5D or 6x9 film?

[d_chiesa]

Hi,

to any one with experience with both: i'm considering picking up a used view camera and using roll film (6x9) with it; to try movements and to get better quality than my actual 10D.

The question is: should i opt for the more practical step getting a used 5D, how would bare quality of images (besides lack of movements, of course) compare? Right now i find the 10D wanting on A3 size, while people claim you can make posters with it, and billboards with the 5D, but i'm talking about good quality close up.
Any opinion greatly appreciated.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/d_chiesa/

 

[KCampbell]

Do you have a wet darkroom in which you will print the 6x9 film, or are you planning on scanning the negatives?

What type of film are you planning to shoot? Will you really, honestly, be using lens board tilt features? Could you achieve something similar in a digital darkroom, say with CS2?

I have all but completely stopped using my beloved Hasselblad. I have a Jobo film processor and shot only monochrome using a variety of chemistries, having first started in a darkroom in 1980.

For an avid amateur, shooting only when time permits, a wet darkroom was a liability. My chemicals would go stale in the periods between sessions as would my technique. I struggled to reproduce the same final print if asked to do so months after the last time I had printed it.

Scanning some old Tech Pan negatives on a flatbed Epson was very successful, but now that emulsion is discontinued. I had less luck scanning TMAX or other emulsions on the flatbed scanner, with rather intrusive grain.

Two years ago I bought a 350D and then an HP8750 printer. I use PhotoShop CS2 and shoot in RAW. I use Qimage to print and also bought , and used, Profile Prism to create profiles for my scanner, camera and printer/ink combinations.

I am taking and printing more than I ever did, and can reproduce any image at any size on demand, confident that my results will be consistent. At 13x19, the largest that my HP will print, the results from the 350D are really quite good. Not as good as technical pan in a 'blad on a good day, but really quite good.

I just bought a 5D for a couple of reasons, 50% more pixels and better use of my 17-40 f4 L. I still take out the Hasselblad just for the joy of engineering that it represents, but in truth I cannot use it as well as I can the 350D or hopefully now the 5D.

Kevin

 

[Matt_Anderson]

your going to find that the shadow detail and tone on the 5D is better.

Also, unless you have access to a drum scanner for a very reasonable rate and fast turn around, it isn't worth it IMO.

Today, I worked files from Canon, Nikon, and 4 x 5 scans, and the color and detail is much more appealing on the digital files as well as a much faster workflow. Don't get me wrong, the film is still an incredible medium.

 

[Bernie Ess]

Today, I worked files from Canon, Nikon, and 4 x 5 scans, and the
color and detail is much more appealing on the digital files as
well as a much faster workflow.

But what will you do when you need movements, large upwards shift, distortion-free with very good resolution in the edges?

Not so easy with a 5d...

Bernie

 

[Matt_Anderson]

I've seen excellent results with the 24 and 90 ts lenses,

although, they may not have the full tilt-shift a user would require that a view cam can ...
in that case you can't beat the large format for perspective and DOF control.

 

[d_chiesa]

Do you have a wet darkroom in which you will print the 6x9 film, or
are you planning on scanning the negatives?

I am thinking about having the good ones scanned.

What type of film are you planning to shoot? Will you really,
honestly, be using lens board tilt features? Could you achieve
something similar in a digital darkroom, say with CS2?

I really like the look and contrast of transparencies, so that is what i would like to shoot. About the movements, there are times when i would like to have them, so yes, i would have use for them; don't know how useful a t/s lens would be in that respect though. As for CS2, i guess you refer to distorsions and straightening converging lines, but what about plane of sharp focus...

Two years ago I bought a 350D and then an HP8750 printer. I use
PhotoShop CS2 and shoot in RAW. I use Qimage to print and also
bought , and used, Profile Prism to create profiles for my scanner,
camera and printer/ink combinations.

I am taking and printing more than I ever did, and can reproduce
any image at any size on demand, confident that my results will be
consistent. At 13x19, the largest that my HP will print, the
results from the 350D are really quite good. Not as good as
technical pan in a 'blad on a good day, but really quite good.

