# A Different Kind of "Which Camera"



## Alpha (Jul 28, 2008)

Ok. Let me make a couple things clear. No I am not selling out. Yes, I will still be shooting all of my personal work on medium and large format film.

That said, I'm breaking out into the commercial market and have to go digital by necessity. I will only be shooting manual focus lenses. I repeat, I will only be shooting manual focus lenses. 

I've decided that digital MF is a little too rich for my blood at the moment. That aside, let's operate under the assumption that I can afford anything you can name. 

What I don't want, is to pay for features I don't need. After thinking long and hard about buying an M6TTL or an Ikon, I decided to pursue more paying work. I do not need auto focus. I do not need multiple FPS. I do not need auto-bracketing. Think of another auto-feature. Got one? Ok now get rid of it. I don't need it. I don't mind paying $3k. But I don't want to buy features I won't use. What I could use, is megapixels. I need at least 12. And I need the ability to aperture priority older manual lenses.

With the above in mind, Canon is out because it fails to meet the last criterion.

*NOTE: I don't want to read any bull****. I want some educated opinions. Now I know how prone we can be to bull****. So I'll tell you right now, if you respond with a suggestion that doesn't abide by my criteria, I don't care what it is, and I don't care who you are, you will go on my ignore list immediately.*

Ok. Now that's out of the way. 

I demo'd the D300, the D700, the D3, and the Pentax K20D today. The Nikons are nice but I don't know how I feel about spending $2K+ for 12MP. The Pentax is a great little camera, and I have a line of K-Mount glass. But word on the street is they have plans to stop producing dSLR's and I don't want to have to switch systems if I decide 6 months from now that I need more resolution.

So, let the battle begin.


----------



## Ed. (Jul 28, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Ok. Let me make a couple things clear. No I am not selling out. Yes, I will still be shooting all of my personal work on medium and large format film.
> 
> That said, I'm breaking out into the commercial market and have to go digital by necessity. I will only be shooting manual focus lenses. I repeat, I will only be shooting manual focus lenses.
> 
> ...


 
not trying to Bs- but what do you mean by the 2 lines i bolded? kinda contradictory right?


----------



## Ed. (Jul 28, 2008)

my only reccomendation would be the Fx nikon line you mentioned. all have 12 MP's and all are F-mount's for the older nikkor lenses with manual focus. plus nikkor's been producing f-mount lenses forever and there a great selection to choose from.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 28, 2008)

In spite of the fact that they're good cameras, compared to other brands they feel like a bit of a sham in terms of cost per pixel. I mean, the ****ing Rebel XSI has a 12MP sensor.

What I mean is, Nikon it making me uneasy when it comes to buying features I won't use.


----------



## Ed. (Jul 28, 2008)

Alpha said:


> In spite of the fact that they're good cameras, compared to other brands they feel like a bit of a sham in terms of cost per pixel. I mean, the ****ing Rebel XSI has a 12MP sensor.


 
I haven't seen the production in pic quality from XSI's but IME with nikon and there high end DSLR's, there great in terms of quality. I'd rather take a lower megapixel D3 over a 1Ds 3 any day becuase of the quality i've compared between pics from both camera's. i have friends who own both.

I'm also just a nikon buff in general

But i'd look out for what you need. Nikkor sells many many many older manuel lenses where as other lesser brands in terms of production, do exactly that- less production, less lenses to choose from.

selection is a big reason why canon/nikon sell so well.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 28, 2008)

In terms of cost, if I were in the market for something as pricey as a 1DS III, I'd buy digital MF instead.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 28, 2008)

I don't mean to be brand naming, but if you're looking for that kind of performance in consumer driven cameras, I think the bells and whistles will come with it. It's just part of the package.

Seeing that you are looking for resolution rather than FPS and crap, full frame sensors might be the alley to travel down. There is a rumor out there that (perhaps) by the end of August, Nikon will introduce the *D900* with 24MP. Chassis to be around the same size as the D700. Price should be in the $3-4K range. However, you should still be able to mount all the older MF lenses.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 28, 2008)

Ugh. 12MP. This just feels like such a step-down in quality. My MF cameras **** 12 megapixels.

Maybe I'll just give in and buy the damned Nikon. I just don't wanna get squeezed into AF glass just so I can shoot 22MP on the 1DSIII.

$5K buys a 22MP ZD back for the Mamiya.


