MF-like quality options

I have seen a couple of references in this forum about new digital one-shot technology that is exceeding the print quality of medium format.

Could anyone point me to the products that are getting close to this today, particularly for landscape and artistic applications? Are there any reviews out there that help separate what a Kodak, Leaf, Forveon, BetterLight are doing in terms of resolution, color/contrast, tools, workflow - as exists for SLR and prosumer?

My main reason for asking is that I'm considering a new set of MF format equipment, and am trying to avoid throwaway investment as I learn more about what the differentiators are for high-end solutions.

Thanks,

Rich

Richard,

Here is a link to a similar discussion a couple of weeks ago. In addition to all of the cameras tested, there is also a scanned MF image of the same test set. Highly recommended for avoiding unsubstantiated opinions/bias and seeing for yourself just what all of the big guns can/can't do.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=1609849

The short answer, you don't need MF.

Tom DeRousie
http://www.modernimaging.com

Richard Bibbins said:

I have seen a couple of references in this forum about new digital
one-shot technology that is exceeding the print quality of medium
format.

Could anyone point me to the products that are getting close to
this today, particularly for landscape and artistic applications?
Are there any reviews out there that help separate what a Kodak,
Leaf, Forveon, BetterLight are doing in terms of resolution,
color/contrast, tools, workflow - as exists for SLR and prosumer?

My main reason for asking is that I'm considering a new set of MF
format equipment, and am trying to avoid throwaway investment as I
learn more about what the differentiators are for high-end
solutions.

Thanks,

Rich

Click to expand...

Tom DeRousie said:

Richard,

Here is a link to a similar discussion a couple of weeks ago. In
addition to all of the cameras tested, there is also a scanned MF
image of the same test set. Highly recommended for avoiding
unsubstantiated opinions/bias and seeing for yourself just what all
of the big guns can/can't do.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=1609849

The short answer, you don't need MF.

Tom DeRousie
http://www.modernimaging.com

Click to expand...

OH, I am not so sure that you don't need MF !

Most of the stock landscape photographers I know are still using mf. Surely if digital exceeded mf they would have switched.

That said, if you want to learn about photography and want to save money I might think very carefuly about the opportunities high end digital offers. Instant responce/preview and limitless film.

price? you could probably pick up used pentax 67 for a great price and the lens are cheap. but this system is likely a dead end eventually.

Your nikon D1x will initially cost more. But the lens will be useful for several generations of digital cameras ( and the film is free).

sas

I read the thread and am a little confused on the synopsis of "you don't need MF". There wasn't a lot of meat in that thread, and it ended with the email address of someone who had a CD with comparison images. Was there more to this thread that I'm missing?

As far as "you don't need MF". I shoot 6x7 and 4x5 film, and use a D1x for 35mm. Most of my work is landscape and abstract. And most of it is printed large. The best I can do with a D1x for "exhibition quality" prints is about 18x25.. and this doesn't work on all images. If I want to blow up to 38x54", then it doesn't work at all. You can still get viewable results when seen from "proper viewing distance" of a few yards back... but the digital artifacting is very obvious when you have the print in your hand. On the other hand, if you look at the work of someone like Stephen Johnson ( http://www.sjphoto.com/ ) , who uses 4x5 scanning backs, then the digital image surpasses that obtainable by film (of the same format).

The short of the matter depends on what your final use for the image is... and having put about 10,000 shots on the D1x, there are many times that I've wished for a 16MP image to use.

Jim
http://www.jcollum.com

sas said:

Tom DeRousie said:

Richard,

Here is a link to a similar discussion a couple of weeks ago. In
addition to all of the cameras tested, there is also a scanned MF
image of the same test set. Highly recommended for avoiding
unsubstantiated opinions/bias and seeing for yourself just what all
of the big guns can/can't do.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=1609849

The short answer, you don't need MF.

Tom DeRousie
http://www.modernimaging.com

Click to expand...

OH, I am not so sure that you don't need MF !

Most of the stock landscape photographers I know are still using
mf. Surely if digital exceeded mf they would have switched.

That said, if you want to learn about photography and want to save
money I might think very carefuly about the opportunities high end
digital offers. Instant responce/preview and limitless film.

price? you could probably pick up used pentax 67 for a great price
and the lens are cheap. but this system is likely a dead end
eventually.

