12.3 DSLR vs. 4X5 view camera?

[Overdrive]

Penny for your thoughts!

I've not kept up with the latest in the photography, but would like to get serious about my landscape photography. (This is just a hobby.) Pardon my ignorance with a few questions! As someone who will be purchasing some higher-end epuipment, what are your thoughts on which format would be best? I'm thinking of a Canon 40D, Nikon 300D, or Sony A700. On the other hand, maybe a 6x7cm or even 4x5 film camera.

I was perusing some 2008 calendars looking at those awesome landscape shots. I saw one of the most beautiful shots I've ever seen. It was of the Grand Canyon. The color saturation was just spectacular...maybe it was enhanced in the darkroom or on the computer? The shot was taken with a 4X5 view camera.

Questions:

1. If this shot was indeed enhanced, and I'm thinking it was, why not just use a digital camera in the first place? Also, with modern printing technologies, aren't all such printed products done from computer files these days...again, why not just shoot it in digital?

2. Will a new-technology DSLR of 12.3 megapixels be able to rival a 4x5 in terms of picture quality at an enlargement of, say, 16x20? (I really don't think I'd be doing enlargements that big, but maybe once in a blue moon)

3. Does the color resolution of a 12.3mp DSLR compare favorably with a 6x7cm or 4x5 shot?

4. How much does each 4x5 film cost? (Maybe it's one of those deals where if I have to ask, I should stay away from it!)

Thanks in advance!
Scott

 

[Robthebrit]

If you are not a pro I would stay away from 4x5. If you know how to use the system and you have lots of patience you get awesome pictures but the equipment is clumsy and everything about it is expensive, each shot is usually around $5 for average film (can be a lot more) and at least the same again to develop it. 4x5 can be hard to develop even living in a big city, forget about developing it in the middle of nowhere and forget about 4x5 digital. In my photography classes I hated everything about medium and large format.

12Mpixel is not as good quality as 4x5, the highest resolution for an off the shelf dSLR is the new 1DsMkIII which is 21 mpixel ($8000) and thats starting to approach medium format quality. In the big picture there is a lot more to it than the final resolution, medium format lenses have better optics due to their size and most medium format lenses are really high quality.

For expedition use I would avoid 4x5. Given the amount of money you would need to spend on a decent 4x5 system I would get a high end dSLR and some good glass. You said yourself you won't be blowing every picture up to 20x16. If you are going to be doing wide angle landscape I would avoid the cameras with smaller than film sensor, get something like a 1Ds or a 5D.

Just my opinion

Rob

 

[bigreen505]

I'm thinking of a Canon 40D, Nikon 300D, or Sony A700. On the other hand, maybe a 6x7cm or even 4x5 film camera.

4x5 is borderline a lifestyle choice. My thought would be go with the Canon (or an older one) with a couple zooms and the 4x5. Taking a picture with a 4x5 is expensive, you will want to play with framing and exposure a bit first before you commit to film.

I was perusing some 2008 calendars looking at those awesome landscape shots. I saw one of the most beautiful shots I've ever seen. It was of the Grand Canyon. The color saturation was just spectacular...maybe it was enhanced in the darkroom or on the computer? The shot was taken with a 4X5 view camera.

Are you familiar with Alan Briot?

1. If this shot was indeed enhanced, and I'm thinking it was, why not just use a digital camera in the first place? Also, with modern printing technologies, aren't all such printed products done from computer files these days...again, why not just shoot it in digital?

Getting the same level of detail and resolution from a digital capture is pretty expensive. The main advantage of 4x5 is the movements, not just film size.

2. Will a new-technology DSLR of 12.3 megapixels be able to rival a 4x5 in terms of picture quality at an enlargement of, say, 16x20? (I really don't think I'd be doing enlargements that big, but maybe once in a blue moon)

No, but the better question is whether the quality from a DSLR is good enough for your needs. If you have a still scene, you can stitch several shots from a DSLR together and get a pretty decent file. If there is any movement in the scent (wind, water, animals) is is much more difficult.

3. Does the color resolution of a 12.3mp DSLR compare favorably with a 6x7cm or 4x5 shot?

The easy answer is no, it depends is more accurate. If you are shooting anything that require detail, no it doesn't. If you are shooting portraits at f2 and making small enlargements, yes.