----------



## Ed. (Jul 28, 2008)

kundalini said:


> I don't mean to be brand naming, but if you're looking for that kind of performance in consumer driven cameras, I think the bells and whistles will come with it. It's just part of the package.
> 
> Seeing that you are looking for resolution rather than FPS and crap, full frame sensors might be the alley to travel down. *There is a rumor out there that (perhaps) by the end of August, Nikon will introduce the D900 with 24MP.* Chassis to be around the same size as the D700. Price should be in the $3-4K range. However, you should still be able to mount all the older MF lenses.


 
i heard a similar rumor for the Nikon D3X, anywhere from 21-24 effective pixels. Prince range would be much greater though.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 28, 2008)

What's an effective pixel? If it's anything like Paul Buff's "effective watt-second" I probably don't care much.


----------



## Ed. (Jul 28, 2008)

Alpha said:


> What's an effective pixel? If it's anything like Paul Buff's "effective watt-second" I probably don't care much.


 
difference between $50 10 megapixel walmart camera and $3000 DSLR.

i wouldn't worry about it if your into DSLR's


----------



## Alpha (Jul 28, 2008)

I mean, you have to understand that I can squeeze 500MP out of my 4x5.

This is a really tough decision for me.


----------



## Ed. (Jul 28, 2008)

easiest way to explain- Via google

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=Effective_Pixels


----------



## Alpha (Jul 28, 2008)

Ed. said:


> easiest way to explain- Via google
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=Effective_Pixels



Those sensor guys should read up on epitaxial crystal arrangements.


----------



## Ed. (Jul 28, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Those sensor guys should read up on epitaxial crystal arrangements.


 
yeah, well you get the general idea, you can read up on the subject but i don't have the time or energy to explain. thank god for search engines.

will stay tuned to see what other cams people will reccomend.

just remember- lens selection.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 28, 2008)

Ed. said:


> lens selection.



I know I know. That's why I was thinking Nikon or Pentax in the first place.


----------



## bigalbest (Jul 28, 2008)

Am I missing something? You can turn off the auto focus on Canon lenses if you choose and focus manually. And mega-pixel count is not always a good measuring stick, what are your photos being used for?


----------



## Alpha (Jul 28, 2008)

bigalbest said:


> Am I missing something? You can turn off the auto focus on Canon lenses if you choose and focus manually.




"I need the ability to aperture priority older manual lenses.

With the above in mind, Canon is out because it fails to meet the last criterion...

...*you will go on my ignore list immediately*."

OH! So close. Thanks for playing.

Any other takers?


----------



## Alpha (Jul 28, 2008)

Aww. Scared 'em all away.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 28, 2008)

Alpha said:


> "I need the ability to aperture priority older manual lenses.
> 
> With the above in mind, Canon is out because it fails to meet the last criterion...
> 
> ...


 


Alpha said:


> Aww. Scared 'em all away.


 
Gee, can't imagine why...


----------



## bigalbest (Jul 28, 2008)

Someone needs a hug. :hugs:


----------



## bigalbest (Jul 28, 2008)

And I guess I am missing something because I don't know what aperture priority is other than a setting that lets you choose your f-stop while the camera chooses the shutter speed for you. Not trying to offend anyone here, I honestly don't know what you mean. Keep in mind I am a student photographer who has used mainly newer digital cameras with only a small taste of medium format film.


----------



## usayit (Jul 28, 2008)

Your choice of either the Nikon D3 (if you need high ISO) or the Pentax K20D (bang for buck) with a choice of Zeiss glass: http://www.zeiss.com/photo

My choice (if I were in your shoes) would be the 25mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, and the 85mm f/1.4.  My choice in body would be the Pentax K20D.  That combo would keep me Very happy for years to come.


----------



## reg (Jul 28, 2008)

My suggestion to Alpha: Do the research yourself if you're that easily... provoked. :roll:
And, yes, I know, I'm going on your ignore list immediately.


----------



## sabbath999 (Jul 28, 2008)

Question: Does ISO matter in what you will be shooting? Do you want to shoot a lot of extreme wide angles?

If you need high ISO and/or a full frame sensor for extreme wide angle advantage, then the D700 is your answer.

If not, a D300 is the least camera that meets your criteria in the Nikon line.

Image quality in "normal" conditions will be about the same, and either can be fully programed to use matrix metering with the lenses you mentioned (if you care about in camera metering at all).

