's going to hurt a little for sure and this is exactly why I have not upgraded to the 5DMK2. I feel that lens sharpness is much more important than the megapixels. When you look at the MTF data of the new TS-E's look to be very sharp!
Books are more or less byproducts for us and I confess I never do the prepress.
f11 - there are still limits you face when only be able to stop down to f11 without degrading image quality. the extremer angles of fg to bg can't be stopped down with f11 (it's not the ideal f-stop, it's just the f-stop with the best optical resolution in digital capture) and while it will not be visible in smaller sizes it will be very, very visible from 20" up!
For me it is just too tempting to have my best shots available in 60x50" print size without any quality compromises - it's the reason why I go out no matter the weather and take photographs. I don't wanna ever give that up. (but I guess, due to age and ache I eventually will....)
georg
Good luck!
georg
As for Charles Cramer, he moved to digital for the same reason as I did, freedom! It had nothing to do with age or weight. Same for Joe Holmes and William Neill. None of these guys are still shooting large-format.
DIgital capture for me, as a book publisher, is really the only way to go. For even the largest coffee table books and calendars produced here in the US big film is just not needed and is a ball and chain. For the fine-art photog that can't break the fine detail issues, well LF is still viable. And at $5+ a photo, it's expensive as hell and I've paid for my switch 5 times over! Again, good luck with your research and if you have any questions that I can help you with let me know. I've been there and done that when it comes to the switch!
In your situation I would have made the same switch and it's great that you are so happy with your system but that doesn't have anything to do with one system being superior then the other. it depends on what you want. I want to get the best print quality out of my best shots and I want to take my gear on a six week seakayak trip to west canada (I have a feeling joseph holmes, charles cramer won't be joining me on that one with their systems...). I'm lurking at digital MF for that reason, not at digital slr's... for costs: since we are not producing too many images a year, we still fare much cheaper in LF than with a full Hassi system for example. (it helps being sponsored by Fujifilm...
thanks for your insights!
georg
georg
Probably the most advantageous aspect is the increased dynamic range, probably equivalent to color negative film. Add to that the ability to do blended exposures for even more DR. Stitched panoramas are another big plus. I'm easily getting a 65+ megapixel file from stitching 3 frames then cropping to 1:3. Never had it this good with a 617 film camera.
As far as the resolution goes I agree with Tony it's about as good as 4x5. In fact there is better sharpness and detail for the average shot. Probably due to it being so easy with the Leaf. Getting a better shot with 4x5 takes a lot more skill and care. With 4x5 the drum scan expense plus film and processing easily exceeded $60 per shot.
However there is a certain look to 4x5 film that I can't seem to reproduce even with this high end digital setup. I can't define it but am sure you know what I am talking about. And the process of shooting 4x5 is indeed more satisfying to me anyway. Digital is almost too easy.
Would I make the switch again? Not sure. Probably a Nikon D3X would give 80% the quality of the Aptus at a much lower price. Given the chance to do it over, I might keep the 4x5 and buy a D3X for those shots that 4x5 doesn't do so well.
What about the batteries, tough? What about the tilt and shifts ? Never need an aperture larger than 11? What about soft corners?
I just checked the new Linhof Techno - looks like a great tool! With the Aptus (or any larger backs), it would be quite a neat combination! I just wonder about the small image on the screen compared to the large image of my 4x5"..?
(btw: I estimate my 4x5" costs at around 5,-€ per sheet + € 30,- drum scan. (which I'll get on demand from a friend of mine) - this is still ok, considering my not so big output)
I'm still in the air with these questions...
georg