Medium Format vs. Full Frame Locked

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
This thread is locked.
Macro guy
Macro guy Veteran Member • Posts: 4,553
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

thebbqguy wrote:

I can afford the digital route suggested in this thread, but my logical side prevents me from jumping in with both feet at this time.

I have really been trying to focus on the actual cost per pixel. If printing smaller sizes, the cost with cheap digital cameras is quite low. But its printing bigger sizes that cause costs to rise significantly.

But I know next to nothing about film.

It's pretty straightforward: The cost of printing film = The cost of printing digital + cost of film + cost of processing + cost of scanning.

 Macro guy's gear list:Macro guy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II +5 more
SrMi
SrMi Senior Member • Posts: 1,057
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

JimKasson wrote:

thebbqguy wrote:

I like the idea of medium format and I drool over Clyde Butcher's landscapes. The medium format digital cameras are beyond my desired budget, but a used film camera seems like a viable consideration.

To this point I have kept my photography budget purposely conservative and dont see that changing in the near term.

Should I investigate medium format film or hold out for a full frame?

Butcher uses (or used) film cameras from 4x5 through 12x20. I don't think he ever used medium format film.

Butcher has been using digital cameras since about 2014 (Sony a7R with Cambo Actus). Here is a detailed list of his equipment (past and current):

https://clydebutcher.com/about-the-artist/technical-information/

adegroot Veteran Member • Posts: 3,041
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

Go digital !

Fuji GFX 50 or 100, or Hasselblad X1D-II.

or PhaseOne 50/80/100/150 MP

 adegroot's gear list:adegroot's gear list
Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma dp0 Quattro Sigma SD15 +13 more
JimKasson
JimKasson Forum Pro • Posts: 28,137
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

SrMi wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

thebbqguy wrote:

I like the idea of medium format and I drool over Clyde Butcher's landscapes. The medium format digital cameras are beyond my desired budget, but a used film camera seems like a viable consideration.

To this point I have kept my photography budget purposely conservative and dont see that changing in the near term.

Should I investigate medium format film or hold out for a full frame?

Butcher uses (or used) film cameras from 4x5 through 12x20. I don't think he ever used medium format film.

Butcher has been using digital cameras since about 2014 (Sony a7R with Cambo Actus). Here is a detailed list of his equipment (past and current):

https://clydebutcher.com/about-the-artist/technical-information/

Right, but the question was about film cameras. I don't think you're going to be able to do the kinds of things that Butcher does with film in medium format.

-- hide signature --
 JimKasson's gear list:JimKasson's gear list
Nikon D5 Sony a7 III Nikon Z7 Fujifilm GFX 100 Sony a7R IV +2 more
matteroner
matteroner Contributing Member • Posts: 548
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

JimKasson wrote:

thebbqguy wrote:

I like the idea of medium format and I drool over Clyde Butcher's landscapes. The medium format digital cameras are beyond my desired budget, but a used film camera seems like a viable consideration.

To this point I have kept my photography budget purposely conservative and dont see that changing in the near term.

Should I investigate medium format film or hold out for a full frame?

Butcher uses (or used) film cameras from 4x5 through 12x20. I don't think he ever used medium format film.

In recent years , after his stroke, Clyde has been using a gfx 50s with adapted canon tilt shift lenses.

He is, however,  transitioning back to film now that his hand dexterityhas returned.   Mostly 8x10 I think.

-- hide signature --

@photomat76

 matteroner's gear list:matteroner's gear list
Canon EOS 400D Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 80D Fujifilm GFX 50R Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM +12 more
Erik Kaffehr
Erik Kaffehr Veteran Member • Posts: 3,738
Hmmm

Hi,

I have downloaded one of 'Hiphopapotamus's' sample files and compared with two of my own. My own 67 Velvia image from the Pentax 67 was 8571 pixel high. So i have resized all images to that height.

Left Hiphopapotamus's sample file, center my scan from Velvia 67 on my Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro and right an image shot at the same place with the Phase One P45+ back on a Hasselblad 555/ELD.The images are obviously different, but they include living people at about the same size. Check the images at full size (below) and draw your own conclusions.The image in center makes a nice A2 size (16"x23") print, all that I can say, as I had such a print hanging on exhibition for a couple of moths.

