If you're going Hassy you're doing the right thing. The H1 and H2 is very nice cameras. I like the 503CW as well but I don't know if Phase One backs fit the 503CW..
Go Sweden!
Ok. Then a P25 with 503CW with winder is an option too. Nice option if you want to use manual lenses. There's also lots of used lenses for the 503CW. One big advantage!
Wow, gone for a couple days and look what happens.
Two points and I will go away.
Point 1:
Two main differences between the P25 and P45. First, the P45 outresolves the P25 *if your lenses can handle the extra resoultion.* If they can't it is no different than a 100Mb and 300Mb drum scan of a 35 mm chrome. The 300Mb scan gives a much bigger file, but with no increase in actual information.
The second difference is two part: are 1. increased dynamic range (think DMR vs. 1DsII) and higher useable ISO (200 vs. 400 and possibly 800 if you really want to push it).
Charlie Cramer did a test with a P45 against 4x5 and came to the conclusion that the digiback is close enough to LF film to make the increased resolution of film not worth the effort.
Point 2:
We are at a point where we really need to be honest about how our images are being used and just because we can upgrade doesn't mean we should. What's my point? The differences between the P25 and P45 are real and visible on screen and probably visible on print from a high quality file run through a high quality RIP -- think fine art. But I would venture a guess (I've never tried it) that a CMYk conversion based on a real press profile would take out any advantage of the P45 over the P25 and in reality most of the advantage that either one has over a DMR or 1DSII. After the CMYK conversion the only advantage the P45 would have over the other back is ability to shoot at higher ISO.
Bottom line is we go back to the old addage "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link." If your weakest link is a line press, the P25 (and in most cases the DMR) is sufficient. If the weakest link is an Epson 9800/Chromira, than everything else needs to be top notch and that meast P45, LF digital lenses, etc.
bigreen505 wrote:
Charlie Cramer did a test with a P45 against 4x5 and came to the conclusion that the digiback is close enough to LF film to make the increased resolution of film not worth the effort.
I look at it another way, unless you have a regular and sufficient need for the resolution and quality of the P45, then 4x5 film is a much cheaper alternative for those occaisional times that you do.
Gailbraith just did another house cleaning this past week. He posted a big warning to people in the Medium Format Forum. Many posters have stopped posing there altogether since.
I think his ass is just too tight. If people have to make their posts in fear of being edited or deleted they are going to loose all the interesting pro posters. It just ain't no fun to read anymore.
Well, someone has to represent the "budget" end of the equation, so here goes:
I shot for years with medium format film, Rollei gear, both SLR and TLR. Scanning made great prints. With the digital stuff, GUy and Chuck's help lead to the DMR and satisfaction in the quality of the gear, lenses, and cost investment. Oh yes, lest I forget, the ability to quickly print lovely color prints up to 16x20. Wow. All this for under $10k, and yes, the Canon gear sits on the shelf, except for the snaps when it is great.
But for deep tones, and thoughtful composition, the medium format gear still is sweet. So I'm raising my hand for the budget approach of B/W film and good scanners (lmacon 343?). Its easy, slow to be truthful, but heck, scan one image a roll, and watch your quality control go way up.
Beats placing $20k bets and hoping for the right answer. Well, sort of. Maybe its just another option. But film has its place, and gee, those used lenses are pretty cheap these days.
I am very excited about trying the 6x9 Rollei. I am waiting for Chuck to get back to send me the stuff. The ability to do the tilts and shifting is going to be alot of fun. It will not replace Canon for wildlife shooting though