I searched about the best possible camera system available today (best here = image quality), and I found that the image quality of Large Format is still at the top of the list but lack the dynamic range/color accuracy of digital medium format cameras. I found that one of the problems with medium format system is getting maximum sharpness throughout the whole image in other term lack of camera movements.
Now, can I assume that the ultimate camera system I am seeking is a LF with digital back?
I know some people will say that photography is more than getting superior gear and it involves art etc etc...I know and strongly believe in all that but still...what is the best system for those who want image with no flaws?
Just from reading (no experience with film or medium format digital) I'd say that you definitely want a medium format digital back for the reasons you mentioned. (Or possibly the new Leica S2 - but there's no test data for that yet.) If you're really requiring tilt/shift (as opposed to focus stacking, which theoretically could be even better, though a potential pain as well) then you're talking an LF type camera as you said. There is also the Hasselblad tilt/shift adapter for their system.
Of course, you could always shoot multiple large format film exposures, get high quality drum scans, and then combine them into a color corrected HDR image on the computer. And if you used a long lens, you could make a pano, and could then stitch them and get beyond even the resolution limits of LF.
Mohsen, I'm sure this opens up an unending debate with regard to "best" approach. As I do not shoot digital and have no experience in that arena I would have no idea of how to obtain the "best" out of a good high end digital system beyond the use possibly of a good shift/tilt lens. With all the software available these days for blending, stitching, pano, focus stacking, HDR, etc. there is a lot to be gained with all the digital gear out there.
As a very long time MF and my move to LF several years ago was based upon the foot print and view camera movements. After using the system for a fairly good period of time now I find the movements a necessary requirement, at least from my perspective.
As far as a digital back for a LF camera, it is still well beyond my price range by a TON $$.
Mohsen: You're going to get a different opinion from anyone who replies, but...
The Ultimate Camera FOR ME is large format, and HDR has always existed prior to D-SLR's; it's called NEGATIVE film. Both color and b/w negatives have much greater latitude/dynamic range than transparency/slide films such as Velvia. With view camera movements, you have the ability to correct ANY optical distortion/perspective problems, and can gain ultimate sharpness from near to far. The trade-offs are greater cost per photograph and a slightly more cumbersome and slower format (compared to digital), but if you're the right kind of person for the format, all the compromises are well worth it.
I'd recommend trying out MF and LF before buying to find out if these are formats that you can live and work with.
Posted by Scott Fricke on May 12, 2010 at 12:13 PM
Part of the equation is also where you go to photograph. I backpack to remote areas for multiple days and it isn't reasonable to ME to carry the necessities required (food, tent, clothes, etc.) AND 50 pounds of LF gear. Another factor for me against LF is the high cost and probably the biggest reason is the lengthy time it takes to properly shoot an image. I don't like to hang around for hours, I enjoy traveling through an area, photographing as I go. LF just doesn't fit my "style". So, just as important as the technical considerations, think about how you photograph as well.That said LF gives you some incredible detail and remarkable image quality.
No dig on you, Scott, but I commonly see statements like yours which are not necessarily true.
My backcountry LF kit weighs twelve pounds, tripod included. A Canon 5D MKII weighs 810grams; my Chamonix 4x5" weighs only 1380 grams. For an experienced LF shooter, straight landscape photographs should only take 120 seconds to quickly set up, compose, meter, and expose. Certainly longer than a quick 'snap' of the D-SLR, but the results are arguably worth it.
I cannot disagree that LF isn't compatible with everyone's style, but the idea that it's a heavy and slow format is relative to experience and gear choices, not the format itself.
After years of using 4x5" and 6x7/6x6 films, I dove into a medium format view camera (Arca Swiss M-Line 2), a Phase One P45 back, and a KaptureGroup sliding back in 12/2009. I have been focusing through a Hasselblad viewfinder attached to the sliding back and find it not that easy as the results are not consistent with the DOF level I want. The DOF can be unforgiving on the larger digital sensors and minute movements can be too small to see at the 645 level. So far, I am not happy with a lot of my work, but I need to invest in better lenses before I get totally disenchanted. When you shoot at f/8 and f/11, your lenses really talk their ability.
I just acquired an Alpa Max with a 47/5.6 XL lens and now the test images I have made with this setup are much sharper! I think there is something to be said for the digital back shimming and the movements being only linear.
So far my ultimate camera is actually the Mamiya RZ67 Pro IID for studio work. I need to get my back shimmed for it as I love the bellows focusing and SLR viewfinder. Talk to me next year this time and see what I am putting my P45 on then.
I remember an old quote from the Whole Earth Catalog back in the 70's that went something like this...
"Distinguish between what you need and what you wish you needed"
In other words, we must carefully deliniate our goals and objectives. These will be based upon our creative tendencies, subject matter, working condtions, degree of skill with the camera and associated systems, professional status (i.e. pro or amateur) and budget.
I am quite happy shooting large format (4x5). Using my 4x5, with it's basic movements, and manual 'everything' allows me to concentrate on the photograph. I can't be tied to a camera that tells me what is best, nor am I comfortable with fiddling with dials and menus--but that's me.