I have no idea about the Pentax cameras so I will leave that to others.


----------



## three_eyed_otter (Jul 28, 2008)

Wow...I wish this thread were moved to the equip. forum so us noobs could have our playground, lunch money, & f22 sunset back from the bully...

have a good one
3Eo


----------



## SpeedTrap (Jul 29, 2008)

The Problem is you have your heart set on MF Digital, and it is great, There are wonderful systems out there, but lets face it, if you want 12 MP good ISO Range and use of older lenses, you should be looking at the D700 or the D3.  
I understand you don't want all the bells and whistles, but if you consider for a second that with the bells and whistles you may be able to use the camera to pick up some work you could not do with the MF, that work will help pay for you MF back.

I know you like film, and so do I but I have not picked up my Hassy or my Crown since I got my D300 or my D700, All the work I do can be done with these cameras.

and why are you so dead set against using the auto focus, the nikon system allows you to use the auto focus combined with the Manual focus, it works flawless.


----------



## RyanLilly (Jul 29, 2008)

I just asked my good friend, Ken Rockwell, and he said that all you need is a D40 and kit lens.


----------



## Zansho (Jul 29, 2008)

Alpha, I don't know what to tell you, other than the fact that today's modern DSLR's will come with a lot of the aforementioned "bells and whistles" and the autofocus that you detest.  

You could always buy a D3 or a D700, but let's face it.   You're a Medium format junkie, and that's ok.  Personally, I'd save up for the MF Back for a Mamiya like the ZD Back that's out now.  22MP, plenty good, has manual focus lenses, and the glass is top notch.

Why buy something you won't be satisfied or happy with?  Buy something you know you will use time and time again, and what you feel meets your needs for your work.


----------



## JerryPH (Jul 29, 2008)

It is because right now, the options for him in the digital world are not to his liking. 

Alpha, I'd say hold out for a short time and don't jump the gun. Yes they may be rumors but there is a *very* good chance that Nikon is coming out with a 20+ MP camera in the near future. The thing that you need to be aware of, is that traditionally, it is $1000US higher than the model beneath it. 

So, if something like the D3x (or whatever they name it), comes out, it will be in the 24 MP range and also in the $5500-$6000 range. If that is out of your price range, you are always back to a D3 or D700 as choices. 

I sincerely feel that even at 12 MP it is more than able to meet your expectations. After all, you are wanting to expand your business line, right? That means that clients other than those needing billboard sized prints will be knocking at your door and their needs should coincide with the capabilities of a D3. It really is the best camera out there at this time, bar none. 

However, a D3x sure looks to be the camera of your dreams at this point. Close the wallet for a while and wait, that is what I think is your best solution... unless you tell us that you need to do this tomorrow. Then I suggest you bite the bullet and go D3. 

As for lenses, you have all the choices from the 1970's to present to choose from, all manual focus capable and some incredible lenses in that range to boot. Don't forget to check out some Zeiss lenses too. I hear they are ok (lol).

Feel free to put me on iggy for sharing my opinion, I don't care.


----------



## pez (Jul 29, 2008)

Well, I have a K10 and absolutely love it. I plan to buy a K20 body soon for the nicer CMOS sensor, better JPEG  performance, and 1.4M. The controls and ergos are top notch and it readily lends itself to fast handling. I had not heard anything about Pentax going belly up- that would be a shame. I really like the new Pentax lenses- the 21mm Limited is especially handy. This news is depressing- have you seen a write-up on the situation? :meh:  I'll be using my Pentax equipment until it's completely obsolete!


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 29, 2008)

Anyone mention leica? Never used one, but is it the M8 that's the digital one? What's the price on one of those?


----------



## usayit (Jul 29, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> Anyone mention leica? Never used one, but is it the M8 that's the digital one? What's the price on one of those?



An M8 + a set of new Summilux lenses will run well north of $10k.  It is a camera of a different kind to meet a certain type of photographer.  One who loves to shoot rangefinders and is eager to add digital to their arsenal.  I love mine.. quirks and all but I'm not so sure it will fit Alpha's needs.


----------



## someguy5 (Jul 29, 2008)

Alpha said:


> And I need the ability to aperture priority older manual lenses.
> 
> With the above in mind, Canon is out because it fails to meet the last criterion.



