Medium-format quality with a 300D?

I am brand-new to photography, having jumped right in by purchasing the 300D. Clueless about the different kinds of cameras, I saw some great-looking b&w portrait photographs on a restaurant wall, and told my friend that "those are the kinds of photos I want to take".

Then he told me that those photos could only have been taken from a medium-format camera; a digital camera, or at least, the one I have, can't take pictures with that kind of detail and quality.

But can it be done?

Shnaggletooth

shnaggletooth said:

I am brand-new to photography, having jumped right in by purchasing
the 300D. Clueless about the different kinds of cameras, I saw some
great-looking b&w portrait photographs on a restaurant wall, and
told my friend that "those are the kinds of photos I want to take".

Then he told me that those photos could only have been taken from a
medium-format camera; a digital camera, or at least, the one I
have, can't take pictures with that kind of detail and quality.

But can it be done?

Click to expand...

There's medium format digital equipment if you want it - check this article:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/mf-backs.shtml

This site has a blurb on the Mamiya ZD medium format digital camera:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04092902mamiya_zd.asp

Be prepared for a bit of sticker shock, though...

--
http://lucs.lu.se/people/jan.moren/log/current.html

shnaggletooth said:

I am brand-new to photography, having jumped right in by purchasing
the 300D. Clueless about the different kinds of cameras, I saw some
great-looking b&w portrait photographs on a restaurant wall, and
told my friend that "those are the kinds of photos I want to take".

Then he told me that those photos could only have been taken from a
medium-format camera; a digital camera, or at least, the one I
have, can't take pictures with that kind of detail and quality.

But can it be done?

Click to expand...

Of course you're going to get varying opinions, but in generaly you can only blow up so far from the original image before the picture quality is unacceptable. You can certainly take gorgeous black and white portraits and you can certainly print them out larger than 4x6 and have them look great. However, if you were looking at portraits whose size was measured in feet instead of inches, your 300, or in fact 99% of the digital cameras today, just doesn't cut it

It's purely physical as well I think. The larger the starting image size, the larger the blow up you can get before it becomes too soft/pixelated/bad looking to be acceptable. Most DSLRs have an APS sized sensors, which is smaller than a 35mm sensor (see this link for a graphical example: http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/ ).

Now of course, you can argue that DSLR sensors can pack pixels more tighly together, the fovion chip is really 3 chips in one, etc etc.

It all comes down to the fact that if you have a negative that's 2.5x2.5cm or 6x4.5cm (or 6x6 or 6x7) you're going to be able to blow it up bigger than something that's coming from the 16.7X23.4mm that is the sensor size in a DSLR (based on sizes quoted at http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/jrp_faq/jrp_faq_what_camera/faq_what_camera_aps.html ).

Now that all said, I've printed out some great pics from a 3mp camera at 8x10, and have read that you can do up to 11x13 blow ups from a dslr ( http://www.leica-camera.com/discus_e/messages/3/54598.html?1079945390 ). Remember that the sharper the pic, the bigger the blow up, so use a tripod, good glass, etc.

If you're interested in getting into medium format, check out a good page at http://www.cameras.co.uk/html/medium-format-cameras.cfm Of course, you don't get the perks of digital

However, I just read that pentax will be releaseing a 6x4.5cm digital soon ( http://www.pentaximaging.com/footer/news_media_article?ArticleId=6458800 ), so you can do digital medium format! Of course, it's going to be a wee bit pricier than a rebel, DS, or whatnot

Whew! Long post, hope it helped.

you can capture a 3x3 pano, then you'll have medium format quality Otherwise, no.

There are other factors, too, like certain b/w films have a magical quality that is very hard to imitate

shnaggletooth said:

I am brand-new to photography, having jumped right in by purchasing
the 300D. Clueless about the different kinds of cameras, I saw some
great-looking b&w portrait photographs on a restaurant wall, and
told my friend that "those are the kinds of photos I want to take".