I did not ask 'Hiphopapotamus' for permission to use the image. It is used for educational purpose and I feel it is adequate use.

Best regards

Erik

-- hide signature --

Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles

JohnS59 Regular Member • Posts: 348
Re: Hmmm

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

Hi,

I have downloaded one of 'Hiphopapotamus's' sample files and compared with two of my own. My own 67 Velvia image from the Pentax 67 was 8571 pixel high. So i have resized all images to that height.

Left Hiphopapotamus's sample file, center my scan from Velvia 67 on my Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro and right an image shot at the same place with the Phase One P45+ back on a Hasselblad 555/ELD.The images are obviously different, but they include living people at about the same size. Check the images at full size (below) and draw your own conclusions.The image in center makes a nice A2 size (16"x23") print, all that I can say, as I had such a print hanging on exhibition for a couple of moths.

I did not ask 'Hiphopapotamus'forpermission to use the image. It is used for educational purpose and I feel it is adequate use.

Best regards

Erik

That's interesting. I think the Phase One P45+ doesn't really impress here. Film has a different look of course. The "soft" grain structure I recognize from my own MF scans with the same scanner from Provia 100F. You're probably right that the 67 scanned file makes a very nice and sharp print.

John.

 JohnS59's gear list:JohnS59's gear list
Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +8 more
thebbqguy
OP thebbqguy Regular Member • Posts: 237
Re: Fujifilm 690s

Chris Dodkin wrote:

I shoot with a pair of Fujifilm 690s - also known as Texas Leicas, so can give you some first hand experience.

As you can see, there's a strong family resemblance between the latest GFX50R model and the legacy film models - this is something I appreciate, as Fujifilm have developed the design over decades, and then brought it into the current market with the new digital model.

I shoot the model II versions of the series

The GW690 II...

... and the GSW690II.

Both are fixed lens, fully manual cameras, with no metering, AF, or any electronics what so ever.

They are leaf-shutter, rangefinder cameras, and take 120/220 film.

Fuji originally did an interchangeable lens model, the GL690, with a selection of lenses - but found that people typically bought one of two focal lengths from the series, so moved to fixed lens models for the following range of cameras.

My GSW690II has a fixed 65mm f/5.6 lens, my GW690 II has a fixed 90mm f/3.5 lens.

There are three generations of 690 cameras:

Generation I is the most basic, with no hot-shoe, just a cold-shoe for accessory mounting. The shutter lacks a B setting and instead only has T. The rangefinder spot is round rather than the later rectangular.

Construction is metal, solid, and built-to last.

Generation II was released in 1985. The accessory shoe is upgraded to a hot-shoe, the shutter release now has a lock, and the grip is checked rather than ribbed. The II models weigh a little more than the series I.

Same metal construction, same optics.

Generation III was released in 1992, and has a redesigned molded 'plastic' exterior, with rubberized coating for grip. The camera is still metal, just the moulding overlay is plastic. There is a spirit level embedded in the top for left-right leveling.

They have a new VF/RF mechanism. The older gold-coated beamsplitter system is replaced by a new vernier (Leica-style) hard-edged rectangular spot on an aluminized beamsplitter. Brightness is increased but VF-RF spot contrast is reduced.

The III series sells for more than the II, or I.

All models have a device at the bottom of the camera that counts multiples of ten shots — up to 999, and then, like a car odometer, rolls over at 000

It is a shutter service reminder.

Different people have different numbers for recommended servicing - shutter life was initially stated at 10,000 actuations.

NOTE - it is easy to 'tamper' with the shutter odometer, so they are not generally to be trusted when buying.

I have found the series II to be the best bang for the buck - they are easy to use, and their simple construction and lack of electronics usually bode well for the new owner.

You'll need a light meter, or exposure guide, or experience, to set the desired exposure. Focus via the rangefinder is easy enough to master, and the Fuji optics provide excellent images on 120 or 220 film.