I have an adapter for old manual screw mount lenses for my Canon and you can do aperture priority on them.  The adapter holds down the aperture pin the entire time, so you just set it on the lens, hold the shutter down halfway, and the camera selects the shutter speed for you.

That said, maybe there are adapters that stop down K-mount lenses for canon.


----------



## usayit (Jul 29, 2008)

Forgot to mention...

Some Leica-R shooters have migrated to the Canon 5D with adapter to Leica-R glass.  I believe Iron Flatline shoots with that type of setup.  I hear there are limitations (mirror clearance) though.  I've been tempted but havn't tried it myself.

I still think Zeiss is going to be a good option to look into (see link above).   Traditional design and build concepts (manual shooters mindset) with present day optics and coatings.


----------



## RyanLilly (Jul 29, 2008)

pez said:


> I'll be using my Pentax equipment until it's completely obsolete!



The way that Pentax has conducted its designs and business, is that nothing actually becomes obsolete, You can still use  all of the old M42 and manual k-mount glass, I suspect this will hold true long into the future.


And Max, I think that usayit and jerry have the best advice for going Nikon, or holding out to get a Digital back. Good Luck, sound like you'll be having fun.


----------



## toofpaste (Jul 29, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> It is because right now, the options for him in the digital world are not to his liking.
> 
> Alpha, I'd say hold out for a short time and don't jump the gun. Yes they may be rumors but there is a *very* good chance that Nikon is coming out with a 20+ MP camera in the near future. The thing that you need to be aware of, is that traditionally, it is $1000US higher than the model beneath it.
> 
> ...


 

Alpha....I actually agree with jerry on this one.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 29, 2008)

manaheim said:


> Gee, can't imagine why...



+2


----------



## Alpha (Jul 29, 2008)

reg said:


> My suggestion to Alpha: Do the research yourself if you're that easily... provoked. :roll:
> And, yes, I know, I'm going on your ignore list immediately.



+3


----------



## Alpha (Jul 29, 2008)

three_eyed_otter said:


> Wow...I wish this thread were moved to the equip. forum so us noobs could have our playground, lunch money, & f22 sunset back from the bully...
> 
> have a good one
> 3Eo



+4


----------



## Alpha (Jul 29, 2008)

RyanLilly said:


> I just asked my good friend, Ken Rockwell, and he said that all you need is a D40 and kit lens.



+5


----------



## Alpha (Jul 29, 2008)

usayit said:


> Your choice of either the Nikon D3 (if you need high ISO) or the Pentax K20D (bang for buck) with a choice of Zeiss glass: http://www.zeiss.com/photo
> 
> My choice (if I were in your shoes) would be the 25mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, and the 85mm f/1.4.  My choice in body would be the Pentax K20D.  That combo would keep me Very happy for years to come.



The Pentax seems like a good choice because it's mostly resolution, and fewer bells and whistles. I don't mind that the AF hunts a bit, since I won't be using it.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 29, 2008)

sabbath999 said:


> Question: Does ISO matter in what you will be shooting?


No.



> Do you want to shoot a lot of extreme wide angles?


No



> If you need high ISO and/or a full frame sensor for extreme wide angle advantage, then the D700 is your answer.
> 
> If not, a D300 is the least camera that meets your criteria in the Nikon line.
> 
> ...



Thanks for weighing in.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 29, 2008)

SpeedTrap said:


> The Problem is you have your heart set on MF Digital, and it is great, There are wonderful systems out there, but lets face it, if you want 12 MP good ISO Range and use of older lenses, you should be looking at the D700 or the D3.
> I understand you don't want all the bells and whistles, but if you consider for a second that with the bells and whistles you may be able to use the camera to pick up some work you could not do with the MF, that work will help pay for you MF back.
> 
> I know you like film, and so do I but I have not picked up my Hassy or my Crown since I got my D300 or my D700, All the work I do can be done with these cameras.
> ...



You're right. I do really want digital MF. I'm sure all the work you do can be done on the digital. I would be doing all my "work," too. 

Thing is, my subjects don't really move. My aversion to AF glass is not based on my dislike of AF, but rather the fact that it requires me to buy glass that is, to a great extent, expensive _because_ it auto-focuses. My dislike is of wasting money on features I don't need.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 29, 2008)

I will be doing my own tests when it comes to quality. I need to be able to print poster sized, and sharp. 

