On numerous trips to Yosemite, occasionally I see expensive digital MF cam. Is there a real advantage using MF for landscape. I always thought it was primarily for high end (for rich customers, who want to see expensive gears taking their pictures) studio works.

>>>Is there a real advantage using MF for landscape.

Yes, though depending upon the use of the image you may not see much of a difference. For web images there would not be much difference between MF and a DSLR. The difference would be more and more obvious with larger print sizes. Its just like with film (remember film?) where a print made from a MF or larger negative is going to look better than one from a 35mm. Everything else equal, the larger recording medium is going to yield better prints.

Peter

Architectural Photography by Peter Montanti, www.mountainphotographics.com

It would definitely make a difference in detail for larger prints. There's a reason Ansel Adams carted a big camera and those large plates up trails and hills to get the shot.

Now... if you want to get that same level of detail with your DSLR, there's a way...

Peter Montanti wrote:
>>>Is there a real advantage using MF for landscape.

Yes, though depending upon the use of the image you may not see much of a difference. For web images there would not be much difference between MF and a DSLR. The difference would be more and more obvious with larger print sizes. Its just like with film (remember film?) where a print made from a MF or larger negative is going to look better than one from a 35mm. Everything else equal, the larger recording medium is going to yield better prints.

Peter

Architectural Photography by Peter Montanti, www.mountainphotographics.com

At which size of print would you expect to see a difference? Has any one made a comparison test or just guessing that MF camera should make a better print?

eNoBlog wrote:
It would definitely make a difference in detail for larger prints. There's a reason Ansel Adams carted a big camera and those large plates up trails and hills to get the shot.

Now... if you want to get that same level of detail with your DSLR, there's a way...

of course. I have been stitching. But what do people say about the quality of the pixels? and one can't stitch all the time. Can you make a portrait stitching 10 images?

At 16 X 20 print size, MF digital is noticeably sharper and richer than FF sensor-based cameras. At 24 X 30 and above the MF sensor really shines. I have an H3DII-39 and a 5DMkII and am able to compare the two easily.

Besides costing the proverbial "arm and leg" the MF SLR is much heavier and is much harder to shoot hand-held. The FF DSLR is easy to carry and shoot. The difference between the two is similar to difference between 4X5 and MF film cameras used years ago. I think the Hasselblad H3DII results are very close to those I get from scanned 4X5 transparencies.

There have been many times when thought I would like to redo a DSLR-produced image in large format (not very realistic thinking). I am very pleased with the MF produced pictures. I don't find myself wishing I had used a larger format when I get a good capture. I anxious to see what the future brings!

Steve

S Barth wrote:
At 16 X 20 print size, MF digital is noticeably sharper and richer than FF sensor-based cameras. At 24 X 30 and above the MF sensor really shines. I have an H3DII-39 and a 5DMkII and am able to compare the two easily.


Steve


Steve, are you comparing apple and orange? 39MP and 21 MP?? of course you have to see the difference.
I would love to see you comparing an older version of Hassie that had only 21 MP.

Bob

Apart from the actual sensor being considerably larger, one of the biggest benefits at the moment is that for MF, they capture 16 bit and not 12 or 14. This equates to the colour detail being a lot more richer even on the older backs.

If Canon actually makes the jump to 16 bit then there is less and less need for MF. Optics are pretty good on MF and of course, the way larger sensor.

Playing devil's advocate here... if such high resolution is going to be better, why not shoot MF positive film and scan it? That would still be a lot cheaper than buying a digital MF, or not?

Marcel VanEerd wrote:
Playing devil's advocate here... if such high resolution is going to be better, why not shoot MF positive film and scan it? That would still be a lot cheaper than buying a digital MF, or not?

That would depend on your volume. Drum scans are not cheap

I shot a job earlier in the year and used the RB67 in addition to digital. The problem I had was my local lab wanted to wait for other customers to provide film to process. I had to wait about 3 weeks to get the results back. It was for my own record but the results were considerably sharper from my RB that the digital images. Perhaps not just sharp but very crisp might be a better word.