I guess somehow that's the route we amateurs are pushed to; and in a way it is convenient, but i still don't like the whole home digital production, and really feels like it's not really mature.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/d_chiesa/

 

[d_chiesa]

Well that's what i'm talking about; quality is not just the ability to resolve detail of the sensor or film. But then, i actually don't know how good t/s lenses for the Canon are, although i think they are more limited than a view camera.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/d_chiesa/

 

[stevetog]

as someone else said - the Canon TSE lenses are pretty good.

Also consider a camera like the Fuji gx680. This camera has all the benefits of a view camera but all the advantages of motorised swappable film reels, metered view finder etc etc. There are plenty for sale on Ebay, the mark 3 model is the best. There are also a few digital backs available for this camera -via convertors. http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geuljFWw1Gtv4Ag2BLBQx .; ylu=X3oDMTE5NW9jc3FiBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMTkEc2VjA3NyBHZ0aWQDVUtDMDAxXzEy/SIG=11uuinjif/EXP=1175366981/ http%3A// http://www.dannyburk.com/fuji_gx680iii.htm

Trust me, 5x4 is a fiddly, time consuming operation, back operated largely in the dark, plagued by dust, and you really need to use polaroids to make sure you have set up properly. There is a reason many pro's use digital nowinstead of 5x4.....

--
Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
John Loeffler.
equipment- lots of FulL FrAMe & whacky lenses, various MF.



http://www.pbase.com/foodphoto/art
http://www.pbase.com/foodphoto/weddings1

 

[stevetog]

sorry I misread - you are not using sheet film. Forget the fiddling about in the dark bit then - I was thinking of dark slides LOL!!!
--
Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
John Loeffler.
equipment- lots of FulL FrAMe & whacky lenses, various MF.



http://www.pbase.com/foodphoto/art
http://www.pbase.com/foodphoto/weddings1

 

[Matt_Anderson]

even MF backs have a crop factor,

some have micro lenses which may impeded Tilt and Shift movements because of the light hitting the sensor in a non perpendicular manner, and of course some don't, also, many of the older and now affordable backs are progressive captures ( yuck )

The best back I have had success with to date is the Betterlight Scan back, although it requires a near constant light source, but the detail and quality is the best bar none ... tilt shift the front and rear standards, and that scan back can take it all ( minds outta the gutter here )

As far as I know, staying less than 6-8 mm of movement on the Canon TSE lenses yields perfectly fine results ...

 

[uuronl]

I don't regret the 6x9 purchase - they're dirt cheap and wonderful tools no matter what the system. With that said, the expense and hassle eventually made the 5D value propostion all the more sensible IMO.

 

[stevetog]

Matt, this is all true. However I was trying to give him an upgrade path, if he ever wanted it, albeit not cheap!!!!. I have both 5x4 & the Fuji - the Fuji is a dream to use compared to 5x4.

--
Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
John Loeffler.
equipment- lots of FulL FrAMe & whacky lenses, various MF.



http://www.pbase.com/foodphoto/art
http://www.pbase.com/foodphoto/weddings1

 

[David J. Littleboy]

Hi,
to any one with experience with both:

I scan my Mamiya 7 6x7s on a Nikon 8000, and the results are clearly better than the 5D, in terms of detail capture. But I haven't shot with the Mamiya 7 since the 5D arrived.

i'm considering picking up a
used view camera and using roll film (6x9) with it; to try
movements and to get better quality than my actual 10D.

6x9 should be bettter by about a factor of four. 645 scanned on a Nikon 9000 looks very much like the 5D in terms of detail captured, and 6x9 is twice the area again.

But that's only if you scan it on a Nikon 9000. Yourself. And put in a lot of care to get the film flat (glass carrier, masks to prevent Newton's rings). Which is harder with 6x9 than 645.

At 20x30 and over, you should see noticeably better detail from 6x9 than even the 5D.

The question is: should i opt for the more practical step getting a
used 5D, how would bare quality of images (besides lack of
movements, of course) compare? Right now i find the 10D wanting on
A3 size, while people claim you can make posters with it, and
billboards with the 5D, but i'm talking about good quality close up.

I find the 10D wanting at A4 compared to the 5D printed on the R800.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[sergey1968]

6x9 view camera may give you - depending on subject - significantly better results than 5D with TS lenses. Let's say they will be 7 times better - but they will require 49 times more efforts. This may both attract and alienate you - only you can know.