That said, it's easy for digital-only shooters to make claims about sharpness in prints. The guy at Ritz told me 12MP will print a tack-sharp 3x4' print and I see no earthly reason to believe him. I would like to hear the opinions of some long-time MF/LF film shooters on printing big with a 12MP camera. Sorry to you other guys. I trust their opinions more.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 29, 2008)

Chris of Arabia said:


> Do I take it from that, that you will be seeking out older glass, given that very little new stuff comes without it? "It" being AF.



No, you don't take it from _that_. You take it form my OP where I stated it quite explicitly. You're treading on +6 territory.


----------



## Peanuts (Jul 29, 2008)

Shame you don't live in Canada as I could hook you up with an individual who shoots with a Phase One P45+ back and owns a nice Cambo set up as well with numerous Schneider lenses.  You would probably never turn back to the '35mm'-esque digital world after touching those


----------



## Alpha (Jul 29, 2008)

To the people who have gone on my ignore list:

I have no gripe with you personally. But I've made my requirements as clear as I can and if you insist on contaminating what I hope could be a nice, intelligent discussion of my options within those limits, then I will add you just so I don't have to read your posts in this thread.


----------



## Moglex (Jul 29, 2008)

Alpha said:


> I would like to hear the opinions of some long-time MF/LF film shooters on printing big with a 12MP camera. Sorry to you other guys. I trust their opinions more.



Speaking as someone who has had a Hasselblad for over a quarter of a century I don't think the problem is the *sharpness* that everyone seems so obsessed with.

The problem is the lack of *detail*.

The two things are not the same and yet since coming here I've seen pages of stuff about PPI, DPI and sharpness but not a single person has, AFAIK, mentioned detail.

This is the thing that those of us who love larger formats get addicted to.

And, no, there is no way you can get the detail of a good 6cm x 6cm negative with any current 35mm camera without stitching together multiple 'negs' (which can work extremely well).


----------



## Alpha (Jul 29, 2008)

Moglex said:


> Speaking as someone who has had a Hasselblad for over a quarter of a century I don't think the problem is the *sharpness* that everyone seems so obsessed with.
> 
> The problem is the lack of *detail*.
> 
> ...



Thank you for adding this.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 29, 2008)

Can anyone comment on the significance of the image processors in-camera, specifically any differences between the Pentax and Nikon, if possible.


----------



## usayit (Jul 29, 2008)

In regards to what?  ISO performance?


----------



## manaheim (Jul 29, 2008)

Well, since I'm on his ignore list anyway...

oh noes ive been blocked by the big self-righteous egomaniac!

oh noes!

k, I'm done.


----------



## MarcusM (Jul 29, 2008)

lol, Manaheim that's exactly what I was thinking. Hopefully you're able to somehow manage this life-altering event.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 29, 2008)

MarcusM said:


> lol, Manaheim that's exactly what I was thinking. Hopefully you're able to somehow manage this life-altering event.


 
I was just crying about it to my wife.  I'm thinking of seeking therapy. 






:lmao:


----------



## dylj (Jul 29, 2008)

Alpha said:


> +5


 
+1


----------



## epatsellis (Jul 29, 2008)

Alpha, 
Out of curiosity, do you have access to continuous light sources? 

If so you may want to consider (egads!!!) a LF scan back, there's a Phase One Studiokit on ebay right now with an opening bid of $400, should go for well under $1k. 

Huge sensel size, normal MF/LF lenses work fine on it. (though I tend to use enlarging lenses, since exposures are in the minutes range). Established technology has it's advantages. The major downside is that it's not supported by OSX, if you're of a Mac bent, and it's SCSI interface. PM or email me if you need more details and a few pics. 

For my product work, unless there's a need for capturing motion or other flash requirements, I use the scan back.


erie


----------



## Joves (Jul 29, 2008)

manaheim said:


> I was just crying about it to my wife. I'm thinking of seeking therapy.
> :lmao:


 I guess I will join you. 
I have been reading this with much amusement. You seem to be like a little kid being dragged kicking and, screaming, that he has to (Oh Noes!) join the modern world. Just my thoughts.


----------



## reg (Jul 29, 2008)

Alpha said:


> +3



I just got out of the hospital from being shot (yes rly) and, by far, this hurt worse.


----------



## MarcusM (Jul 29, 2008)

reg said:


> I just got out of the hospital from being shot (yes rly) and, by far, this hurt worse.



He can't see your post remember!

Wow, can I ask how you got shot?