If one wants high dynamic range, high resolution and near-far sharp focus without resorting to multiple exposures and HDR blending, a large format camera using color negative or B&W film and a high quality drum scan will give it to you. But, the question is; is that a good fit?
So, it all goes back to; "What do I really need to accomplish my goals?" Once this question is answered, you will have your 'ultimate' camera.
I have used to shoot with 35mm, then I made the move to the digital world with Nikon D3, then got my first MF system couple of months ago; Pentax 67II with 45mm, 55-100mm, 90mm, & 165mm.
One problem with the P67 was the shallow DoF. I tried hard to solve/minimize the problem (I consult many masters who used to shoot with it and most agreed on the lack of the P67 in term of getting sharp image from near-far) eventually came to the true fact, as the CoC/film plain becomes bigger, there must be some kind of film plain movements to get the optimum sharpness.
LF is the answer but I only have problem with film processing as they close here in my country (Saudi Arabia). I thought a setup like this could be the answer.
The "ultimate" camera for me is one that is light, compact, and very versatile. It will operate in temperatures from 120F degrees to colder than 45 below zero. It will be able to accurately get shots even on the darkest night. If it can't do this, the image quality will not matter. What I'm trying to say that what makes an "ultimate" camera can be very different for different needs.
One thing you might be missing in thinking of shallow DoF on medium format is that yes, as the film size gets larger the DoF becomes less. However, the sensor size of some medium format digital backs still isn't all that large. As I recall it's not as large as a 120 negative.
Discussion
9 repliesNow, can I assume that the ultimate camera system I am seeking is a LF with digital back?
I know some people will say that photography is more than getting superior gear and it involves art etc etc...I know and strongly believe in all that but still...what is the best system for those who want image with no flaws?
Of course, you could always shoot multiple large format film exposures, get high quality drum scans, and then combine them into a color corrected HDR image on the computer. And if you used a long lens, you could make a pano, and could then stitch them and get beyond even the resolution limits of LF.
As a very long time MF and my move to LF several years ago was based upon the foot print and view camera movements. After using the system for a fairly good period of time now I find the movements a necessary requirement, at least from my perspective.
As far as a digital back for a LF camera, it is still well beyond my price range by a TON $$.
The Ultimate Camera FOR ME is large format, and HDR has always existed prior to D-SLR's; it's called NEGATIVE film. Both color and b/w negatives have much greater latitude/dynamic range than transparency/slide films such as Velvia. With view camera movements, you have the ability to correct ANY optical distortion/perspective problems, and can gain ultimate sharpness from near to far. The trade-offs are greater cost per photograph and a slightly more cumbersome and slower format (compared to digital), but if you're the right kind of person for the format, all the compromises are well worth it.
I'd recommend trying out MF and LF before buying to find out if these are formats that you can live and work with.
My backcountry LF kit weighs twelve pounds, tripod included. A Canon 5D MKII weighs 810grams; my Chamonix 4x5" weighs only 1380 grams. For an experienced LF shooter, straight landscape photographs should only take 120 seconds to quickly set up, compose, meter, and expose. Certainly longer than a quick 'snap' of the D-SLR, but the results are arguably worth it.
I cannot disagree that LF isn't compatible with everyone's style, but the idea that it's a heavy and slow format is relative to experience and gear choices, not the format itself.
I just acquired an Alpa Max with a 47/5.6 XL lens and now the test images I have made with this setup are much sharper! I think there is something to be said for the digital back shimming and the movements being only linear.
So far my ultimate camera is actually the Mamiya RZ67 Pro IID for studio work. I need to get my back shimmed for it as I love the bellows focusing and SLR viewfinder. Talk to me next year this time and see what I am putting my P45 on then.
Kind regards,
Darr
"Distinguish between what you need and what you wish you needed"
In other words, we must carefully deliniate our goals and objectives. These will be based upon our creative tendencies, subject matter, working condtions, degree of skill with the camera and associated systems, professional status (i.e. pro or amateur) and budget.
I am quite happy shooting large format (4x5). Using my 4x5, with it's basic movements, and manual 'everything' allows me to concentrate on the photograph. I can't be tied to a camera that tells me what is best, nor am I comfortable with fiddling with dials and menus--but that's me.
If one wants high dynamic range, high resolution and near-far sharp focus without resorting to multiple exposures and HDR blending, a large format camera using color negative or B&W film and a high quality drum scan will give it to you. But, the question is; is that a good fit?
So, it all goes back to; "What do I really need to accomplish my goals?" Once this question is answered, you will have your 'ultimate' camera.
--P
One problem with the P67 was the shallow DoF. I tried hard to solve/minimize the problem (I consult many masters who used to shoot with it and most agreed on the lack of the P67 in term of getting sharp image from near-far) eventually came to the true fact, as the CoC/film plain becomes bigger, there must be some kind of film plain movements to get the optimum sharpness.
LF is the answer but I only have problem with film processing as they close here in my country (Saudi Arabia). I thought a setup like this could be the answer.
One thing you might be missing in thinking of shallow DoF on medium format is that yes, as the film size gets larger the DoF becomes less. However, the sensor size of some medium format digital backs still isn't all that large. As I recall it's not as large as a 120 negative.
Kent in SD