gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.3 #1 · Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes? | |
gear-nut wrote:
Having shot film in 35mm, 645, 6x7, 6x9, 4x5 and 8x10, along with digital in every size including the Betterlight scanning back, the 3 MF formats of, Fuji's 33x44, Leica's 30x45 and Phase's 40x53.4, I can say a couple things about them all...
First off, there is little difference between Phase's and Fuji's 100MP sensors, not enough to notice even pixel peeping at 200%.
Next, all the MF digital outperform even the larger MF film sizes. When we hit 16MP in Fx digital, it basically bested the best we ever got from 35mm film with better DR. When we hit 24MP, Fx started pushing in on MF film and exceeded its DR. When we got 45MP Fx, it was comparable to the best MF film we ever had, with superior DR.
Does MF digital push in on 4x5 or 8x10? This is where it gets difficult. An MF back on a tech camera is more similar, since most 4x5 or 8x10 cameras have movements. Movements get more and more finicky the smaller you go in format; 8x10 was lenient, 4x5 was easily manageable with the quality cameras of the day. Digital MF not so lenient and requires very close tolerance and precise movements from both the camera and user -- a lot of folks cannot manage it... All that said, yes, 100MP digital pushes in easily on 4x5 film, and again with superior DR. The real difference between 4x5 and 8x10 capture was in the user experience; you basically saw the final product in real time on the 8x10 ground-glass, albeit upside-down and inverted, but a glorious experience none-the-less.
But then both LF film formats were cumbersome compared to MF digital; and MF tech digital more cumbersome than straight MF capture. Long story, but today we have it easy with the GFX or Phase systems.
Finally a comment about image aspect ratio's. I've personally never been a big fan of 2:3, often cropped it to 3:4. 4:5 and 6:7 were equally limiting along the other side, also getting cropped to 3:4. For me, the 3:4 aspect ratio of Fuji and Phase is pretty much ideal, and at 100MP both allow plenty of headroom to get to 2:3 or 4:5, or 16:9 or even 1:2 and 1:3. IOW, it's a great all in one solution.
Edit: I forgot to mention about lack of movements in fixed body cameras. With today’s processing software’s excellent perspective tools, shooting loose and correcting in post is very convenient and easy. While that doesn’t allow for scheimpflug focus, focus stacking is the post processing answer, and superior in many ways. Of course T-S lenses are also available and useful as well.
...Show more →
A lot of this mirrors my thinking. Modern sensors (and the cameras that contain them) are extremely good, even by comparison to gear from a decade to two ago. (That’s why my friend happily moved from his large Phase One back system to the miniMF format a few years back.)
I also think your “Edit: forgot the mention” comment is right on. While there are some things that you can’t really (easily) do in post, today’s post-processing software does effectively do a whole bunch of stuff that we used to only be able to do in camera — and movements are a big part of that. I like the “shooting loose and correcting in post” concept, or even the shooting not-so-loose and making it even better in post. I certainly go with that concept for street photography where things often happen very quickly. But I’ll also it for subjects like landscapes and architecture, where we can usually adjust convergence with excellent quality in post. We can also choose to spend a bit more time focus bracketing when we expose instead of taking extra time to set up and adjust a TS lens, again with really excellent results. (Sometimes _better_ results — imagine a near/far composition with a near tree hanging above the far mountain. TS can make a worse mess of that, while focus stitching can work beautifully.)
I do believe that the overall quality of modern miniMF systems is generally equivalent (but, again, not identical) to that of 4x5 film, and that the best full frame systems (cameras and lenses) can produce quality equivalent to that of the larger MF film formats or better. With that in mind, you point about the “cumbersome” nature of those older formats is really true and important. When you can get the level of quality that we get today from these smaller, faster, and easier to adjust and configure systems, there’s not a really strong argument for continuing to use the older film gear. (That’s not to say that there aren’t some film practitioners still doing beautiful work. I know a couple of them.) The same friend who moved from LF to digital for his landscape photography found it to be utterly liberating. I recall him telling me how amazing it was to be able to make many exposures of water subjects, something that is just about impossible to time perfectly in the field.
(I once joked to him that since he could now come back from shooting with hundreds of images in stead of tens, if we multiplied the savings per image — and those who have developed and scanned 4x5 film know what I’m talking about — he saved thousands of dollars and every additional exposure actually earned money!)
While we sort of saw the final product in real time on ground glass (as well on TLR cameras), we also see essentially that with simulation modes and histograms and so forth on digital cameras. We can truly verify that we got it right in the field. While it is fun to point out that excellent and careful film photographers could get things quite right in the field, too — given enough time and experience and work with metering — there are most certainly times when being able to check the image immediately in camera make a big difference.
I’m no expert with movements on digital, but on occasion I do use a Pentax 80-160mm lens on a Mirex TS adapter on my 5DsR for certain subjects. (I use it a lot in the desert and sometimes at the coast.) I agree that it isn’t easy — and definitely not quick! — to get the thing adjusting in the field.
I’m often fascinated by the aspect ratio discussions. In the end I think it is a pretty personal thing and that there’s not universally best format. Perhaps because I started out (literally as a kid) printing black and white on 8x10 and 11x14, I also gravitate to the taller and not-so-wide formats. Although I shoot full frame, my default aspect ratio is 4:3. (I really, really wish Fujifilm would make the lenses I need for GFX, since the aspect ration matches my preference!). But I’ve also come to like 16:9 for more stuff than I would have expected. And, as a person who used 6x6 TLRs many years ago… I still sometimes see something in the square format.
|