----------



## reg (Jul 29, 2008)

MarcusM said:


> Wow, can I ask how you got shot?




A friend thought it a good idea to mess around with my Saturday night special while it was unlocked and my back was turned, I shoulda had it up but still :thumbdown:. Itty-bitty little bullet went in and out of my calf, and I'm doing fine.

Sorry, I don't have a cool story about taking pictures of a crack dealer or anything.


----------



## lostprophet (Jul 30, 2008)

This might help http://www.phaseone.com/upload/chipshop0412p25_001.pdf
A friend of mine did a review of a phase one back on a Mamiya 645AF in 2004 and compared it with a P2 with 5x4 and 10x8.

here is Jay Myrdal's site http://www.myrdal.com/ he is the one that is using the P2 

One other thing, he also uses old Nikon AI and Pentax PK lenses on his 1DS mkII via a cheap mount found on ebay, he says the results are better than most L-series lenses, I know your not the biggest Canon fan but it might be worth looking into.


----------



## Moglex (Jul 30, 2008)

lostprophet said:


> This might help http://www.phaseone.com/upload/chipshop0412p25_001.pdf
> A friend of mine did a review of a phase one back on a Mamiya 645AF in 2004 and compared it with a P2 with 5x4 and 10x8.



Thanks for the link.

For another comparison of a Phase One back (this time the P45) with 5 x 4, see Here

(Can't wait to see some similar comparisons between the P65 and 5 x 4.)


----------



## bigalbest (Jul 30, 2008)

Moglex said:


> Thanks for the link.
> 
> For another comparison of a Phase One back (this time the P45) with 5 x 4, see Here
> 
> (Can't wait to see some similar comparisons between the P65 and 5 x 4.)



Interesting link, and even though I am being ignored I read it anyways. Here is an interesting quote from the review:


> Bill did an experiment during our shoot-out where he asked us to manually focus several of the images as best we could.  He then took one with the autofocus  and in every case, the autofocused image was sharper than our mortal efforts.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 30, 2008)

Thanks to everyone who posted something substantive.


----------



## nynfortoo (Jul 30, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Thanks to everyone who posted something substantive.



Have you decided what you're going to do?


----------



## Alpha (Jul 30, 2008)

No. The thread didn't really go anywhere. My fault I guess.

Hopefully somebody will just lock it.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jul 30, 2008)

Alpha said:


> I would like to hear the opinions of some long-time MF/LF film shooters on printing big with a 12MP camera.



I shot 4x5 and 120 for 15+ years.  Mostly landscapes and portraits, but some PJ style stuff too.  I pretty much gave up on 35mm film for personal work early on; it just wasn't good enough for me.  I did my own BW processing and printing in my home darkroom for a decade.  I bought my first DSLR, a Canon 20D, 4 years ago.  I was reluctant to "go digital", but like you I felt the need from client projects.  Also like you I proclaimed that I'd always continue using film, and I'd be printing in my darkroom using traditional methods until the day I died.  

Last year I bought a 5D, sold my Hasselblad 500c/m and Pentax 67II, and shut down my darkroom.  The image quality I can get from the 5D is very similar to 6x7cm film at ISO 100.  At ISO 400 and above my results from the 5D are easily better than any high speed medium format film I've tried.  The 5D doesn't have anywhere near the resolution of sheet film, but my 4x5 gear sits gathering dust on the shelf.  Why?  Because I've found the increased portability, and exceptional precision and control over processing tends to result in a superior finished photograph.  That may not be the same for you.  

Here's another landscape photographer that used 4x5 for years, but now uses a Canon 5D.    I highly recommend reading his article "Farewell To the Revolution".

http://www.huntingtonwitherill.com/ 

Your own tests are all that matter.  Can I get great looking 3'x4' prints from a 12mp, 35mm format DSLR?  Yep.  Can you do the same in the days or weeks after first picking up a 12mp, 35mm format DSLR?  I'd say it's unlikely.  Just like it took time to learn film, you will need time to learn digital.  Digital exposure and processing have different requirements.  Digital is much more picky than neg film, and minor mistakes or sloppiness will have a greater apparent effect on final image quality.  I think image quality differences between one DSLR or the next are minor compared to the effects differences in skill and experience between photographers will have.  I run into plenty of photographers, amateurs and pros alike, that tell me that things I accomplish are impossible.  They've got fancy math and all sorts of complicated tests that support their theories.  All I've got is prints hanging on the wall to be viewed by human eyeballs.  I really don't care about the math.  I just care how the finished photograph looks.

