I hope I will not test anyone's patients too much as I am sure this topic has been argued ad nauseum. I have always shot 4x5 but would to dabble in digital capture. I know prices vary enormously. But I a not too interested in all the bells and whistles as i am in the quality of the image. For example, how many frames per second I can shoot does not interest me, nor do I care to have the fastest focusing lens. Image quality and final image size is my concern as I like to make enlargements 24x30 and larger. 4x5 allows me to do this easily. Any suggestions from you experienced digital photograpers is greatly appreciated.
Posted by Dan Baumbach on January 13, 2010 at 10:14 AM
I'm a 4x5 shooter and I've been very happy with the image quality of my Nikon D300. I wish I knew of a film that could render color as clean as the D300's raw files. However I can't make enlargements to 24x30. I would expect you would need the expensive D3x or go with a Canon 5D II.
- Dan.
Posted by John W. Wall on January 13, 2010 at 12:33 PM
Coming from the world of 4x5 you might not be happy with your results, but I just made four 24x36 prints from D200 files that are pretty nice. From regular viewing distance they look great, but you can see the blockiness of details at close range. I'm still hemming and hawing about dabbling in 4x5 to get that large-format clarity.
There is nothing like it. I have some 24x30's hang in my work place and people come up to them and get wow'd buy the detail in them. The closer they get more they see the detail. However, there are trade offs too. I would like at times to be able to preview an image before I leave a scene so I can either redo the capture or say it is OK and leave. With 4x5 I have taken long trips by flying and driving hoping to get an image of a certain isubject just to be disappointed when I got my film developed at home.
The three most striking things to me are aspect ratio, viewfinder coverage and lack of movements. I still shoot SLR with an eye towards a crop to 4x5. Can't help it. I also learned to watch my corners carefully with the 4x5, and it can be frustrating if the viewfinder on an SLR does not give 100 coverage, whether full-frame format or not. And you're really going to miss those movements for certain shots. "Solve" those issues as you can, and the more you can manage it, the better you'll adjust to SLR.
I haven't said anything about enlargement limits and such because that's so subjective, or if not subjective, dependent on the taste of the viewer, skill of the image processing, intended use of the images, and printing. For years websites, magazines and manufacturers have fed themselves on that debate.
Posted by Gene Lugo on January 13, 2010 at 3:08 PM
I suppose if you really wanted to have the flexibility of a view camera and the convenience of a DSLR, you could always build one of these -
I have to preface my remarks by saying that I shoot a Canon 5D (the old one, not the Mark II), so I can't speak firsthand regarding the image quality of the 5DII or D3x. But if quality is your main concern (reasonable enough), then it is hard to second-guess Dan's suggestion of a D3x or 5DII. Either will give you the best quality available unless you're willing to splurge on a medium format digital setup. To me, the 5DII is the obvious choice between the two because you sacrifice essentially nothing in image quality or functionality and you save $4500 or so. Pair it with a 17-40L or 16-35L II -- which many folks say offer similar quality despite the big price difference -- and you've got a great setup for most landscape photography. I recently added a 70-200L f/4 for $600 bucks (after rebate) and together with my 17-40, I've got essentially what I need for landscape photography for years to come (never mind the gap in coverage between 40-70 mm).
Another option aside from a 5DII or D3x is to buy a used 5D. That's what I have used for the last 18 months . . . I bought one on eBay for $1275 after the 5DII came out, and they're even a bit cheaper now. That will leave you more money for lenses or other stuff, or just more money to keep in your pocket. Also, while a used 5D will depreciate a bit more in value as time goes by, I suspect you'll still be able to resell it in 12 months or so for close to what you paid if you decide that you need the additional megapixels of a 5DII (or Mark III?) down the road.
Whether a used 5D will meet your quality requirements at 12.8 mpix is hard for me to say since it's such a subjective thing. I haven't printed larger than 12x18 (mostly due to laziness and a lack of time), but the 12x18's I have printed look superb to me. And you'll find plenty of folks who will say that obtaining a high-quality 24x30 from a 5D or comparable camera is no problem at all. And like I said, if you find that the image quality doesn't meet your needs, you can resell the used 5D for essentially what you paid and buy a more expensive camera.
Posted by John Vaughan on January 13, 2010 at 5:01 PM
Since I shoot Nikon, I will relate to you my Fine Art Landscape Photography Wish List:
Nikon D3X; features a full frame sensor at 24.5mp. Those two features should allow you to print at 24x30 with very little, if any loss of detail. Nikkor lenses as follows: Nikkor 14-24mm f2.8, Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 and Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 VRll. This kit with the three lenses will allow you to hike in and take some really amazing shots. I love 4x5 but you get so much with on site preview of your images and the flexability of the zoom lenses not to mention you can directly load into Photoshop without the need to scan your negatives. Just my take on it...wish I had the cash!!