The camera is easy to carry and shoot, so makes a great street, architecture, walk about or landscape model to use. Film loading, advance, recovery is easy and trouble free.

I think these cameras provide a great intro into 120 film shooting, are robust enough to perform decades later without the need for major overhaul, and are most importantly enjoyable to use.

Plenty for sale online - I bought mine from Japan, and they were in mint condition, and have continued to perform flawlessly for a decade or so.

Prices range from $300-$500 for the models. So you can buy a pair for less than the cost of a single GFX lens.

Thank you for the details. I have been looking at galleries of for the 690 series today. Using them requires some planning and foresight. I think if we were forced to learn to use these its bound to improve our overall photography skill level.

I will admit that I spent a lot of time just taking 10 photos of the same subject hoping to get 1 good one when I bought my first DSLR 11 years ago, a Sony A700 12 megapixel. I had a great 300 mm Tamron zoom/macro lens and we had some great times in several Florida parks. That lens was not durable unfortunately. They replaced it twice under warranty.

-- hide signature --

I learned a long time ago to stop trying to do what others do, because they're good at it. -- Do what you're good at. (B.B. King)

thebbqguy
OP thebbqguy Regular Member • Posts: 237
Re: Fujifilm 690s

Chris Dodkin wrote:

I shoot with a pair of Fujifilm 690s - also known as Texas Leicas, so can give you some first hand experience.

As you can see, there's a strong family resemblance between the latest GFX50R model and the legacy film models - this is something I appreciate, as Fujifilm have developed the design over decades, and then brought it into the current market with the new digital model.

I shoot the model II versions of the series

The GW690 II...

... and the GSW690II.

Both are fixed lens, fully manual cameras, with no metering, AF, or any electronics what so ever.

They are leaf-shutter, rangefinder cameras, and take 120/220 film.

Fuji originally did an interchangeable lens model, the GL690, with a selection of lenses - but found that people typically bought one of two focal lengths from the series, so moved to fixed lens models for the following range of cameras.

My GSW690II has a fixed 65mm f/5.6 lens, my GW690 II has a fixed 90mm f/3.5 lens.

There are three generations of 690 cameras:

Generation I is the most basic, with no hot-shoe, just a cold-shoe for accessory mounting. The shutter lacks a B setting and instead only has T. The rangefinder spot is round rather than the later rectangular.

Construction is metal, solid, and built-to last.

Generation II was released in 1985. The accessory shoe is upgraded to a hot-shoe, the shutter release now has a lock, and the grip is checked rather than ribbed. The II models weigh a little more than the series I.

Same metal construction, same optics.

Generation III was released in 1992, and has a redesigned molded 'plastic' exterior, with rubberized coating for grip. The camera is still metal, just the moulding overlay is plastic. There is a spirit level embedded in the top for left-right leveling.

They have a new VF/RF mechanism. The older gold-coated beamsplitter system is replaced by a new vernier (Leica-style) hard-edged rectangular spot on an aluminized beamsplitter. Brightness is increased but VF-RF spot contrast is reduced.

The III series sells for more than the II, or I.

All models have a device at the bottom of the camera that counts multiples of ten shots — up to 999, and then, like a car odometer, rolls over at 000

It is a shutter service reminder.

Different people have different numbers for recommended servicing - shutter life was initially stated at 10,000 actuations.

NOTE - it is easy to 'tamper' with the shutter odometer, so they are not generally to be trusted when buying.

I have found the series II to be the best bang for the buck - they are easy to use, and their simple construction and lack of electronics usually bode well for the new owner.

You'll need a light meter, or exposure guide, or experience, to set the desired exposure. Focus via the rangefinder is easy enough to master, and the Fuji optics provide excellent images on 120 or 220 film.

The camera is easy to carry and shoot, so makes a great street, architecture, walk about or landscape model to use. Film loading, advance, recovery is easy and trouble free.

I think these cameras provide a great intro into 120 film shooting, are robust enough to perform decades later without the need for major overhaul, and are most importantly enjoyable to use.

Plenty for sale online - I bought mine from Japan, and they were in mint condition, and have continued to perform flawlessly for a decade or so.