No matter what you think about digital now (and unless you really believe that hundreds of thousands of pros and serious enthusiasts who shot film switched because digital is more convenient I'd say the film vs digital debate is pretty much over) with the way the technology is advancing in the near future digital will outperform film in resolution, color accuracy, dynamic range, tonal range, high ISO, etc, etc, etc....  Right now there are digital sensors smaller than 4x5 centimeters that have greater resolution and dynamic range than 4x5 inch film.  Sure the cameras cost as much as a new sports car, but they will get cheaper, and someday there will be an affordable, small bodied DSLR that has as much or greater potential image quality as 4x5 film currently does.  Realizing that I decided it was important to start learning digital, even if I thought film was better.  In my opinion it's an advantage to be skilled in a variety of tools and techniques.     

If you love film feel free to stick with it.  No matter how good digital gets it doesn't make film worse.  The last 100 years have proven that great photos can be created with film.  The next 100 will prove that great photos can be created with digital.  In the end it's going to be the photographer that really matters.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 30, 2008)

Well, as much as I talk about sharpness, detail, and resolution, film simply has an indelibly different feel to it that I savor in my personal work. Digital, though, is a must for many paying gigs. 

I won't ever go digital for black and white. The day I can afford a P65, and I burn through my 4x5 Super XX and my Ektalure, I _might_ consider it. But the prints just aren't the same, and I've tried my hand at black and white printing on the best media and the best printers. I won't even get into contact printing, let alone on Azo. Many forget that film and darkroom work are not technologically stagnant, if revivalist. While I work on new workflows for conversions, Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee are resurrecting silver chloride papers. The ritual may be cumbersome, but it's a lovable one. There's something so substantial, as you know, about coming out from under the dark cloth, pulling the slide, and hearing the leaf shutter snap as you depress the cable release.

Even for color work, some things aren't so difficult. I'm working on setting up an editorial fashion gig where I'll be shooting 4x5 chromes on Agfa RSX. God, to see it on the light table is just such a different feel from seeing it on the monitor. Don't even get me started on Ciba. The digital ones on the lightjet just aren't the same.

I'm going to continue building my book with film. Commercial work can be a "get me proofs yesterday" environment, but not always. It's not always so much sweat for me to wait on the lab. But I'm one of the lucky ones. I can do a film shoot in the morning and have a scan by late afternoon.

Some things make me reconsider film even when I could shoot digital. If someone asked me to make a large duratrans for a store-front and I wasn't under enormous time pressure, I might think about breaking out the 4x5. 

I like things that I can hold.

I don't like paying for things I don't need. If I could afford digital MF, I would probably buy it in a heart-beat. Unfortunately, I can't even rent it where I am. 

That's why I'm leaning towards the Pentax. It seems about as close as I'll get without spending $5k on a back alone. I do want to spend $5k, but not on just a back. I want a couple Speedo Black packs, heads, batteries, and a full line of modifiers. I want a new RZIID for the day I finally make the switch into the big game. But in a smaller dSLR, I don't want to buy the glitz and glam. I just want some pixels and an SD card.

I'm in a somber mood today.


----------



## Moglex (Jul 30, 2008)

ksmattfish said:


> Right now there are digital sensors smaller than 4x5 centimeters that have greater resolution and dynamic range than 4x5 inch film.  Sure the cameras cost as much as a new sports car, but they will get cheaper, and someday there will be an affordable, small bodied DSLR that has as much or greater potential image quality as 4x5 film currently does.



I'm not convinced that is true.

A 4x5 has a lot of mm across which to spread the lens' (admittedly, generally, slightly fewer) lppm.

Even if a 35mm digital had infinite resolution I don't believe that the effective resolution (lens + sensor) would exceed that of a 4 x 5.

It's a slightly closer thing with 6x6 but I wonder if we'll eventually get to the stage where the extreme extra cost (the differential is much greater than with film gear), weight and other inconveniences will make the quality premium worth it


----------



## ksmattfish (Jul 30, 2008)

Alpha said:


> ... film simply has an indelibly different feel to it that I savor in my personal work.



An excellent reason to choose the materials, tools, and processes you use is because you enjoy using them.  