4. How much does each 4x5 film cost? (Maybe it's one of those deals where if I have to ask, I should stay away from it!)

Again, it depends. A sheet of film is about $3, processing is about the same. You can find deals on short dated film on eBay, and you can save some money loading your own film instead of using QuickLoads. So you are at about $6+ every time you press the button, assuming color film (E6 or C-41). So you took a picture, congratulations, what are you going to do with it? Admire it on a light table or print it. If you want a print you have to scan the image. Good drum scans can run from $25 - $100 per image, depending on your output and archiving needs/wants.

You need to be real honest about how much you want to be invested in the process of photography versus just taking pictures. Also, you might consider a 4x5 with a 6x7 roll film back.

 

[Darren]

Regarding not printing up to 16x20, once you start to get some pictures in your collection that you really love, you won't want to be printing any smaller!

As for which format, as Bill stated, this should be purely dictated by what your output goals/tastes are. I use both 4x5 and a 12.7 MP all the time. I love the strengths of both systems, and having both, I would hate to go back to be limited by one system. I greatly enjoy the flexibility. I have no idea how people who only shoot large format do it. The main limitation I feel it has is with a stiff wind, at which point, you'd be picture-less.

A 4x5 would definitely not be the system to get if you print 16x20s and smaller.

More specific pricing figures for 4x5:
New cut sheet film: ~$2.15/ea
New QuickLoad: ~$3.40/ea
ebay film: $1-1.50/ea
Processing: $1.75-2.00

As Bill said, drum scans are the main cost for this format.

All things considered, digital is the way to go unless you want to print bigger than 24x36. You can always stitch digital shots to match the resolution of 4x5, but some scenes won't afford this option.

If you are not a pro I would stay away from 4x5.

Professional vs. (advanced) amature doesn't have anything to do with anything other than how one chooses to make their living.

 

[bigreen505]

Professional vs. (advanced) amature doesn't have anything to do with anything other than how one chooses to make their living.

I have to concur with Darren here. A professional photographer's job is to please the clients and you only need to deliver the resolution the client needs. There are very few (like zero) commercial applications that really require the full resolution of a 600 MB 4x5 scan where digital capture wouldn't be better for many reasons. I would say that 4x5 is primarily the domain of fine art landscape photographers whether pro or not. You shoot 4x5 because you want to, not because you have to.

 

[Overdrive]

Thanks for all the information. You guys have offered some good insight. I can see where the 4x5's larger lenses and choice of film type would lend a better quality to the image.

One huge piece of information I didn't even know about:

So you took a picture, congratulations, what are you going to do with it? Admire it on a light table or print it. If you want a print you have to scan the image. Good drum scans can run from $25 - $100 per image,

That pretty much prices me out of it, at least for where I am now in the hobby. I did not know the film had to be scanned to be printed.
_____

Bill, thanks for the link for Alain Briot. I will look at his whole website soon. Maybe one of his workshops would be fun. I'll go back to the store and see who the photographer was on the calendar I mentioned.
_____

OK then, focusing a little more (no pun intended) on 120 film now.... It can be printed using an enlarger (no drum scan) right? Do professional photo shops still do this? (I did some of this in black & white in a buddy's darkroom years ago.)

A few years ago I lusted after a Fuji GX680 due to it's view-camera-equivalent bellows movements. I had to forget about it due to the price, but now mabe I could pick up a used one. Would I use these capabilities outside of shooting tall buildings? I'm thinking maybe at my favorite place on earth: Arches Nat'l Park, with the tall monoliths.

Does anyone have one of those charts that shows the equivalent MP's needed at certain enlargement sizes to equal 35mm film, 120 film, etc?

Again, thanks for all the input.
Scott

 

[DaveInDenver]

That pretty much prices me out of it, at least for where I am now in the hobby. I did not know the film had to be scanned to be printed.

It doesn't have to be scanned to be printed. You can print by doing contact prints, don't even need an enlarger. But if you scan it, then it's not a matter of a desktop scanner, which I think was their point.

 

[bigreen505]

That pretty much prices me out of it, at least for where I am now in the hobby. I did not know the film had to be scanned to be printed.

The best way to get the most detail and color range from film is a drum scan. I'm not a big fan of the wet dark room.

OK then, focusing a little more (no pun intended) on 120 film now.... It can be printed using an enlarger (no drum scan) right? Do professional photo shops still do this? (I did some of this in black & white in a buddy's darkroom years ago.)

I don't think there is a lot of benefit of 120 over a high-end DSLR. You still have to get it scanned. I wouldn't even know where to go for analog prints. I switched to digital printing around 2001 and never looked back.

