Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

[fotografz]

Need is what makes you money.
Want is what makes you happy.
I don't think its so baffling.
Some people spend money on systems to make them money.
Others spend money on systems to enjoy them or what they produce.
There could also be a combination of the two.
Some photographers do it as if they were plumbers, others as if they were poets. Both attitudes are valid.

My comment was not disingenuous - you were clearly implying that 1Dx is an inferior camera.

You did misinterpret my words and denied three things I did not say.

I am well aware that tethering is available in Leica, but based on many reports it is nowhere as good as Phase, which would make sense as one company focused on tethering for about ten years. I am also hesitant to believe Leica auto focus is as good or better than Canon. I find it very easy to believe that Leica provides the best sharpness at f/8-11 for distances 2m+. That is not the criteria nor the application that is critical to me. I'm sure it is for many. I was in no way implying that Leica is not the right choice for some.

I was not aware that you can mount H glass on Leica with AF. Still I am hesitant to mix and match between different brands. BTW extention tubes and bellows are not the right way to 1:1 - you need the glass that was built and optimized for this for good results.

You also misundestood what I was saying on how to (not) compare image qualities. It was in no way an effort to quantify, but rather an effort to deconstruct how to compare in order to avoid "intuitive" misconceptions.

Okay, we agree to disagree and to continue isn't helping the OP in either case.

I stick with my original advice to the OP: Trust your eyes. Try before you buy. Don't listen to nay sayers about anything you personally like, and go with what pleases you because in the end, it is your work not theirs.


- Marc

 

[robertwright]

Well so far no one has mentioned the op's comparison points: mf film and the excellent project he cited, Frontcountry- a very interesting set of pictures and beautifully done...

He wanted to know if 645 mf digital has arrived vs. a vs. film, and associated overhead vs cost.

This is an interesting thing as I've gone over it in my head a few times now.

What it took in film to get me to where I want to be was an imacon X1. Nothing else that I've used has come close in ease of use or results. With negs clean from the lab the spotting is very minimal. And I got in for less than 10k on the scanner.

But comparing color and back to the cited project: Frontcountry looks digital to me. It is the linearity of the color. You could call it purity, but digital to me is very perfect and immediately identifiable.

So comparing film mf to digital mf is very difficult, for starters, digital is limited to what we used to think of as "near mf"- less than 645. So the lens features are barely starting to show over larger formats, 6x6, 6x7, etc. And the color is not nearly the same. I can make my scans look very similar to digital but the basic difference is that digital has very linear open mid tones and film is the characteristic crushed mid tones of the S-curve. The shadow detail is not the same at all. So if you have something you like in mf film be aware that digital mf is going to be very different, not film-like, and is its own thing.

plus in 20 years, will you still have the files?

Thanks very much for the responses.

Ken, yes I am referring to the size of the IQ260.

I would be using this back most of the time on a 645 camera, likely very little on tech cameras (sigh, I wish it were otherwise). To give some more background, I primarily shoot fine art portrait and landscape using a Mamiya 6 or Hassy 500CM w/ 6x6 film back. I love love love medium format film, but managing the workflow (developing/cutting/scanning/DUST REMOVAL) has taken more time than I think it is worth at this point. Thus, I've wanted to move to the closest digital alternative to what I have been doing, which seems to be the 645 and FF back setup I mentioned. The following project, which I believe was shot primarily on a Mamiya 645 and a Leaf Aptus 75s, got me over the fence:

Lucas Foglia | Frontcountry

Which, by the way, has some shots with a LOT of shadows that look great! I hear all this business about noise in the shadows...did they just do a bang up job on noise removal?

David

 

[robertwright]

this to me is also important, when you did your comparison in prints between mf film and 35mm digital your eyes told you the difference: so its a perfect chance to rent a back, use the same gear, make the prints and judge.

I have a feeling however, that workflow issues aside, you might still prefer the mf film over the digital. But I don't know how you are scanning. If the scanner is low end then its toast.

the other aspect you mentioned was that this was primarily fine art. since you are not on deadline, its not work, I would consider again workflow issues. I shoot digital for work and film for personal. for the personal stuff there is no deadline. I enjoy getting contacts back from the lab, and then the "second shoot" which is the edit process, looking again, afresh after a few days or a week or even going back to older work and looking again, I believe that this is one of the determining characteristics of the traditional photographic practice that the digital onslaught has cast aside. The contact sheet and editing is very much like shooting, it is looking at real objects and having reactions to a given. With digital it is not the same, we load up the files, we start "processing" which is usually "perfecting"- i.e. fixing things...wb, exposure, lens correction, etc, etc, pretty soon even the crappy stuff starts to look like the keepers. I don't find this in film, you look at the contact, and its either there or 'it ain't! Just like in shooting. With digital we kind of substitute quantity for quality (flame bait!!!

Last thing, color is one thing, you can like digital color for a lot of reasons, I do enjoy its purity sometimes, the perfectness of it sometimes "makes" a picture and is its own pallet. But BW....oh my. Digital bw is just a mess. Its the lack of a given, a given spectral response. So the fact that you can do anything to it means to me at least, its nothing.

What I'm saying is that film gives you a limit, something, and you react to that, and its not perfect. Be careful what you wish for

This is one aspect that I am very interested in, yes. How is it different?

I am arranging to rent an IQ260 (hopefully over this weekend) so we'll see how it goes in all facets.