You must take into account cost of the lenses - to get good results you will need modern and expensive ones with relatively small 6x9 format. I think scanner is necessity - may be good flatbed - even if you are going to send the best frames for professional scanning. You will need to scan and print some frames just to see if they look good enlarged. One more thing in favour of 35mm digital - you don't have extensive choice of tilt lenses there (though Canon's is pretty good one) because you don't really need them. If you accept tripod use DOF will be good enough for all but extreme macro situations.

But all these things considered - I personally use Mamiya 7 and 4x5 camera now and my 5D is gathering dust. From money point of view it costs me much more than using digital - but hey - hobby is to spend money
--
Sergey
http://www.pbase.com/sergeyushakov/
http://www.photo.net/photos/SergeyUshakov

 

[Fritz Byle]

i think you can hang your hat on David's reply. To add one point of comparison, if you shoot a 2-shot pano with the 5D, the detail will approach what you'd get with 6x9 (ignoring loss from overlap). I'd personally prefer the work involved with stitching a 2 or 3 shot pano to the view camera any day.

Although the T/S lenses don't have the range of movements available on a good view camera, they are quite capable, and should do the trick for most applications.

--

'Life is pleasant, death is peaceful; it's the transition that's troublesome' - Isaac Asimov

 

[David J. Littleboy]

i think you can hang your hat on David's reply. To add one point of
comparison, if you shoot a 2-shot pano with the 5D, the detail will
approach what you'd get with 6x9 (ignoring loss from overlap). I'd
personally prefer the work involved with stitching a 2 or 3 shot
pano to the view camera any day.

Yes (except that you need a lot of overlap and 1/3 overlap means each frame only adds 1/3 of a frame of pixels, so you need four frames to match 6x9). And that assumes that no cropping is needed after stitching, which is almost never true. To match 6x9, you need all the pixels in the long direction, which will only happen on relatively distant (long focal length) panoramas.

And the projection is different.

Also, panos don't do what the OP asked for (tilt/shift). And don't always work (I find that a lot of panoramas I get home with are hard to or can't be stitched). And do things 6x9 can't.

Although the T/S lenses don't have the range of movements available
on a good view camera, they are quite capable, and should do the
trick for most applications.

The amount of shift is a bit disappointing, but the tilt is more than adequate. The problem is that the AF sensors are bunched in the center and aren't much help in focusing. And focus magnifiers will only show the center of the frame, whereas a loupe on ground glass goes anywhere.

You can use the Pentax (or Mamiya) 35/3.5 645 lens as a shift lens with 12 or even 16mm of shift and good performance with the Zork PSA.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[arrogancehunter]

Great thread. Too bad more people are not spending time here. In the end I think it comes down to what end result to you really want. I own a 5d. I sold my Nikon D2x because of the lack of FF. I still own a Nikon F100 and I still own a Horseman 4x5 LE view camera with 3 lenses - one from 1949. I have to say that the 5D with the 85L 1.2 will produce very similar images to the View Camera in terms of overall look. However, once you blow up the 5D past say 30x40 maybe you'll begin to see the difference. It is a huge difference. There is a depth and richness to the 4x5 that's hard to explain. I don't think digital has that - even when you use the Hasselblad with a P45 back. Just my opinion. And yes of course the view camera takes way more time, but it depends on what you like. Take a look at Yousuf Karsh to see some great 4x5 portraits. Most of his greatness was in the lighting but even on the web you can feel the image quality.

 

[Tariq]

Everything depends on the lens/camera, film and technique and I agree that when all these come together shooting with the slowest and finest grain film, no contest, Film wins with much much more trouble or fun(depending on how you look at it.) My reference points equipment wise was a Fuji GSW690111 for 6x9, a Mamiya 6(with an amazingly sharp 50mm lens) and my beloved Hasselblad. My blad was always sharper than the Fuji and detail wise I think my 5D could equel what I got out of the Fuji. The 5D does not equel the best I can get out of the Hasselblad or Mamiya but it comes close enough that I Hardly shoot the blad with color anymore.