Then he told me that those photos could only have been taken from a
medium-format camera; a digital camera, or at least, the one I
have, can't take pictures with that kind of detail and quality.

But can it be done?

Shnaggletooth

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/thejaybird

Aprreciate that info. As for prices for a digital medium format camera, I asked my local salesperson tonight. He said I could get one for around 'fifteen'..

"Fifteen-hundred?" I asked.

"Fifteen-THOUSAND," he replied.

Shnaggletooth

arcterex said:

shnaggletooth said:

I am brand-new to photography, having jumped right in by purchasing
the 300D. Clueless about the different kinds of cameras, I saw some
great-looking b&w portrait photographs on a restaurant wall, and
told my friend that "those are the kinds of photos I want to take".

Then he told me that those photos could only have been taken from a
medium-format camera; a digital camera, or at least, the one I
have, can't take pictures with that kind of detail and quality.

But can it be done?

Click to expand...

Of course you're going to get varying opinions, but in generaly you
can only blow up so far from the original image before the picture
quality is unacceptable. You can certainly take gorgeous black and
white portraits and you can certainly print them out larger than
4x6 and have them look great. However, if you were looking at
portraits whose size was measured in feet instead of inches, your
300, or in fact 99% of the digital cameras today, just doesn't cut
it

It's purely physical as well I think. The larger the starting
image size, the larger the blow up you can get before it becomes
too soft/pixelated/bad looking to be acceptable. Most DSLRs have
an APS sized sensors, which is smaller than a 35mm sensor (see this
link for a graphical example:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/ ).

Now of course, you can argue that DSLR sensors can pack pixels more
tighly together, the fovion chip is really 3 chips in one, etc etc.

It all comes down to the fact that if you have a negative that's
2.5x2.5cm or 6x4.5cm (or 6x6 or 6x7) you're going to be able to
blow it up bigger than something that's coming from the 16.7X23.4mm
that is the sensor size in a DSLR (based on sizes quoted at

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/jrp_faq/jrp_faq_what_camera/faq_what_camera_aps.html ).

Now that all said, I've printed out some great pics from a 3mp
camera at 8x10, and have read that you can do up to 11x13 blow ups
from a dslr

( http://www.leica-camera.com/discus_e/messages/3/54598.html?1079945390 ). Remember that the sharper the pic, the bigger the blow up, so use a tripod, good glass, etc.

If you're interested in getting into medium format, check out a
good page at
http://www.cameras.co.uk/html/medium-format-cameras.cfm Of course,
you don't get the perks of digital

However, I just read that pentax will be releaseing a 6x4.5cm
digital soon

( http://www.pentaximaging.com/footer/news_media_article?ArticleId=6458800 ), so you can do digital medium format! Of course, it's going to be a wee bit pricier than a rebel, DS, or whatnot

Whew! Long post, hope it helped.

Click to expand...

If you're will to take the time to stitch images, you can exceed the quality of medium format. I've done 30x40's from the D Rebel, that are better in every sense than my MF velvias.

shnaggletooth said:

shnaggletooth wrote:
I am brand-new to photography, having jumped right in by purchasing
the 300D. Clueless about the different kinds of cameras, I saw some
great-looking b&w portrait photographs on a restaurant wall, and
told my friend that "those are the kinds of photos I want to take".

Then he told me that those photos could only have been taken from a
medium-format camera; a digital camera, or at least, the one I
have, can't take pictures with that kind of detail and quality.

But can it be done?

Shnaggletooth

Click to expand...

--
Lost in the Colorado Mountains!!!

On the other hand, I believe you can get used film medium-format equipment at a pretty reasonable price. If you're really interested in the format it may be worth picking up a used film kit and a good scanner (or have the lab scan, perhaps). Since you won't be shooting as many frames as you'd with a 35mm, I don't think the running costs would be too bad either.

And let's face it - medium format is cool

shnaggletooth said:

"Fifteen-hundred?" I asked.