Prices range from $300-$500 for the models. So you can buy a pair for less than the cost of a single GFX lens.

Interesting article about version III:

http://dantestella.com/technical/gsw690iii-res.html

-- hide signature --

I learned a long time ago to stop trying to do what others do, because they're good at it. -- Do what you're good at. (B.B. King)

Hiphopapotamus Senior Member • Posts: 1,175
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

JimKasson wrote:

SrMi wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

thebbqguy wrote:

I like the idea of medium format and I drool over Clyde Butcher's landscapes. The medium format digital cameras are beyond my desired budget, but a used film camera seems like a viable consideration.

To this point I have kept my photography budget purposely conservative and dont see that changing in the near term.

Should I investigate medium format film or hold out for a full frame?

Butcher uses (or used) film cameras from 4x5 through 12x20. I don't think he ever used medium format film.

Butcher has been using digital cameras since about 2014 (Sony a7R with Cambo Actus). Here is a detailed list of his equipment (past and current):

https://clydebutcher.com/about-the-artist/technical-information/

Right, but the question was about film cameras. I don't think you're going to be able to do the kinds of things that Butcher does with film in medium format.

Umm... You can do high contrast black and white with amazing skies on anything... But this is Fomopan 100 on black and white. The level of detail in 6x9 is amazing... Black and white has even more resolution than colour.

 Hiphopapotamus's gear list:Hiphopapotamus's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +5 more
Hiphopapotamus Senior Member • Posts: 1,175
Re: Hmmm

JohnS59 wrote:

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

Hi,

I have downloaded one of 'Hiphopapotamus's' sample files and compared with two of my own. My own 67 Velvia image from the Pentax 67 was 8571 pixel high. So i have resized all images to that height.

Left Hiphopapotamus's sample file, center my scan from Velvia 67 on my Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro and right an image shot at the same place with the Phase One P45+ back on a Hasselblad 555/ELD.The images are obviously different, but they include living people at about the same size. Check the images at full size (below) and draw your own conclusions.The image in center makes a nice A2 size (16"x23") print, all that I can say, as I had such a print hanging on exhibition for a couple of moths.

I did not ask 'Hiphopapotamus'forpermission to use the image. It is used for educational purpose and I feel it is adequate use.

Best regards

Erik

That's interesting. I think the Phase One P45+ doesn't really impress here. Film has a different look of course. The "soft" grain structure I recognize from my own MF scans with the same scanner from Provia 100F. You're probably right that the 67 scanned file makes a very nice and sharp print.

John.

Film has a painterly quality about it, because it's an organic process, it's like a canvas with brush strokes and a colour palette and that's half reason I use it. That shot was shot on motion picture film (Cinestill 800T/Kodak Vision 3 500T) which is a medium format stock they use in cinemas today.

Digital while it can be crisper, also has the inherent problem of being inorganic and can be cold and uninviting. I particularly like the way that shot renders its colour. It may not be wildly accurate but it has a certain aesthetic of it's own. If you want more accurate colour you would lean towards digital, or you would walk around with a colour swatch like we did in the old days and grade it later for colour, then make a profile in Photoshop for the film stock like we did in the good old days if you wanted more accurate colours and you cared. The art of colour grading is a process in itself though, I prefer to just let the colour fall where it may... mostly because I don't need accurate colour.

That's a medium-sized scan so it's not capturing the full resolution of the film, the first image I uploaded of the Pizzeria is a full sized scan from a different lab to the one I use that has a later model Noritsu, but it's interesting...

That shot would make a nice 8x12 at 300dpi or you could downsample it with the same pixel count to 150dpi and it would still come up nicely at 16x24. Although we printed at 150 in the 90s, I prefer not to do that for fine art prints.

You will either love or hate the grain structure but that comes down to personal taste also. I quite like the grain and texture of film, although it's not for everyone.