A few years ago I lusted after a Fuji GX680 due to it's view-camera-equivalent bellows movements. I had to forget about it due to the price, but now mabe I could pick up a used one.

Careful with those. Most recent model is the GX680III (check that) and I have heard that parts are hard to get for older models. The GX is a phenomenal studio camera, but it is quite a tank. Probably best to stick with 4x5.

Does anyone have one of those charts that shows the equivalent MP's needed at certain enlargement sizes to equal 35mm film, 120 film, etc?

No and I think they are BS.

Honestly, I still think there is a lot of value in a competent but inexpensive DSLR to pair with a 4x5 either shooting sheet film or a 6x7 roll. Ideally I would shoot with a 45MP digital back on a 6x9 view camera.

 

[DaveInDenver]

I don't think there is a lot of benefit of 120 over a high-end DSLR. You still have to get it scanned. I wouldn't even know where to go for analog prints.

FWIW, for the Denver area, Englewood Camera's lab can develop, print and scan 120 and 220. They are also the place to go for slides, same day turn around on E6 if you can get the film to them before lunch.

 

[TeriAnn]

It is obvious from all the replies that medium and large format is not for everyone. People who use digital & 35 mm film tend to shoot a lot of pictures, often without much forethought and rely upon heavy culling. Many 35mm folks consider exposing 8 or 10 rolls of 36 exposure film a good day shooting, and often expect to get one or two good keepers out of a roll.

Medium & large format photographers have to go through a lot more work to make an exposure so do a lot of their culling before tripping the shutter. The depth of focus decreases as the the area of film that needs to be covered increases. This means longer exposure times and you do most all your work on a tripod.

I consider large format photography to be a zen like process. It costs something between $2.60 and $3 to trip the shutter of a 4X5 loaded with a sheet of Velvia.

So instead of a quick snap in the direction of something that attracted you, you need to gain an understanding of what it is that attracted your eye, What the elements are and how best to portray them on film. Sometimes that means waiting a few hours for the sun to move. Sometimes that means returning when the sun is in an earlier position. Many times it means walking away without tripping the shutter because you do the best you will be able to do will not be up to the mind's eye image that first attracted you.

When setting up a field camera you are deciding what elements in the image you wish to make should be in crystal sharp focus and setting your film and lens plain to be fit. You need to set your depth of field to cover what you decide should be in acceptable focus. All the time staring into an upside down and backwards image on a sheet of glass.

You not only need patience you need to be a person who enjoys trying to understand the elements of what you see and deciding how best to see them in a way that can be translated to film.

Certain personality types find peace and joy in this slow zen like process called large format photography. You learn to see things differently than a point and shoot photographer and all too often you decide to walk away without tripping the shutter. Large format photography is not for most people, nor is it for taking pictures of things that are only fleeting. But the results can be breathtaking and you can do things in low light that digital has not yet learned.

Medium format is a middle ground, each exposure is less expensive, you still have to spend time thinking about what elements work best while you set up your tripod. You can set up a picture much faster but you have less creative control. The Pentax67 is one of the best if not the best field medium format cameras made. They are very rugged and the optics are very good.

If you shoot mainly animals, people & vehicles in motion, medium or large format is a poor choice. I have a cheapo digital point & shoot for those kinds of snapshots and you can get nice images with a high rez digital camera. Digital can also reproduce a high contrast scene better than film can, but it does not touch film when it comes to making low light timed exposures.

Yes developing the film can get expensive but you can save a lot by learning to do it yourself. These days I have an automatic film processor that is about the size of a large suitcase (JOBO ATL-1000). Load the film & the chemicals and come back when the machine beeps. Before hand I used a temperature bath to keep chemicals at the right temperature and watched a clock, manually emptying and adding chemistry. Developing is something that can be done in a motel room or a camp site if you have batteries, an inverter and water. Buy chemistry is MUCH cheaper than paying for processing.

Last time I looked, large format film could be purchased in Moab, Flagstaff and Page, so it can be found in places large format photographers congregate. I tend to anticipate my needs and buy film in volume through a discount house.

Another thing I like to do on occasion is to respool a roll of 120 TMAX 400 film onto a 620 spool (Films are the same except for the spools) then shoot the film in an old Brownie box camera. Its a fun retro way to take pictures at a day outing.

If you are interested, I have a spare Pentax67 body, normal lens, a light meter, chemistry bath and other manual film developing equipment for sale.

I don't have space for a dark room and don't see myself buying a house in the future so I also have a surplus 4X5 colour enlarger (Sanders) for sale as well.