John
Posted by David Bostedo on January 13, 2010 at 5:39 PM
Image quality and final image size is my concern...
If price isn't much of a factor you have a few routes, a couple of which are suggested above - but I thought I'd throw everything I know of out there. I have no experience with any of these however...
-- Medium format digital back : a Phase One, Hassleblad, or Leaf digital back and camera system. They will be the highest resolution and probably the most color accurate - the absolute highest quality. Would also allow film use with the camera system. Very, very expensive though.
-- Medium format SLR : Leica S2 system. Brand new and wonderful by preliminary reviews. Very expensive still, but maybe a little less than a digital back system.
-- Full frame rangefinder : The Leica M9 is an 18 megapixel full frame rangefinder. Less expensive but compact and simply usable by all accounts.
-- High pixel count 35mm SLR : There are quite a few available now -
Nikon D3x
Canon 1DsMKIII
Canon 5DMKII
Sony A900
Sony A850
These are all full-frame size sensors and give outstanding quality. The main drawback versus lower pixel count sensors is in higher ISO performance, and high-speed shooting. If you can live with that, from what I can tell these should be able to produce nice 24x36 prints, although with a little less detail than the medium format backs and less detail than medium format film.
So I think it comes down to, mainly, ISO performance and cost. There is a range in the choices above - and really, if cost is a big factor, I wouldn't dismiss cameras with smaller sensors either.
Posted by Michael Elenko on January 13, 2010 at 11:46 PM
Edward,
First, a disclaimer: I don't know the extent of your involvement with digital photography, so forgive any off the wall assumptions in my reply.
I've watched a few friends transition from LF/MF to digital capture. They've been on the cautious side, as the tools are different, as are some of the shooting approaches. What they did initially was to purchase a small, high-quality bridge-style camera, like a Canon G9/10 or a Lumix LX-3, and bring that along with their film setups. This would allow them to experiment within a comparable environment, and minimize the financial risk of putting forth many thousands for digital tools. Plus, those cameras produce surprisingly decent prints--maybe not to your working requirements--but still quite nice at 12x18. And from there they took on larger cameras.
Even more surprising is running into them three months later and being told that they sold all their film gear on the big auction site
Thank you all for all your words of wisdom, thoughts, and advice, I sincerely appreciate it. It's tough to change when you have been doing things the same way for a while and really loving it. I am going to try to rent a camera for a day and see what happens. Thanks to all
Posted by Gene Lugo on January 14, 2010 at 3:56 PM
There is something to be said for 12+ stops of dynamic range possible with the full-frame backs from Leaf and Phase One.
The output from a top of the line, high megapixel, full frame DSLR from Nikon or Canon combined with knowledgable processing in Photoshop beats 4x5 film hands down in tonal range, quality, and sharpness at any size up to 24x30 and beyond, period. I know this from personal use, testing, observation, and experience.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on January 15, 2010 at 1:59 PM
BWAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
Color negative still smokes digital for dynamic range and no DSLR or MFDB on the market comes close to a good scan of 4X5 film in a single shot. A good scan of 35mm pro color negative is close to the best DSLRs on the market today for sharpness and it still beats digital for tonal range. It will show a bit of grain at scan resolutions that high, but its not always a bad thing. The AA filters on DSLRs smear fine detail to prevent Moire patterns and the color resolution is is only about 1/3 the luminance resolution due to the Bayer filter pattern.
As for the OP's question, I think there is a decision that should be made up front. Do you want digital to be a companion to the 4X5 or do you want it to be an alternative?
As a companion a small camera is much nicer to carry. I like the LX3 in this regard, but its dynamic range makes slide film look forgiving. You could also look at the smaller cams like the latest Canon Rebel or the EVF cams with interchageable lenses like the M4/3. These offer surprising good IQ in a small size and the dynamic range is greater than the compact cameras.
As an alternative to 4X5, the full frame SLRs carry the day. They usually have an advantage in dynamic range and sharpness over the APS-C bodies. They open shooting styles that really don't work well in large format. You'll be able to capture quickly unfolding scenes where you might not even pull out the 4X5. You can make good looking big prints from these, but large format definitely provides more detailed large prints. One downside a good full frame body and lenses is heavy enough that you won't want to carry it with your 4X5 for long, so you'll end up choosing one or the other for an outing.