 Hiphopapotamus's gear list:Hiphopapotamus's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +5 more
Rob de Loe Regular Member • Posts: 146
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

It's lovely to see such enthusiasm for film here. I've been in and out of film a few times now, starting with 35mm, and then quickly moving into 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 and 4x5. There are aspects of film photography that have pulled me back in twice now after what I thought was quitting it for good. But I left it behind again earlier this year after another deep dive into 4x5. I wanted the camera movements that I thought I could only get with a proper 4x5 view camera, and I thought that scanning 4x5 would give me the resolution, detail, tonality, etc. that I wasn't getting from my APS-C tilt-shift outfit. Film had come along since I last shot 4x5. Second generation TMAX 400 sheet film is amazing stuff.

But... apart from the movements, it ended up being a pointless detour. I'd ripped out my darkroom a decade ago, so printing meant inkjet, and that meant scanning. Anyone considering scanning needs to be realistic about some things:

* If you want to scan roll film, you're going to have to buy a used scanner that's probably very old already. They're not making new dedicated film scanners. Before you get excited about drum scanners, they're all pretty ancient now, operating them is not simple, good luck finding a computer that can run the software, and people who can service the thing are getting old.

* Flatbed scanners are a decent option, but limited. Yes, Epson released an updated scanner (the V850). But apart from a few minor tweaks, it's essentially the same thing as the V750. There's a huge long thread on www.largeformatphotography.info on Epson flatbed scanning, with lots of disagreement about what the top end is. Many people agree that anything over 2,300 ppi is just made-up data. Yes, you can scan at higher resolutions, but more pixels doesn't always mean more details. Sometimes it just means more pixels. To get the best results you'll want to wet scan. And give yourself lots of time to figure out how to get good results, because flatbed scanning is a bit of a black art. I recommend Vuescan.

* Camera scanning is viable and works very well. That's what I did. I wet mounted 4x5 negatives and camera scanned them with a template that allowed me to quickly stitch 12 frames to make 2,666 ppi files. I saw no benefits with this setup to higher resolution. If you're interested, here you go: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150162-Camera-scanning-on-the-cheap-an-example-approach

* Once you have your file, now you roll up your sleeves and start spotting. Unless you're working in a clean room that is used to make microchips, you're going to have dust. And you probably have dust and scratches on your negative that you picked up when shooting and/or processing. I got sick and tired of spotting 4x5 scans in short order.

What sealed the deal for me is the 100+ MP files I was creating did not make better quality prints. They just didn't.

I'm now using a Fuji GFX 50R on the back of a Toyo VX23D digital view camera. I get all the camera movements I had with my 4x5 monorail camera, with none of the hassle. The best part is you don't have to spend a fortune on lenses. Very good results can be had for very little money.

So by all means, shoot film if it gives you pleasure. It's a wonderful medium -- still totally relevant today. But I would encourage anyone who think that the scanning side of the equation is easy to do a little research first.

Hiphopapotamus Senior Member • Posts: 1,175
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

Scans aren't easy, I think I posted some conundrums... By all means you're gonna max out your scanning resolution at some point....

  1. Scanning with a digital camera you're going to max out by the limitations of your camera. I see some people try to scan anything bigger than small format with a Micro Four Thirds camera. I shake my head because you're never going to capture the full detail of medium format camera. If you're copying for personal use then fine whatever. If you want to copy the full detail then you either need a GFX, or A7 III but I've looked at both and seen that using small-format lenses creates image blur that wasn't in the original neg/positive due to the lack of resolution in the lens capturing the image.
  2. No one makes dedicated medium format scanners. You can get dedicated small format film scanners but most of these are cheap crap. I have heard that the maximum of flatbed seems to be 2400dpi although it certainly is still improving.
  3. People use old mini-labs for scanning, and they're great, but I've seen people using 20-year-old mini-labs which hardly has the latest sensors.
  4. You can use flatbeds with 4x5s or even 8x10s in which case the actual dpi of the scanner doesn't matter so much as you're not having to enlarge so much.
  5. The ones who do use the latest mini-labs are often either companies that do high volume such as Walmart (or the equivalent) and a lot of them don't do medium format film anyway.
  6. Or the other conundrum, they're the labs that still do high volume (Michael's in Australia, or Dwayne's in America). You play the game of being just another number.
  7. You go down the pathway of trying to find a mini-lab (or a drum scanner) from a lab that is closing down and you buy that instead and suffer the consequences of looking at things that may cost you anything up to $5k-$10k on the low side to begin with and then up to $30k if you want the later Fuji/Noritsu labs in the pursuit of happiness and end up as one of those people who makes their money back by printing for other people in your community. If your film community is big enough you might write down your losses and start making a profit on the scanning side of things after a couple of years.