Let me know if you are interested.

 

[bajasurf]

Photographic paper

Hi Scott, One solution that I have used for a number of years is instead of sheet film I replace it with photographic paper. Load your holders with black and white photo paper . Some photographers use film developer and others use the standard paper developers to get your image for viewing. You will end up with a paper negative that you can either contact print or scan into your computer and invert in Photoshop for a print. Don't even think about cost as I can get four 4x5 photos from one 8x10 and a sheet of photographic paper is CHEAP. Just be sure to use paper without the manufacturers watermark on the back as it will be visible when you contact print or scan. Ilford is my choice. Whenever I show a "photo" to a friend I become an "artist" instead of your usual everyday guy with a camera. Hell, I love my oatmeal and paint can pinhole cameras. Breaks up the routine and I like the smell of chemicals and the red light in my makeshift bathroom/darkroom. But I live in Baja full time so the norm in not the norm. Good luck, George Lanning

 

[Overdrive]

The photo...

Thanks again to one and all for your thoughts. I love these forums...it would have taken me a whole lot of reading to get my questions answered from books & magazines, and even then I would get one point of view at a time.

I could not stop thinking about the picture on the calendar that prompted me to post this thread. So, I decided to go buy it, but found it to be sold out at the original store. I went to their sister store; sold out there, too. I gave up and went to Barnes & Noble just to browse, and low and behold, found it there as I was leaving...I got the last copy on the shelf.

The photographer is John Gavrilis. I want to give him his due, so here's his bio from the back of the calendar:

"John Gavrilis has lived in Northern California all of his life. He makes his home in Aptos, along Monterey Bay, where the ocean is a daily part of his life. A professional photographer since 1976, John chronicled the halcyon days of the San Francisco music scene capturing immortal portraits of the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, the Grateful Dead, and other rock legends. Gavrilis now fucuses on protraits of nature. His award-winning photographs are displayed in various corporate and private collections around the United States and Europe. John travels throughout the year creating and exhibiting his photographs. His gallery quality signed limited edition photographs are availale on his Web site. Many of his images may also be purchased as art posters in print shops nationwide. Gavrilis's primary camera of choice is a Linhof Master Technika, a large format 4x5 view camera."

Of course, due to the limitations of my small, cheap, home scan of a printed page, you're not seeing near the quality. My apologies to Mr. Gavrilis. My scanner would not accept the whole image, so it's cropped on the top. The rock outcropping above the Ruins continues at you like it's 3D. Amazing.

The sky, river, and rock outcropping really draws me into this photo.


"Nankoweap Ruins, Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona"

 

[TeriAnn]

I could not stop thinking about the picture on the calendar that prompted me to post this thread. So, I decided to go buy it, but found it to be sold out at the original store. I went to their sister store; sold out there, too. I gave up and went to Barnes & Noble just to browse, and low and behold, found it there as I was leaving...I got the last copy on the shelf.

The photographer is John Gavrilis.

John lives about 3 miles from where I last lived and has been on the high art festival circuit for a few decades. His front driveway is usually set up for viewing during the Santa ruz open studio weekends. About 6 years ago he switched from having a local company make cibachrome prints for him to having his transparencies digitally printed. John does good work and is no stranger to the four corners area.

 

[rhodos]

Just from my personell experience - we had Canon SLRs with good (L) lenses and a 6x6 medium format Bronica, since a few years we photograph with DSLRs (EOS 5D) and are more than sattisfied with the quality even 20x30 enlargments look great. The projections stay behind the 35mm slides on a good projector (Leica/Rollei) and even more the 6x6 slides but thats quite normal as there is no affordable LCD-projector which supports the resolution of a 12 mp camera. But as a test i took digital pics from a D1Mk2 processed them on slides and run a test where i projected them with a Leica projector mixed with regular 35mm slides - no significant difference.

bye, Werner

 

[TeriAnn]

But as a test i took digital pics from a D1Mk2 processed them on slides and run a test where i projected them with a Leica projector mixed with regular 35mm slides - no significant difference.

That's a sad note. I went from 35mm to medium and large format just because I did not like the lack of detail from 35mm film printed on 8X10 paper. Once you get used to looking at larger format prints 8X10 prints from 35mm always look abut out of focus because of the fuzzy lack of detail. Big prints from 35mm just look sad.

Same with slides, you can see so much more richness in a medium format slide than you can in 35mm.

Of course a web window is the great equalizer.