I shoot 4X5 and 35mm in both digital and film and also shoot with an LX3. There are definitely horses for courses.
"The output from a top of the line, high megapixel, full frame DSLR from Nikon or Canon combined with knowledgable processing in Photoshop beats 4x5 film hands down... "
BWAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
Agreed, Mel.
I cannot comment on what would be an alternative to 4x5 because I'm not well versed in the latest-greatest digital gear.
Ignoring the digital vs film debate, I primarily shoot 4x5 chromes and B&W neg. I have the 5DII as my digital. It yields a very fine file and you should be quite happy with large prints from those files. I think the 5DII is hands down the best bang for buck body on the market, at least this week.
I use the digital about 5% of the time, preferring the pace, methodology, movements and zen of a 4x5, but those factors are things you are already quite familiar with as a LF guy.
I might mention the tilt-shift lenses. While they do not provide the flexibility of 4x5, they do bring a capability to a digital camera that comes naturally to a 4x5 shooter.
A 5DII paired with tilt-shift lenses is a lot of fun and can produce some impressive large images that mimic some of the 4x5 look.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on January 15, 2010 at 8:55 PM
I should also loop back a bit and say that shooting with and SLR or rangefinder and a view camera are very different things. I shoot with the view camera because I enjoy the process. I slow down a bit, take a look around, think about what I want to shoot a bit more, choose the lens, choose the film (I carry up to 6 types in the field) sometimes the camera never comes out of the case and I fine with that. This is a big thing people fighting the film versus digital war don't understand. Sure I miss some great shots, but it makes the keepers that much sweeter.
Often a SLR/rangefinder is the better tool and at those times I choose 35mm or RB67 on rare occasion. I could choose to shoot with a 4X5 rangefinder like a Littman or Razzle, but that isn't how I like to use that camera format. I'd probably enjoy shooting with a 6X9 rollfilm back view camera too because I like using the view camera. The resolution of LF is nice, but I really like the feel of the wooden camera, the setup and focus, the leaf shutter lenses.
Posted by Gene Lugo on January 18, 2010 at 4:35 PM
Mel, I totally agree. I cut my teeth on a Graflex Super Graphic, then moved to a Horseman 985, and ultimately ended up with a Sinar F pro. Someone who is accustomed to a frame rate of 8 fps, filling up a memory card with 600 -1000 pics from shoot might have a hard time getting their head around the routine of shooting one image every 15 mins or so on a camera mounted on a wooden tripod, not to mention the wondrous moment the image begins to appear in the dim light of the darkroom's safelight. Boy do I miss the smell of the Dektol, acetic acid and sodium thiosulfate combination. Well, maybe not, but it was such a part of the process of generating an image and perhaps that is what I miss. Thanks for making me think of this.
Discussion
18 replies- Dan.
I haven't said anything about enlargement limits and such because that's so subjective, or if not subjective, dependent on the taste of the viewer, skill of the image processing, intended use of the images, and printing. For years websites, magazines and manufacturers have fed themselves on that debate.
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/canon-view-camera.html
or
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=32563171
or you could buy this
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/Horseman_LD.shtml
and if you have unlimited funds - there is always this
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p65-announced.shtml
Another option aside from a 5DII or D3x is to buy a used 5D. That's what I have used for the last 18 months . . . I bought one on eBay for $1275 after the 5DII came out, and they're even a bit cheaper now. That will leave you more money for lenses or other stuff, or just more money to keep in your pocket. Also, while a used 5D will depreciate a bit more in value as time goes by, I suspect you'll still be able to resell it in 12 months or so for close to what you paid if you decide that you need the additional megapixels of a 5DII (or Mark III?) down the road.
Whether a used 5D will meet your quality requirements at 12.8 mpix is hard for me to say since it's such a subjective thing. I haven't printed larger than 12x18 (mostly due to laziness and a lack of time), but the 12x18's I have printed look superb to me. And you'll find plenty of folks who will say that obtaining a high-quality 24x30 from a 5D or comparable camera is no problem at all. And like I said, if you find that the image quality doesn't meet your needs, you can resell the used 5D for essentially what you paid and buy a more expensive camera.
Nikon D3X; features a full frame sensor at 24.5mp. Those two features should allow you to print at 24x30 with very little, if any loss of detail. Nikkor lenses as follows: Nikkor 14-24mm f2.8, Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 and Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 VRll. This kit with the three lenses will allow you to hike in and take some really amazing shots. I love 4x5 but you get so much with on site preview of your images and the flexability of the zoom lenses not to mention you can directly load into Photoshop without the need to scan your negatives. Just my take on it...wish I had the cash!!