"Fifteen-THOUSAND," he replied.

Shnaggletooth

arcterex said:

shnaggletooth said:

I am brand-new to photography, having jumped right in by purchasing
the 300D. Clueless about the different kinds of cameras, I saw some
great-looking b&w portrait photographs on a restaurant wall, and
told my friend that "those are the kinds of photos I want to take".

Then he told me that those photos could only have been taken from a
medium-format camera; a digital camera, or at least, the one I
have, can't take pictures with that kind of detail and quality.

But can it be done?

Click to expand...

Of course you're going to get varying opinions, but in generaly you
can only blow up so far from the original image before the picture
quality is unacceptable. You can certainly take gorgeous black and
white portraits and you can certainly print them out larger than
4x6 and have them look great. However, if you were looking at
portraits whose size was measured in feet instead of inches, your
300, or in fact 99% of the digital cameras today, just doesn't cut
it

It's purely physical as well I think. The larger the starting
image size, the larger the blow up you can get before it becomes
too soft/pixelated/bad looking to be acceptable. Most DSLRs have
an APS sized sensors, which is smaller than a 35mm sensor (see this
link for a graphical example:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/ ).

Now of course, you can argue that DSLR sensors can pack pixels more
tighly together, the fovion chip is really 3 chips in one, etc etc.

It all comes down to the fact that if you have a negative that's
2.5x2.5cm or 6x4.5cm (or 6x6 or 6x7) you're going to be able to
blow it up bigger than something that's coming from the 16.7X23.4mm
that is the sensor size in a DSLR (based on sizes quoted at

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/jrp_faq/jrp_faq_what_camera/faq_what_camera_aps.html ).

Now that all said, I've printed out some great pics from a 3mp
camera at 8x10, and have read that you can do up to 11x13 blow ups
from a dslr

( http://www.leica-camera.com/discus_e/messages/3/54598.html?1079945390 ). Remember that the sharper the pic, the bigger the blow up, so use a tripod, good glass, etc.

If you're interested in getting into medium format, check out a
good page at
http://www.cameras.co.uk/html/medium-format-cameras.cfm Of course,
you don't get the perks of digital

However, I just read that pentax will be releaseing a 6x4.5cm
digital soon

( http://www.pentaximaging.com/footer/news_media_article?ArticleId=6458800 ), so you can do digital medium format! Of course, it's going to be a wee bit pricier than a rebel, DS, or whatnot

Whew! Long post, hope it helped.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://lucs.lu.se/people/jan.moren/log/current.html

arcterex said:

It's purely physical as well I think. The larger the starting
image size, the larger the blow up you can get before it becomes
too soft/pixelated/bad looking to be acceptable.

Click to expand...

You can print anything at any size, and the limit of acceptibility is the minimum distance at which you have to view it for it to meet your standards. If you blew up a 1mp image to poster size, you'd have to view it from a long distance away for it to look good, hence why there's not much point. The rule of thumb is that the print should look good at a distance of its diagonal, but if you are printing a billboard that people will only see 30m away then you can print larger without noticeable degradation.

arcterex said:

Now that all said, I've printed out some great pics from a 3mp
camera at 8x10, and have read that you can do up to 11x13 blow ups
from a dslr

Click to expand...

20x30" looks great using the 6.3mp 300D and a good lens. It blew me away. You could print larger, depending on where you're hanging it.

--
Tim Auld, Digital Salvo Sports Photography: http://www.digitalsalvo.com

Did you make that comment about the picture because you admired the composition, or because you admired the sharpness and resolution. If you want to take really sharp pictures, and make large prints, then your problem is equipment. If you want to take really nice pictures, and print at 12x18 or less, then you should not worry about the camera - worry about the photographer.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd rather look at a really nicely done picture (composition, interest etc) than a really sharp boring print.