I really appreciate everyone's input on this and the conversation that has followed.

As someone who is looking to use this system primarily for fine art (besides not being great with words all the time anyways), there is something I am looking to achieve that can be difficult to convey in purely techinal terms. I know this: I like the way images from my Mamiya 6 look more than images from my 5D Mark II. I'm terrible at defending that preference using the technical language used often to justify one camera over another. I just know it looks different. The point being: I'm hoping to find something close to that in a FF digital back. It may seem like an awful lot of $$$ for something you can't quite put your finger on, but I think it's real (maybe I'll find out this weekend?).

David

 

[Jon Warwick]

I've recently been to a display of Frontcountry at a gallery in London. What struck me was how the prints looked among the least "digital" that I've seen. They were sharp and crisp, but excessive acuity that can come from digital wasn't apparent to my eye ..... the colors were not particularly saturated for many prints. All in all, they reassembled (in my personal view) a grain free and weakly saturated version of Portra in 4x5 or 120.

The images were excellent, and I would add the compositions were first class.

 

[jlm]

i've been shooting leica Monochrome b/w and am quite pleased with the results, printing piezo (all black/grey inks). i shoot with a #15 yellow filter and apply a film like curve in processing raws.

still getting my feet wet with scanning 6x6 black and white negs in silverfast (a noxious interface), but is seems one could apply a shoulder/toe curve as needed, eh?

 

[robertwright]

perhaps it is like anything it requires a great deal of discipline to cultivate a workflow- with film the funnel narrows with each successive choice, the camera, the film, the dev. the paper, the print. One tends to suggest the next.

I think in digital the workflow funnel is harder, once choice does not narrow anything, it just seems to open up. It would take discipline to apply the same sets of choices to every digital file and accept the results. (which is kind of like film, you make your choices and you are literally stuck.) No such stickiness in digital.

i've been shooting leica Monochrome b/w and am quite pleased with the results, printing piezo (all black/grey inks). i shoot with a #15 yellow filter and apply a film like curve in processing raws.

still getting my feet wet with scanning 6x6 black and white negs in silverfast (a noxious interface), but is seems one could apply a shoulder/toe curve as needed, eh?

 

[jlm]

i'm going to change my location: to Brooklyn as well

 

[Paul2660]

Absolutely. Just stick it on and put it in manual mode.

Syncs, with leaf shutter lenses, up to 1/1600th - no HSS mode required.

2nd hijack, what about the DF?

Paul

 

[jduncan]

The title says most of it.

I always said when MFDBs went full frame (with long exposure), I would consider making the move from film to digital.

So clearly that is available, and I've been scheming this transition for some months and was just about to take the plunge with a 645DF and IQ260 demo unit...then the IQ250 was released. I've seen the comparisons and from what I gather from others' analysis the IQ250 is the better performer, at the very least in low light.

So where this is all going is: What do you think the timeline is a for a full frame CMOS back? I LOVE the way medium format looks, but it just seems like a bad time to drop the $$$ on making the move from film when there seems to be so much change on the horizon for this corner of the photography world. That said, I know you can't put off such purchases forever just because there might be something better next month/year/whatever.

Any thoughts and opinions on this will be grately appreciated.

Best,

David

Since this topic is speculative by nature I will add this: All point that Leica is coming with a CMOS S. If is the same CHIP the superiority of Leica Glass could be fully shown. So My recommendation will be to wait.

Back to topic. I am surprised that the first Chip is not a 48 x 36 mm sensor. Maybe is because it will need 4 exposures?

Here is a stepper with the exposure dimensions :
Nikon | Precision Equipment | i-line Scan Field Stepper NSR-SF155

A 44 x 33mm sensor needs just two exposures. An alternative will be to be bold and go for a 52 x 33 mm sensor. But the MF companies were very conservative.

Canon do have larger exposure steppers but I just wanted to show something typical.

Best regards,
J. Duncan

 

[dougpeterson]

2nd hijack, what about the DF?

Paul

You can use a (modern) Canon flash in manual mode on Phase One AF/DF/DF+ and Mamiya AFD3/DF/DF+.

It should also work on an AFD1/2 though I've not personally done this.

It's just a hot shoe.

 

[alajuela]

i've been shooting leica Monochrome b/w and am quite pleased with the results, printing piezo (all black/grey inks). i shoot with a #15 yellow filter and apply a film like curve in processing raws.

still getting my feet wet with scanning 6x6 black and white negs in silverfast (a noxious interface), but is seems one could apply a shoulder/toe curve as needed, eh?

Excuse me for going off topic, But I read somewhere that putting colored filers on the monochrome, throws off the focus coordination between the rangefinder patch and actual lens focus. Have you had any issues with the colored filter?

Thanks

Phil

 

[jlm]

never noticed it, i probably wouldn't be that perceptive anyway

 

[Arjuna]

Excuse me for going off topic, But I read somewhere that putting colored filers on the monochrome, throws off the focus coordination between the rangefinder patch and actual lens focus. Have you had any issues with the colored filter?

Thanks

Phil

This doesn't sound plausible to me: as far as I know, a Leica rangefinder focuses through a mechanical connection between the lens (cam) and the camera body, using the windows on the body for illumination - a filter on the lens would have no affect on this.

If the metering sensor, which reads light that has gone through the lens, has a non-linear colour response, then I can see that a filter might affect the meter reading, however.