John
If price isn't much of a factor you have a few routes, a couple of which are suggested above - but I thought I'd throw everything I know of out there. I have no experience with any of these however...
-- Medium format digital back : a Phase One, Hassleblad, or Leaf digital back and camera system. They will be the highest resolution and probably the most color accurate - the absolute highest quality. Would also allow film use with the camera system. Very, very expensive though.
-- Medium format SLR : Leica S2 system. Brand new and wonderful by preliminary reviews. Very expensive still, but maybe a little less than a digital back system.
-- Full frame rangefinder : The Leica M9 is an 18 megapixel full frame rangefinder. Less expensive but compact and simply usable by all accounts.
-- High pixel count 35mm SLR : There are quite a few available now -
Nikon D3x
Canon 1DsMKIII
Canon 5DMKII
Sony A900
Sony A850
These are all full-frame size sensors and give outstanding quality. The main drawback versus lower pixel count sensors is in higher ISO performance, and high-speed shooting. If you can live with that, from what I can tell these should be able to produce nice 24x36 prints, although with a little less detail than the medium format backs and less detail than medium format film.
So I think it comes down to, mainly, ISO performance and cost. There is a range in the choices above - and really, if cost is a big factor, I wouldn't dismiss cameras with smaller sensors either.
First, a disclaimer: I don't know the extent of your involvement with digital photography, so forgive any off the wall assumptions in my reply.
I've watched a few friends transition from LF/MF to digital capture. They've been on the cautious side, as the tools are different, as are some of the shooting approaches. What they did initially was to purchase a small, high-quality bridge-style camera, like a Canon G9/10 or a Lumix LX-3, and bring that along with their film setups. This would allow them to experiment within a comparable environment, and minimize the financial risk of putting forth many thousands for digital tools. Plus, those cameras produce surprisingly decent prints--maybe not to your working requirements--but still quite nice at 12x18. And from there they took on larger cameras.
Even more surprising is running into them three months later and being told that they sold all their film gear on the big auction site
ME
Color negative still smokes digital for dynamic range and no DSLR or MFDB on the market comes close to a good scan of 4X5 film in a single shot. A good scan of 35mm pro color negative is close to the best DSLRs on the market today for sharpness and it still beats digital for tonal range. It will show a bit of grain at scan resolutions that high, but its not always a bad thing. The AA filters on DSLRs smear fine detail to prevent Moire patterns and the color resolution is is only about 1/3 the luminance resolution due to the Bayer filter pattern.
As for the OP's question, I think there is a decision that should be made up front. Do you want digital to be a companion to the 4X5 or do you want it to be an alternative?
As a companion a small camera is much nicer to carry. I like the LX3 in this regard, but its dynamic range makes slide film look forgiving. You could also look at the smaller cams like the latest Canon Rebel or the EVF cams with interchageable lenses like the M4/3. These offer surprising good IQ in a small size and the dynamic range is greater than the compact cameras.
As an alternative to 4X5, the full frame SLRs carry the day. They usually have an advantage in dynamic range and sharpness over the APS-C bodies. They open shooting styles that really don't work well in large format. You'll be able to capture quickly unfolding scenes where you might not even pull out the 4X5. You can make good looking big prints from these, but large format definitely provides more detailed large prints. One downside a good full frame body and lenses is heavy enough that you won't want to carry it with your 4X5 for long, so you'll end up choosing one or the other for an outing.
I shoot 4X5 and 35mm in both digital and film and also shoot with an LX3. There are definitely horses for courses.
BWAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
Agreed, Mel.
I cannot comment on what would be an alternative to 4x5 because I'm not well versed in the latest-greatest digital gear.
--P
I use the digital about 5% of the time, preferring the pace, methodology, movements and zen of a 4x5, but those factors are things you are already quite familiar with as a LF guy.
A 5DII paired with tilt-shift lenses is a lot of fun and can produce some impressive large images that mimic some of the 4x5 look.
Often a SLR/rangefinder is the better tool and at those times I choose 35mm or RB67 on rare occasion. I could choose to shoot with a 4X5 rangefinder like a Littman or Razzle, but that isn't how I like to use that camera format. I'd probably enjoy shooting with a 6X9 rollfilm back view camera too because I like using the view camera. The resolution of LF is nice, but I really like the feel of the wooden camera, the setup and focus, the leaf shutter lenses.