In any event - you say you are beginning in this hobby, before you pop out the big $$ for MF equipment, you should learn to get the most out of what you have. It's also a lot easier to learn composition without paying for MF film and processing.
Whichever way you go, enjoy it!
--
Come and look at my ego site (I mean website)
http://www.outnumbered.ca

since you are brand new to photography, you probably shouldn't worry about medium format yet. medium format has quirks that the drebel/35mm cameras don't have, and no amateur can justify spending 15000 on just a digital medium format camera. not just after buying a drebel that is 1/30th of the price. medium format lenses also cost a fortune. the pentax is too new anyway. it was priced for pros. so maybe later, if you decide to pursue photography as a profession, then you can justify the quality. otherwise, 6mp is good enough.

it depends on what you want. you should practice more if you want better photos, but quality, not there yet, and not enough of a concern for amateurs.

shnaggletooth said:

I am brand-new to photography, having jumped right in by purchasing
the 300D. Clueless about the different kinds of cameras, I saw some
great-looking b&w portrait photographs on a restaurant wall, and
told my friend that "those are the kinds of photos I want to take".

Then he told me that those photos could only have been taken from a
medium-format camera; a digital camera, or at least, the one I
have, can't take pictures with that kind of detail and quality.

But can it be done?

Shnaggletooth

Click to expand...

Jan Moren said:

On the other hand, I believe you can get used film medium-format
equipment at a pretty reasonable price. If you're really interested
in the format it may be worth picking up a used film kit and a good
scanner (or have the lab scan, perhaps). Since you won't be
shooting as many frames as you'd with a 35mm, I don't think the
running costs would be too bad either.

And let's face it - medium format is cool

Click to expand...

Jan: I wholeheartedly agree. Medium format is cool. Some medium format is next on my acquisition list, even though there's quite a lot of equipment in dslr that I also want. I'm trying to pace myself and acquire gradually. Let's face it, we're all gadgetheads to one degree or another. I have purchased an epson scanner with medium format capability and will give thise route a go.....
For those interested, this is a really good website for reference:
http://medfmt.8k.com/

There was another reference to the luminous landscape webpage. I have that one bookmarked and use it fairly often. Lots of good info there.

Anyway, keep us posted about what format you end up with. There are a lot of choices....

Best, Keefe.

Jan Moren said:

shnaggletooth said:

"Fifteen-hundred?" I asked.

"Fifteen-THOUSAND," he replied.

Shnaggletooth

arcterex said:

shnaggletooth said:

I am brand-new to photography, having jumped right in by purchasing
the 300D. Clueless about the different kinds of cameras, I saw some
great-looking b&w portrait photographs on a restaurant wall, and
told my friend that "those are the kinds of photos I want to take".

Then he told me that those photos could only have been taken from a
medium-format camera; a digital camera, or at least, the one I
have, can't take pictures with that kind of detail and quality.

But can it be done?

Click to expand...

Of course you're going to get varying opinions, but in generaly you
can only blow up so far from the original image before the picture
quality is unacceptable. You can certainly take gorgeous black and
white portraits and you can certainly print them out larger than
4x6 and have them look great. However, if you were looking at
portraits whose size was measured in feet instead of inches, your
300, or in fact 99% of the digital cameras today, just doesn't cut
it

It's purely physical as well I think. The larger the starting
image size, the larger the blow up you can get before it becomes
too soft/pixelated/bad looking to be acceptable. Most DSLRs have
an APS sized sensors, which is smaller than a 35mm sensor (see this
link for a graphical example:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/ ).

Now of course, you can argue that DSLR sensors can pack pixels more
tighly together, the fovion chip is really 3 chips in one, etc etc.

It all comes down to the fact that if you have a negative that's
2.5x2.5cm or 6x4.5cm (or 6x6 or 6x7) you're going to be able to
blow it up bigger than something that's coming from the 16.7X23.4mm
that is the sensor size in a DSLR (based on sizes quoted at

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/jrp_faq/jrp_faq_what_camera/faq_what_camera_aps.html ).