 

[roland pallagi]

...because it slows you down!

Migth sound funny, but with a mamiya RB67 on tripod and only 10 shots on a roll of film, I really really think when I press the button.

My experience is that the slow down factor of huge "many things to pay attention" cameras make you take better pictures, simply because I slow down and think more.

And when I look at a velvia slide it gives me goosbumps I believe 5D have better nosie control, but the depth of field is soooooo much better on MF!!

most if these were shot on mf. some digital.
http://picasaweb.google.com/rpallagi/Almasfuzito

I worked here for a year as a forman of a demolition projekt. I took 6000 photos. the best of thos 6000 was the 10 rolls I shot on MF...

--
Roland Pallagi
http://www.rpallagi.hu

 

[Bernie Ess]

used view camera and using roll film (6x9) with it; to try
movements and to get better quality than my actual 10D.
The question is: should i opt for the more practical step getting a
used 5D, how would bare quality of images (besides lack of
movements, of course) compare?

I cannot comment on the direct comparision of quality, but I use the 5d with the 24mm TS-E all the time, it has become my most used lens. I like to shoot urban architecture (here in Berlin, where half of the buildings is new) and a TS-E is the only way to go with a DSLR without having to correct each shot in software (which is not very tempting).

Advantage with 24mm TS-E:

1. Very fast and easy to operate (probably 20-50 times faster than with a 6x9, even than a "handholdable ALPA shift camera). All you do is put camera on tripod, frame subject with as much shift as you need, and shoot if possible stopped down to F14 or f16. At home you have your ready file. No processing, no scanning, little retouching only (at f16 dust shows up quite nastily on the sensor).

The truth is that I even make 70-80% of my shots hand held, at least in bright daylight. I have a screen with grind lines in my camera, and after some (or: a lot of) exercise I am able to get my lines straight. Not always 100%, but quite often. The remaining perspective distortion is small and can easily be removed in photoshop.

2. Quality can be - specially when you take at least some care and time, better than I originally thought: Quite sharp even in the edges, and enough shift for many situations. You get what you see through the finder, whole setup is not too heavy and very handy, compared to a view camera.

Disadvantage:

1. Resolution limited by 5d (not too badly I think) and by the lens. My guess is that the 5d is close to a well executed 645. A well made 6x9 negative on fine grained film, made in a view camera like the TechniKardan or such is probably much better.

2. Movements are limited, instead of a max of 11mm I would love to have 15mm. However it is also true that the fact o shifting to extreme also can introduce strange types of distortions with short focal lengths like 24mm for 35mm format, even when lens is well corrected. This seems much distance related: The closer you get the stranger it can look.

3.distortion of the 24TS-E is higher than I would like it were. And when shifted, software tools like ptlens do not work properly anymore. I currently investigate in finding a precise solution for removing lens distortion (precise to almost pixel level), but this may take some time. Probable the least complicated solution will be that you write down (with a pencil or electronic note book) the amount of shift on every frame you make, and work then with several presets to remove the corect amount and type of distortion. This would reduce the ease of use to some extend.

Bottom of the line:

If you shoot for your own pleasure (like myself, at least right now) 6x9 is probably the higher quality and more versatile solution, but only IF (big IF) you are patient enough. If you are not the type of person who's productivity is reduced by the slowness of the procedure. Patience is my Achilles heel in this case. I dont say I will not - in the future - switch to a more versatile solution, but I certainly appreciate easy and faster solutions.

Remember: To make a view camera shot correctly, setting up the camera, framing with dark cloth and lupe, handling the film, then processing film or getting it processed (you still have to go to the lab an dbring and get it back), then scanning it (very boring and lenghty task) will consume hours PER SHOT. (please correct me someone if this is wrong). If you are concentrated, with 5d 24TS-E you can get your ready image file in a very very short time. You shoot, get home and have the ready file.

If I were in architecture shooting business I would already have a ALPA/ Cambo ultrawide/ Gottschalt camera with 28mm lens (very very expensive) plus a digital back (even more expensive). That would still be slower than the 5d, but much higher quality and much faster than film.

Unfortunately a complete solution as mentioned costs at least 25k USD, probably more.

Sigh!

Bernie