medium format vs DSLR 35mm

[Fliger747]

It is true that autofocus systems, as with auto exposure systems do not resolve all issues! I somewhat prefer the 7D Canon for fast street type photography and the 5DII for the landscape work and aerial work I do. Focus is either infinity or more leisurely for that sort of subject. 30 MP might be pushing the point of diminishing returns fro a 35mm full frame sensor though with very careful work the best Canon lenses might be up to it. Both lens reolution and diffraction limits will continue to frustrate the pixel peeping types.

In aerial I discovered an interesting phenomenon, It was best to shoot at high speed repeat exposures, as the second shot would always be sharper than the first, either because the camera vibrations have settled down or because of a tendency for the first shot to have some camera motion imparted from releasing the shutter. Not as easy to get the perfect release while also flying the plane!

Careful workers have been able to do much more with the 35mm sized digital cameras than was possible with film, I expect that similar results and improvements are possibe with MF Digi's. It is generally a somewhat different style of photography and will remain so.

My CFV 50 should have arrived in a day or two and I should be able to do more than theorize.

Happy New Year to all!

Tom

 

[Fliger747]

Recently returned from two weeks in NZ having left the canons behind and just with the Hassy and five lenses (plus a small Lumix). Working with the medium format is only slightly heavier and bulkier, though it is a blessing in some ways to be committed to always carrying a tripod, and using it. It is the somewhat careful way of working which pays the dividends.

My lady companion is a Nikon user, so it should be interesting to contrast and compare the results, though we photograph for somewhat different purposes.

Initial working reveals some images can be of excellent quality at any conceivable print size.

Cheers. T

 

[Fliger747]

170 gigs of images from two week trip. Certainly one must anticipate storage and computer requirements. I used a Mac Book Air and an external drive, still the battery and power requirements are greater than for the typical DSLR and could be a consideration on a remote expedition.

Will post a few images when I get a "Round tuit".

T

 

[nathantw666]

170 gigs of images from two week trip. Certainly one must anticipate storage and computer requirements. I used a Mac Book Air and an external drive, still the battery and power requirements are greater than for the typical DSLR and could be a consideration on a remote expedition.

Will post a few images when I get a "Round tuit".

T

Thanks for your updates. Looking forward to seeing some photos.

 

[Fliger747]

A couple of images posted in landscapes.

T

 

[HassyLover]

Although digital is certainly capable of very high resolution, to me most times the image looks "plastic". Digital will never have the "feel" or "look" of film, nor will it ever provide you with the flexibility in terms of exposure/processing afforded by the film (especially B&W) process. And honestly, even though I have an outstanding Canon photo printer, it still falls short in terms of quality, depth and beauty of a true photographic print.

 

[HassyLover]

I was having a conversation with a photographer yesterday who uses nothing but 35mm digital and he was basically saying that unless you are printing above A2 or A3 you don't need medium format, I tried to tell him that even at A4 the quality is vastly improved over 35mm and very noticeable, In fact i have been doing some comparisons and even postcard size shows more detail and tonal quality, In fact everything about it is better.

I would be interested to know if this person has ever even shot Medium Format film or even any film for that matter. So many people nowadays have grown up with nothing but digital or shot film with inexpensive cameras and had the corner drug store do their prints and have never even experienced "real" photography for themselves. It is just a personal opinion and of course your mileage may vary, but until you have gotten your hands wet with film and paper chemicals you have not really experienced true photography.

 

[najobskalf]

I would be interested to know if this person has ever even shot Medium Format film or even any film for that matter. So many people nowadays have grown up with nothing but digital or shot film with inexpensive cameras and had the corner drug store do their prints and have never even experienced "real" photography for themselves. It is just a personal opinion and of course your mileage may vary, but until you have gotten your hands wet with film and paper chemicals you have not really experienced true photography.

I had many years of "getting my hands wet" and it was fun. However, one should compare like with like. Perhaps you belong to the school of photography that judges all photographs by the cost of the gear with which they were taken? I have no argument with those who admire the engineering quality of Hasselblad or Leica cameras, but that is a different thing. However, if you do want to spend a lot of money you can go with Canon DSLRs and L-type lenses, although these are unlikely to form the basis of the sort of Leica collections of pristine, unused cameras! The one thing that puzzles me is where is all the film that keeps being praised? Further, once people discuss taking photos with a film camera and then having them scanned as a superior technique to using digital in the first place - words fail me!

Incidentally, has anyone anything good to say about Hasselblad taking a digital camera made by a third party, sticking assorted adornments to it and their logo, then marketing it at inflated prices. No dobt some fool will claim that it takes incredibly sharp photographs!

(A tip for the impecunious - Get a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ30, set it on square format and "Intelligent Auto" and post small photos from it on the Web and tell everyone they were taken with a Leitz lens - just don't mention the camera! Oh, if you want to have A3 enlargements made, go for it and you may be pleased with the result.)

Now that I have got that off my chest, has anyone else noticed how much more "musical" recordings on vinyl are than ones on the newer SACD ......

 

[HassyLover]

Perhaps you belong to the school of photography that judges all photographs by the cost of the gear with which they were taken?

Quite to the contrary, I judge an image on it's merits. But if you took the same image with 35mm digital and one with a Blad and placed the two prints side by side, it has been my experience that the one taken with film will look (at least to me) superior every single time. As for scanning negatives, I only scan my Hasselblad negatives so I can post them on the web. For any other purpose I head to the darkroom.

Satisfied?

 

[najobskalf]

Quite to the contrary, I judge an image on it's merits. But if you took the same image with 35mm digital and one with a Blad and placed the two prints side by side, it has been my experience that the one taken with film will look (at least to me) superior every single time. As for scanning negatives, I only scan my Hasselblad negatives so I can post them on the web. For any other purpose I head to the darkroom.

Satisfied?

What you have not stated is the identity of the 35mm digital camera (and lens) you are using for this comparison.

How do you find the availability of 120 film? Is there much choice nowadays? Do you print in colour?