Alpha said:


> I won't ever go digital for black and white. ... But the prints just aren't the same ... I won't even get into contact printing, let alone on Azo. ... Don't even get me started on Ciba. The digital ones on the lightjet just aren't the same.



  I've heard it all before.  Much of it came from my very own mouth.  Then photographers who really knew what they were doing showed me excellent BW and color prints from digital that blew me away, and I realized that even if only one photographer (and since then I've seen lots) was capable of achieving that sort of quality, then the weak link wasn't the gear, materials, or process.  It was me.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 30, 2008)

ksmattfish said:


> I've heard it all before.  Much of it came from my very own mouth.  Then photographers who really knew what they were doing showed me excellent BW and color prints from digital that blew me away, and I realized that even if only one photographer (and since then I've seen lots) was capable of achieving that sort of quality, then the weak link wasn't the gear, materials, or process.  It was me.



It's not always about possible. It's about feel. Excellent is one thing. What I want is another.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jul 30, 2008)

Moglex said:


> I'm not convinced that is true.



I admit I have no knowledge as to the technical requirements of putting a 40mm x 54mm sensor in a camera body, and it may never be as small as a D-Rebel, but that camera is going to be a lot closer in size to my 5D than it is to my Super Graphic, which I consider small for a 4x5 camera.

Whenever anyone tells me about the limits of technology I always think back to the early 90's when my father confidently proclaimed I'd never fill a 170mb hard drive in my lifetime.  Right now I'm sitting on 1.25 tb.


----------



## Moglex (Jul 30, 2008)

ksmattfish said:


> Whenever anyone tells me about the limits of technology I always think back to the early 90's when my father confidently proclaimed I'd never fill a 170mb hard drive in my lifetime.  Right now I'm sitting on 1.25 tb.



I know what you mean but this is a logical limit, not really based on something that is suddenly going to double (as most things to do with computers does every sqrt(2) to 2 years).

Unless someone manages to do more for lens resolution than they have done in the last hundred years (and this includes the period where insane amounts of computing power became easily and cheaply availible), I can't see 35mm catching up with 4x5 any time in the near future.

It's a quite different sort of prediction to "I don't think they'll ever make a 35mm sensor more than 100MB". (I remember reading some witless computer reporter confidently pontificating that no one was going to bother making a camera with a sensor of more than 2MP "because that's the most than anyone will ever need".)


----------



## passerby (Jul 30, 2008)

I don't know if anyone has mentioned sony a350. Beside pentax this a350 boast of 14.5 mega pixel with less than US$700 body only. It can utilize the older minolta lenses, and of course few classy zeiss lens. I have googled few hours to find an explicit statement of "aperture priority compatibility" with the older lenses but with no luck. 

I believe the price, the existance of many old lenses and the amount of mega pixel have meet your criteria. You just need to find the aperture priority compatibility directly from them is the best way. This link below to see their available lenses. Good luck:

http://ca.konicaminolta.com/products/consumer/camera-peu/slr/lens/index.html#f

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs...10151&productId=8198552921665337554&langId=-1


----------



## Bryant (Jul 30, 2008)

Is a nice Hasselbladd in your range? Very large array of MP's


----------



## sabbath999 (Jul 30, 2008)

passerby said:


> I don't know if anyone has mentioned sony a350. Beside pentax this a350 boast of 14.5 mega pixel with less than US$700 body only. It can utilize the older minolta lenses, and of course few classy zeiss lens. I have googled few hours to find an explicit statement of "aperture priority compatibility" with the older lenses but with no luck.



The original post says he wants to only use manual focus lenses. There are no manual focus lenses for the Sony DSLR camera line (all of the old Minolta lenses that will fit it are autofocus).


----------



## usayit (Jul 31, 2008)

Is time of delivery important in your commercial work?  Have you considered leveraging your current MF/LF equipment paired with a high end scanner.   Might be the best of both worlds.  I've seen scans from MF frames that can rival most DSLRs.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 31, 2008)

usayit said:


> Is time of delivery important in your commercial work?  Have you considered leveraging your current MF/LF equipment paired with a high end scanner.   Might be the best of both worlds.  I've seen scans from MF frames that can rival most DSLRs.



Well I'm trying to figure out how much work I'd lose out on by sticking with film. I'm considering buying a drum scanner. And I'd argue that good MF scans easily beat most of the dSLR's on the market today. But that's beside the point.


----------