Problem is that there are not many labs that will handle film nowadays.

i have a friend who shot only 4x5 Velvia and makes his living shooting landscape photography. he no longer shoots film because E-6 processing is now down enough in volume that he is unable to get consistent results. also, he feels his 22MP back for his Hasselblad is at least as good quality as his 4x5 for gallery prints up to 20x30 or so. he now has a D3X and is saving for a Hasselblad 39MP back. even with the higher dynamic range of the 16-bit backs, he still shoots HDRs. i am contemplating a Leica S2 as the next upgrade past my D3X.

Herb...

Brit-007 wrote:
I shot a job earlier in the year and used the RB67 in addition to digital. The problem I had was my local lab wanted to wait for other customers to provide film to process. I had to wait about 3 weeks to get the results back. It was for my own record but the results were considerably sharper from my RB that the digital images. Perhaps not just sharp but very crisp might be a better word.

Problem is that there are not many labs that will handle film nowadays.

That's a can-of-worms type topic .

Personally I think size matters, and there's no substitute, other people see it differently.

Remember, back in the film days, there were people claiming a Lieca could produce image quality similar to many MF cameras - whatever floats their boat.

Owning a few digital compact cameras, a Canon 5D2 and a Leaf Aptus 75, in my opinion the Leaf's file quality, and what you can do with it in post (!), is way beyond anything a smaller chip will ever manage.
That said, it does of course depend on the intended purpose which tool you use.

As for the 'rich customers etc.' comment in the original posting - frankly, that shows a profound ignorance of how professional assignments work, and what the requirements are for those .

Tomser wrote:
That's a can-of-worms type topic .

Personally I think size matters, and there's no substitute, other people see it differently.

Remember, back in the film days, there were people claiming a Lieca could produce image quality similar to many MF cameras - whatever floats their boat.

Owning a few digital compact cameras, a Canon 5D2 and a Leaf Aptus 75, in my opinion the Leaf's file quality, and what you can do with it in post (!), is way beyond anything a smaller chip will ever manage.
That said, it does of course depend on the intended purpose which tool you use.

As for the 'rich customers etc.' comment in the original posting - frankly, that shows a profound ignorance of how professional assignments work, and what the requirements are for those .

I am honest. I have no experience with MF. Having said that, I also have a scientific mind. That means things should be evaluated objectively.
Before year 1976 (+/- one ore two years), it was given that any good wine had to be French. At the White House, only French wines were served at state dinners.
That was until a French man had a smart idea: Blind tasting. Guess what? California wines consistently beat their French rivals at any any tasting, the blind ones, that is.The last one was 30m years after the first.
Blind is when the taster doesn't see the label nor the cost of the wines he/she tastes.

So my question is: has it ever been a blind judging/viewing of MF prints comparing with other prints. Or was it just presumed? like French wines?

If you know of any of those objective judging, I would love to know. Please.

the difference is easy enough to tell that people don't bother with blind testing. if you make large prints all the time, it shows up in details. looking at them on the monitor all the time, you see the dynamic range differences. seeing a print standalone without anything to compare to, it is harder but side by side, it's not hard, at least when the prints are done by someone competent. make 4x6 prints and no-one can tell anything. make 40x60 prints and it's pretty trivial.

Herb...

nugeny wrote:
So my question is: has it ever been a blind judging/viewing of MF prints comparing with other prints. Or was it just presumed? like French wines?

If you know of any of those objective judging, I would love to know. Please.



The thing is, prints don't matter in my line of work , it only matters to have the best and largest possible file for post-processing.

To go back to prints anyways, I can clearly see the difference between an 11x14" (standard portfolio single page) printed at 360dpi vs. 180dpi .
For the higher resolution, you need a file the size of 3960x5040 pixels, after cropping , and after converting it from 16bit to 8bit .
In addition, there is no satisfactory way of increasing the resolution of a digital file, whereas you can always improve film by carefully exposing and developing a negativ .

As for wine, I only drink European, and as an Audio geek, I don't believe in blind testing .

An S2 in my lifetime would be nice. I miss my Mamiya M7 system for landscapes.

EBH

i just had a demonstration of the difference between 24MP and 14MP on the weekend. i had made up some 16x24 prints and brought them in to my photo club and showed them. without identifying anything about the equipment, everyone noticed that the prints from the 24MP camera had more detail even though the lenses from the 14MP are probably better. to photographers, the difference is pretty obvious. go larger and it becomes even more obvious.

Herb...