Now that all said, I've printed out some great pics from a 3mp
camera at 8x10, and have read that you can do up to 11x13 blow ups
from a dslr

( http://www.leica-camera.com/discus_e/messages/3/54598.html?1079945390 ). Remember that the sharper the pic, the bigger the blow up, so use a tripod, good glass, etc.

If you're interested in getting into medium format, check out a
good page at
http://www.cameras.co.uk/html/medium-format-cameras.cfm Of course,
you don't get the perks of digital

However, I just read that pentax will be releaseing a 6x4.5cm
digital soon

( http://www.pentaximaging.com/footer/news_media_article?ArticleId=6458800 ), so you can do digital medium format! Of course, it's going to be a wee bit pricier than a rebel, DS, or whatnot

Whew! Long post, hope it helped.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://lucs.lu.se/people/jan.moren/log/current.html

Click to expand...

--
Keefe

I'd stick with the rebel for now - it'll be an excellent tool for you to learn on. Next year when you've taken thousands of images and decided what you like to shoot and how you can think it over again.

Or you could get into medium format for fifteen - dollars. Honestly!

http://www.argonauta.com/html/holga_cameras.htm

(the quality is not what you'd usually expect from medium format - but these toy cameras can take pictures with a lovely mood)

While a lot of what you say is true, you're not correct in saying that sensor size is the all important thing in determining print size. It is resolution.

For example you should be able to print a 20D/350D photo to a larger size than one from a 300D because it has higher resolution, while the sensor size is the same.

Another example would be for film, a fast film uses bigger crystals to catch the light, which results in "grainy" photos, i.e. ones of lower resolution than could be achieved with slow film. Note again here the sensor size (in this case the film) does not change, but the resolution and therefore maximum physical print size (for a given quality) is different.

Resolution is based on many parameters, and the actual resolution may not be as you would expect. i.e. resolution will be better for a high quality lens than a low quality one, or better at (say) f8 than f1.8 or f32 for a given lens. So for example you may get better actual resolution on a 300D with a very high quality lens than on a 350D with a poor lens.

For digital photography large sensors are advantageous only to give lower noise, i.e. for the same resolution, bigger light sensors will require less amplification, and therefore give less noisy images.

arcterex said:

It's purely physical as well I think. The larger the starting
image size, the larger the blow up you can get before it becomes
too soft/pixelated/bad looking to be acceptable. Most DSLRs have
an APS sized sensors, which is smaller than a 35mm sensor (see this
link for a graphical example:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/ ).

Now of course, you can argue that DSLR sensors can pack pixels more
tighly together, the fovion chip is really 3 chips in one, etc etc.

It all comes down to the fact that if you have a negative that's
2.5x2.5cm or 6x4.5cm (or 6x6 or 6x7) you're going to be able to
blow it up bigger than something that's coming from the 16.7X23.4mm
that is the sensor size in a DSLR (based on sizes quoted at

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/jrp_faq/jrp_faq_what_camera/faq_what_camera_aps.html ).

Click to expand...

--
Dave.

Tim D Auld said:

You can print anything at any size, and the limit of acceptibility
is the minimum distance at which you have to view it for it to meet
your standards.

Click to expand...

Indeed. It irritates me something rotten when people comment on noise or lens sharpness in images at 1:1 pixels, or that a given image could only be printed up to 8 x 10" - clearly you can print at whatever size you like - the position you view it from and the quality of the image itself are the important factors.

I scanned this recently to illustrate the point in another thread. It's from a billboard advertisment of a CD sleeve - as you can see from the ruler, the resolution is lousy, but from over a road where it will be viewed from, it looks fabulous. View it on-sceen and walk across the room and you'll get some of the effect.

Tim D Auld said:

The rule of thumb is that the
print should look good at a distance of its diagonal,

Click to expand...

I knew there must be a rule of thumb guide for this, thanks for that - knowing how many lines the eye can resolve doesn't mean much in real terms.