Your nikon D1x will initially cost more. But the lens will be
useful for several generations of digital cameras ( and the film
is free).

sas

Click to expand...

Many thanks.

I'm interested in seeing how the various tests compare in larger prints, and in their sense of depth/angles.

MF vs. Digital resolution gets a lot of discussion, and I believe the argument that digital's there.

But I'm more interested in the relative "feel" . I've always found that 120 format has a "duende" to it - one that I couldn't explain to my Nikon or Canon buddies - and I've chalked it up to the unique 6x7 to focal length relationship. I'll be curious to see how the feel compares, and I'll try to report back.

Thanks again,

Rich

Tom DeRousie said:

Here is a link to a similar discussion a couple of weeks ago. In
addition to all of the cameras tested, there is also a scanned MF
image of the same test set. Highly recommended for avoiding
unsubstantiated opinions/bias and seeing for yourself just what all
of the big guns can/can't do.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=1609849

The short answer, you don't need MF.

Tom DeRousie
http://www.modernimaging.com

Richard Bibbins said:

I have seen a couple of references in this forum about new digital
one-shot technology that is exceeding the print quality of medium
format.

Could anyone point me to the products that are getting close to
this today, particularly for landscape and artistic applications?
Are there any reviews out there that help separate what a Kodak,
Leaf, Forveon, BetterLight are doing in terms of resolution,
color/contrast, tools, workflow - as exists for SLR and prosumer?

My main reason for asking is that I'm considering a new set of MF
format equipment, and am trying to avoid throwaway investment as I
learn more about what the differentiators are for high-end
solutions.

Thanks,

Rich

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Richard,

You have to be careful not to take conclusion out of context. I would agree that for many uses, such as portraiture, digital can produce better results than MF. But resolution is not of major importance in portraits, even at fairly large sizes.

With landscapes, especially with large prints, the resolution becomes a problem with the one shot solutions. If you are content with 11x14 to 16x20 size prints, you may be content with the higher end digital one shot solutions available. If you need larger prints or are accustomed to what you can achieve with a 6x7/velvia combination, then the scanning backs will be needed to get equivalent resolution.

Regards,
Mark Uehling

Richard Bibbins said:

Many thanks.

I'm interested in seeing how the various tests compare in larger
prints, and in their sense of depth/angles.

MF vs. Digital resolution gets a lot of discussion, and I believe
the argument that digital's there.

But I'm more interested in the relative "feel" . I've always found
that 120 format has a "duende" to it - one that I couldn't explain
to my Nikon or Canon buddies - and I've chalked it up to the unique
6x7 to focal length relationship. I'll be curious to see how the
feel compares, and I'll try to report back.

Thanks again,

Rich

Click to expand...

Mark Uehling said:

Richard,

You have to be careful not to take conclusion out of context. I
would agree that for many uses, such as portraiture, digital can
produce better results than MF.

Click to expand...

Mark I couldn't disagree more!

I am primarily a Wedding Photgrapher and charge well for my services. I simply have not seen any digital slr's that compare to the quality I get from my 2 1/4 medium format.

A friends whose sole income is printing digital files agrees! He shoots with pentax and scan the negs.

Another friend rents space from a digital commercial photgrapher - she creates 'fantasy childrens portraits' ie lots of digital manipulation. Well she too is unconvinced and has the oportunity to see the D1x at work all the time. So why does this working pro also scan the negs?

I wish so much that digital slr where MF's equal as i spend about $12 000 a year on film and processing!

An other aspect of digital that really sucks is the format! You have to crop for 8 x 10 loosing lots of pixels. Now what happens when you try print square? Most of my standard albums feature 7x7 or 10x10 prints.

When I take a picture with my square format MF I can crop the image a dozen different ways and creat different 'looks' from that one neg. One really can't crop a 6mg fille without loosing too much info.

All that said I will likely purchase a digital camera in the new year to experiment with so when the time is right I am ready. So Like a sponge I try to pick up what I can from these forums. I know of only one digital wedding photographer using a dcs 560 and I simply am not sufficiently impressed with the results.

my 2 cents

sas