Betterlight vs Canon 5D, an informal comparison

[Jack]

"Note that the scanning back is always tethered to a computer."

This must make it difficult to use in the field. Especially in inclement and cold weather. Have found little in the digital world so far that takes winter weather very well compared to the old tried and true Deardorff/Sinar gear.

Actually, it really wasn't bad at all relative to a stash of film in holders, especially a small laptop with good battery life. The QQQ was a nice solution a few years ago, a MB Air would work pretty well now I suspect, and at the end of the day, not all that expensive of addition in terms of the high-resolution digital world.

With it you get,

1) Confirmed, onscreen digital focus
2) A fast preview scan for adjusting exposure, curves and composition
3) 11 true stops of DR that you could "curve" real time to match just about whatever look you were after.
4) Better than drum-scanned 8x10 quality (resolution)
5) The ultimate pano camera if you added the BL panning head

The downside was subject motion would impart mini rainbows in those sections of your image, and the paraphernalia required compared to direct single capture MF digital.

I liked the camera and if money were not an issue for me, I would still own a super 6K, the panning head, a view camera and three or four lenses...

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Yes, they are very cool tools, but I think they would be too limited for my work. If I did architecture, product or art reproduction work, I would say that a scan back is really hard to beat. But for anything that moves (water, foliage, people, stars), they are pretty much a no go. And the tethering. The other issue is that the kind of subject matter they work for also works perfectly for stitching, so the resolution advantage is not as unsurmountable as one might think. Given the scan time versus instant capture, you have time to do a few stitched frames in the same amount of time it would take to scan. That pretty much leaves you with the dynamic range and color advantages, which are nothing to sneeze at, but also addressed by medium format digital to a greater or lesser extent.

 

[zzyzx]

Actually, it really wasn't bad at all relative to a stash of film in holders, especially a small laptop with good battery life. The QQQ was a nice solution a few years ago, a MB Air would work pretty well now I suspect, and at the end of the day, not all that expensive of addition in terms of the high-resolution digital world.

Much more than most Large Format cameras, holders, film and accessories for field use.
With it you get,

1) Confirmed, onscreen digital focus

Is your focus so bad you need to waste time doing this with electronics?


2) A fast preview scan for adjusting exposure, curves and composition

Experience with film, developer and paper combinations will make this one fairly easy as well.


3) 11 true stops of DR that you could "curve" real time to match just about whatever look you were after.

Nice to be able to manipulate this way. HDR and control are a positive digital advantage for some subjects yet goof LF technique and experience can work wonders here as well.


4) Better than drum-scanned 8x10 quality (resolution)

Shoot Large film and contact print and save yourself a fortune while getting the finest quality possible.


5) The ultimate pano camera if you added the BL panning head

Why not shoot a circuit camera. 8x20, 7x17 or the like and get quality with the panoramic shot set in the camera rather than with computer generated tricks?

The downside was subject motion would impart mini rainbows in those sections of your image, and the paraphernalia required compared to direct single capture MF digital.

Another big downside is the need to lug the electronic gear around in inclement weather. Try it in warehouses and sites at 15 below zero(farehneit) and long interior exposures and watch the digital batteries kill your image as they die. Very dim interiors with exposures of 1-6 hours or so with film are out of the realm of possiblity with most digital systems due to battery life. True 3-8 hour star trail exposures don't cut it with digital either.

Digital has some advantages as does film. Whichever works for you is fine but shooting Large Format and especially Ultra Large Format for specific images is still less expensive than scanning backs. Nothing quite like a 12x20 contact print or a 5 foot wide contact print from the circuit cameras.

 

[photoshutter]

Nice, but 5d is very close, shot two or three images for better DR and it will be almost the same without scan time and large format camera.

 

[routlaw]

While I am sure you have made these comparisons (BL vs 5D) first hand yourself may I suggest you purchase the following book if you really believe this.

http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/1460977

Report back to us with your findings and conclusions once you receive the book. :ROTFL:

Rob

Nice, but 5d is very close, shot two or three images for better DR and it will be almost the same without scan time and large format camera.

 

[fotografz]

Ben, there is a world of difference imo in terms of dynamic range, tonality and resolution! I love my 5D nonetheless

Maybe the differences are more obvious if I put both crops side by side on the same image, (please click once on the thumbnail, and then click on the resulting image to view at 100%):

Not even close.

Marc

 

[Jack]

Not even close.

Marc

Absolutely. The BL is capable of a full 11 stops of capture, or at least was when I was shooting it. that required a linear curve and generated an extremely flat image. However, using the software you could adjust that curve to almost any response balance you wanted on a per-capture basis which made it pretty powerful in use. That's one big advantage of shooting with any good tethering software you don't get untethered, and one I really enjoyed using with the BL. (Yes, I do miss the BL, and have this niggle in the back of my head to obtain another super 6K, a simple view cam and a few lenses -- I suspect they're pretty inexpensive now.)