Or you go the old fashioned way and learn how to print, and enlarge yourself and wet print somewhere like the shed in your back yard, or a room in your house you can make dark enough... Or you become like the crazy guy I know in his 50s who make his own emulsion and uses slow film to print onto tintypes that basically develop in broad daylight... if that's your thing.

I know a guy in my area that finally gave up on wet printing and put his enlarger out as a pot plant holder. That's upcycling for you.

 Hiphopapotamus's gear list:Hiphopapotamus's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +5 more
Chris Dodkin
MOD Chris Dodkin Forum Pro • Posts: 12,173
Re: Fujifilm 690s

That lens is the same on all versions I believe, and was very well regarded in it's day.

-- hide signature --

Your time is limited, so don't waste it arguing about camera features - go out and capture memories - Oh, and size does matter - shoot MF

 Chris Dodkin's gear list:Chris Dodkin's gear list
Fujifilm X100F Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm GFX 50S Fujifilm GFX 50R +43 more
Chris Dodkin
MOD Chris Dodkin Forum Pro • Posts: 12,173
Re: Fujifilm 690s

This era of film cameras definitely exercise the grey matter, which I find to be a really good thing.

-- hide signature --

Your time is limited, so don't waste it arguing about camera features - go out and capture memories - Oh, and size does matter - shoot MF

 Chris Dodkin's gear list:Chris Dodkin's gear list
Fujifilm X100F Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm GFX 50S Fujifilm GFX 50R +43 more
Erik Kaffehr
Erik Kaffehr Veteran Member • Posts: 3,738
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

thebbqguy wrote:

I like the idea of medium format and I drool over Clyde Butcher's landscapes. The medium format digital cameras are beyond my desired budget, but a used film camera seems like a viable consideration.

To this point I have kept my photography budget purposely conservative and dont see that changing in the near term.

Should I investigate medium format film or hold out for a full frame?

That is your decision, of course.

Tim Parkin who shoots both digital and large format film, beside operating a scanning shop, has a very nice series of articles on large format film base photography:

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison-comments/

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/camera-test-editors-commentary/

Personally, I don't think going film and scanning makes a lot of sense. But, some film, developer combinations paired by high quality scanning can give excellent results.

I have been shooting 6x7 on Pentax in the film era and had a dedicated film scanner in the 3k$US price range.

After I got to 24 MP on full frame I did not feel that 6x7 on film and scanning made any sense.

But I have several hundred 67 slides so I still scan time to time:

Here you have a bunch of sample images from my Phase One P45+ back:

https://echophoto.smugmug.com/Technical/P45-Samples/

Here are bunch of images scanned on the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro 3200/4800 PPI CCD scanner, the slides are mostly Velvia 120 67.

https://echophoto.smugmug.com/Technical/Bigscans/

Here is a bunch of images that have been printed at reasonable size, like 30"x40". The two panos were 10' and 13' long:

https://echophoto.smugmug.com/KSU/Choosen/

None of the 'Choosen' images were scanned from film. Two were shot on the P45+ back. The others Sony 24 MP och 42 MP cameras.
Most of the images are available at decent sizes, 5K or larger. Smugmug has some tricks.

Best regards

Erik

-- hide signature --

Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles

Hiphopapotamus Senior Member • Posts: 1,175
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

And your still not realising that modern negs have way better lattitude and resolution than slides did then either... And you won't either because you've never shot a roll of Ektar 100 next to Velvia 50 and realised just because it says 50 on the box it doesn't mean "crap."