Tim D Auld said:

20x30" looks great using the 6.3mp 300D and a good lens. It blew me
away. You could print larger, depending on where you're hanging it.

Click to expand...

I have a 30x20" poster in the bedroom of a Lakeland scene taken with the Fuji 602 that's about 70%-ish of a 6MP image and it looks way better than I expected. It was initially in a more public area of the house and people would look closely at it and make comments like "I never knew there was a path going up there" or "I didn't realise that track went to a farm" - my point being that they're more interested in the detail they can see (that if you were there, you'd need binoculars for) than the quality of the print. Not one person commented on the resolution or print quality - they all enjoyed it for just what it was - a picture of a stunning place we get the chance to enjoy once in a while.

If I get an image I'm particularly pleased with or think shows particular sharpness or detail, I regularly crop a section from it and print it at a realative proportion of a much larger print - I often crop a section 1100 pixels wide and print it widthways on A4 paper (I can do several together then) which would give an equivalent overall print size of approx. 22" wide - I have many of them pinned here on the wall and they look fabulous from normal viewing distance - even from my office inkjet.

There are far more elements that go make a pleasing looking print on the wall than the number of pixels - that's probably the least of your worries.

--
So many photos, so little time . . .
http://www.peekaboo.me.uk - general portfolio & tutorials
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk - live music portfolio
http://imageevent.com/boophotos/ - most recent images

Please do not amend and re-post my images unless specifically requested or given permission to do so.

While it's true that you expect people to stand back when viewing a large image, that's not always the case. Watch what they do in a museum. First theys stand back and get the whole picture. Then the walk in to examine details from 6 inches away.

I've owned a Hasselblad. Largest I printed was 16x20.
I've owned a DSLR. Largest I've printed was a 16x20.

Print quality from both is similar when viewed from 6 inches.

Thomas Niemann said:

While it's true that you expect people to stand back when viewing a
large image, that's not always the case. Watch what they do in a
museum. First theys stand back and get the whole picture. Then the
walk in to examine details from 6 inches away.

I've owned a Hasselblad. Largest I printed was 16x20.
I've owned a DSLR. Largest I've printed was a 16x20.

Print quality from both is similar when viewed from 6 inches.

Click to expand...

This is interesting. What kind of DSLR gives 16 X 20 prints the same quality as a Hasselblad? I have to assume you're using the best lenses, a sturdy tripod, optimal lighting conditions.... In other words, making the most of every megapixel?

Best, Keefe.

--
Keefe

look up Steven Noyes wonderful panoramas on the 1Dforum - shots glued together.

This won't work for moving objects, of course, but it is typicaly landscapes where you need uber-resolution.
Tell your friend it is how you use the equipment that you've got that counts!

By the time you are doing pstrer-sized protraits or whatever where the MF will pull ahead, you will have accumulated enough money from photography to pay for it!

shnaggletooth said:

I am brand-new to photography, having jumped right in by purchasing
the 300D. Clueless about the different kinds of cameras, I saw some
great-looking b&w portrait photographs on a restaurant wall, and
told my friend that "those are the kinds of photos I want to take".

Then he told me that those photos could only have been taken from a
medium-format camera; a digital camera, or at least, the one I
have, can't take pictures with that kind of detail and quality.

But can it be done?

Shnaggletooth

Click to expand...

--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

The reason MF cameras are used for portraits is: the larger film (or CCD) size is giving a narrower and better controllable DOF which is important for portaits (and other type of photography). That is a physics law and stands apart from sensor resolution (not sensor size).

Rik

shnaggletooth said:

I am brand-new to photography, having jumped right in by purchasing
the 300D. Clueless about the different kinds of cameras, I saw some
great-looking b&w portrait photographs on a restaurant wall, and
told my friend that "those are the kinds of photos I want to take".

Then he told me that those photos could only have been taken from a
medium-format camera; a digital camera, or at least, the one I
have, can't take pictures with that kind of detail and quality.

But can it be done?

Shnaggletooth

Click to expand...