Pardon my french but it doesn't, slide film is dead to me... If it isn't the current crisis between Kodak and Tetenal leading Kodak labs to ask the question whether they should all switch to Fuji because they can't get any stock at the moment... It's the realisation that there isn't the resolution, colour space, or dynamic range in slide film now that you can get out of colour negs...

And if I want to shoot 50 ASA there's other options, such as cinema film, that offers better results than any slide can.

 Hiphopapotamus's gear list:Hiphopapotamus's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +5 more
Teila Day
Teila Day Veteran Member • Posts: 4,984
Re: MF vs. FF + + +

Macro guy wrote:

thebbqguy wrote:

I can afford the digital route suggested in this thread, but my logical side prevents me from jumping in with both feet at this time.

I have really been trying to focus on the actual cost per pixel. If printing smaller sizes, the cost with cheap digital cameras is quite low. But its printing bigger sizes that cause costs to rise significantly.

But I know next to nothing about film.

It's pretty straightforward: The cost of printing film = The cost of printing digital + cost of film + cost of processing + cost of scanning.

+ the cost of any travel associated with transporting film/prints + the cost associated with the shipping of film/prints.

When it comes to MF vs. FF ... Marco is right on the money.

Best in photography to all of you

-- hide signature --
Chris Dodkin
MOD Chris Dodkin Forum Pro • Posts: 12,173
Calm Down

You two need to calm down - and keep it civil

Try reading and understanding posts before hitting the POST button

-- hide signature --

Your time is limited, so don't waste it arguing about camera features - go out and capture memories - Oh, and size does matter - shoot MF

 Chris Dodkin's gear list:Chris Dodkin's gear list
Fujifilm X100F Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm GFX 50S Fujifilm GFX 50R +43 more
Velocity of Sound
Velocity of Sound Contributing Member • Posts: 899
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

I posted up a 30megapixel 12x24 shot. If you open it at print size on your monitor in Photoshop or Lightroom, if you have your monitor scaled correctly you wont see the grain at all at 300dpi. That's from a very early version of Fuji Pro film they no longer make anymore and the grain structure is about equivalent to ISO800 or 1600 but it's not displeasing.

I'm not sure what "scaled correctly" means - the thumbnail image in the post doesn't show noise, but I can see noise clearly in the posts when viewed larger, and if I pixel-peep (which is a bad habit, I agree) the noise is quite evident, as is lack of sharpness at the corners.

Granted, those are all factors that we've come to expect with the conveniences and advancements brought about by digital.  I enjoyed the photo in spite of them.  I think a lot of people (sometimes myself included) forget that there's more to an image besides how sharp it is, how noisy it is, and even if there are any blown highlights or unrecovered shadows.

I'm not sure about the look of film compared with digital, though.  I can see it and appreciate it, but it can also be emulated pretty easily in digital, if it's what you really want.  What are your thoughts on that?

I think the only film I've ever shot was with those one-time use box cameras that you'd buy from grocery stores, back when I was a child.  What holds me back from film now is largely the limited shot count per roll, and the lack of immediate feedback.  I don't chimp many shots these days but it's a nice security blanket.  I still miss enough shots that I recover by redoing it, which is something I wouldn't have the chance to do with film.  And yes, as cheap as rolls of film and developing may be, they can add up quickly and it's an expense that occurs every time you shoot.  I like the idea of one up-front cost, and not feeling like I'm getting charged per shot (which is the case with digital, printing aside).

Granted, I've often thought that there would be a feeling of release with film.  You're limited in your shot count, so you try to make each one count (whereas with digital I try to do the same, but sometimes I just end up mashing the shutter button because I become lazy, and sort it out in post later).  You don't have the ability to see what you took until it's developed, so you just take it and move on, hoping for the best.  And it's film, so absolute perfection is not as easily reachable as it is with digital, and perhaps you stop worrying about trying to make every single shot perfect.  I can see the appeal.

I've only been in photography as a serious hobby for a little over ten years, at this point.  Maybe in a few more decades I'll get into film.

 Velocity of Sound's gear list:Velocity of Sound's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Fujifilm GFX 50S Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 35-100mm 1:2.0 Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM +10 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads