Canon 5D vs. Medium Format (Film)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Progressiveabsolution, Sep 25, 2006.

  1. I know this discussion has been beaten to a pulp, but why not ask some
    things that I hope haven't been touched upon so much...

    1) So the "resolution" has been the objective/scientific evidence that
    the 5D is as good as medium format. Then again, Rafe or Rafe B?
    (forget his name from terrapin) says that his prints from either the
    LS8000 scans of medium format and the digital prints are equal or that
    the digital exceeds the medium format when it comes to color. Since
    the LS8000/9000/Mulit Pro scanners are considered some of the very best
    available, it seems we are REALLY talking about putting one format next
    to another and comparing the two. The claim, and I don't say that Rafe
    said this, though maybe he did at one time, is that the Canon 5D or
    better yet, 1DSMKII shows more detail than MF film based cameras. One
    pointed out how they could count the hairs on the digital print but not
    on the film print. I guess this proves film doesn't actually capture
    "reality/objective" world afterall and all this time people using film
    have only managed to get "most" of the detail from life. However,
    higher end digital is capable of getting that detail the film can never
    get.

    Question one is: How does the digital camera that competes "resolution"
    wise, extract more detail than film, and if this is true, why would
    "anyone" with 10K-25K worth of film based equipment still own it when
    they will never get that detail a digital camera can get?

    2) In terms of the "color" produced by the two formats, pro digital and
    mf film, it has been argued that the pro digital cameras excel in color
    with some exceptions going in favor of print (C41) based film. I have
    to agree that the array of color is simply amazing in what the digital
    can do, but is the "flat" look of film that many refer to not what life
    really looks like??? I don't know how many shots I have seen by pros
    that use the very best digital camera to make a scene look like it is
    tahiti when it is just San Diego. Sand is colored brownish when it is
    white in life. But these colors obviously have a lot of
    appeal/flashiness to them while the film colors look much more
    "pale/lifeless" in a sense. It isn't to say the film looks inaccurate,
    but is to say that the digital makes things "appear" realistic, but are
    much more based on aesthetic appearance and catching the eye...but
    doesn't one ever wonder how in the world a bird with beautiful color
    suddenly looks like an angel with remarkable color one has never even
    seen on this bird??? I don't want to debate the color issues with
    digital because you can say the same things about film. I have seen
    some of the most saturated or dense looking film based images that are
    in no way looking like life, but they surely make for a beautiful
    artistic look, just like the digital can do the same. So please pay
    attention to this last part where I say that both can exaggerate or
    "make" their own color to look a certain way, but that at the same
    time, I feel that digital by and large makes life look a lot different
    than film when both are aimed to reproduce it in an "accurate" looking
    way. *****The primary reason I raise the color thing is because I have
    never seen a photo "on the web" from a pro digital camera that looks
    like film.***** I can see many are trying to achieve a look of film,
    but without the grain, of course...but never have I seen an MF photo
    look like a Canon 5D photo. They can look similar in some instances,
    but I'm more or less referring to context of streetlife, nature,
    architecture/etc.

    3) Going back to this resolution thing, and that some claim the 5D or
    1DSMKII can outresolve film in MF...what about the counter-argument of
    digital "adding" detail to the photo that isn't even there? I know the
    example I posted above was about counting hairs and so I take it this
    person either counted the person's hairs after the photo was developed
    or they just "assumed" from what they saw that that person had more
    hairs. Either way, it's interesting that there is a counter to the
    notion that pro digital and digital in general "adds" artifacts/extra
    information that the film does not. And this obviously complicates
    things because one then has to point out that film cannot produce the
    information that exists in life whereas digital can...one format, in
    other words, can produce what we see in life while the other is either
    not capable of doing so or is adding artificial context to the image.

    So number 3 deals with my final question: Does digital indeed have the
    ability to outresolve film? That is, is film simply not capable of
    producing the same detail of life? Again, how in the world can
    "anyone" care to use film if they know it is not reproducing life
    faithfully and is leaving out details that digital is able to
    capture??? I personally care for "the look" of the image, but if I
    know my setup cannot produce life, why even bother using it when I can
    get "close enough" if not the same "look" from the device that is able
    to get more information/reproduce life more faithfully. Why only get
    10 of my cat's 12 whiskers when I can get all 12 of them???

    The reason I ask these questions is because:

    1) If the better pro digital cams can do more than MF film can, it only
    takes $2200 plus $1800 in Zeiss/Rollei lenses to completely humiliate
    MF film setups that cost upward of $10-$20K!!!...let alone the scanner
    that can be drum scanned for rediculous prices or go for the Nikon 9000
    which goes for $1800. That's 2-5X the price of the digital setup
    which can take a million photos before that MF system can get in 100.

    2) Why is there still a market for all this MF stuff if the digital has
    proven dominance over it?

    3) Why does this MF market continue to maintain stability while the
    digital one coninues to drop? Yes, one can say better digi-toys come
    out every year, but what about MF stuff...this has been around for tons
    of years yet it either increases in price or stays the same. As an
    example, to get a Contax 645 system, you must shell out big
    bucks...same with a Hassleblad system and how about them Schneider
    lenses=$$$$$$$$ Why won't these Schneider lenses come down to
    $100-$500 when the digital stuff like the 5D is going to be at $800
    soon???


    I'm ranting and raving because I'm really frustrated about which
    direction to go at this point. To me, in a perfect world where the
    Canon 5D is indeed on par or even superior to MF, it makes zero sense
    to spend 2-5X the amount of money to get an MF setup. If the 5D can be
    disputed by the MF crowd and that 2-5X difference has some kind of
    warrant (not for arrest of course:)), then it seems getting into maybe
    even a lower budget MF setup that is capable of competing with higher
    end setups in the film MF world would be the better step.

    I'll leave this one up to discussion/debate/whatever that can help me
    find a decision here on what is the best move to make at this point.

    Thanks all!!!
    Progressiveabsolution, Sep 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Progressiveabsolution

    Frank Pittel Guest

    Progressiveabsolution <> wrote:
    : I know this discussion has been beaten to a pulp, but why not ask some
    : things that I hope haven't been touched upon so much...

    : 1) So the "resolution" has been the objective/scientific evidence that
    : the 5D is as good as medium format. Then again, Rafe or Rafe B?
    : (forget his name from terrapin) says that his prints from either the
    : LS8000 scans of medium format and the digital prints are equal or that
    : the digital exceeds the medium format when it comes to color. Since
    : the LS8000/9000/Mulit Pro scanners are considered some of the very best
    : available, it seems we are REALLY talking about putting one format next
    : to another and comparing the two. The claim, and I don't say that Rafe
    : said this, though maybe he did at one time, is that the Canon 5D or
    : better yet, 1DSMKII shows more detail than MF film based cameras. One
    : pointed out how they could count the hairs on the digital print but not
    : on the film print. I guess this proves film doesn't actually capture
    : "reality/objective" world afterall and all this time people using film
    : have only managed to get "most" of the detail from life. However,
    : higher end digital is capable of getting that detail the film can never
    : get.

    The problem with comparing a scanned negative with a digital image is that
    you're really comparing the scanner with the digital camera. A true test would
    be to compare a print made from a digital image with a print made from a negative.

    One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a tripod
    and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and another shot with
    the digital camera of their choice. We woould then make a 16x20 print and put the
    prints side by side for comparison. Interestingly enough I've never been taken up
    on that challange.

    --




    -------------------
    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
    Frank Pittel, Sep 25, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Progressiveabsolution

    Scott W Guest

    Frank Pittel wrote:
    > The problem with comparing a scanned negative with a digital image is that
    > you're really comparing the scanner with the digital camera. A true test would
    > be to compare a print made from a digital image with a print made from a negative.

    Kind of hard to do this over the internet, whereas scans are pretty
    easy.

    > One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a tripod
    > and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and another shot with
    > the digital camera of their choice. We woould then make a 16x20 print and put the
    > prints side by side for comparison. Interestingly enough I've never been taken up
    > on that challange.

    Planing on coming to Hawaii anytime soon?
    You let me use my tripod and you will loose, I have a very good tripod.

    Scott
    Scott W, Sep 25, 2006
    #3
  4. "Frank Pittel" <> wrote:
    >
    > The problem with comparing a scanned negative with a digital image is that
    > you're really comparing the scanner with the digital camera. A true test
    > would
    > be to compare a print made from a digital image with a print made from a
    > negative.


    Most people who have actually compared projection prints with scanned prints
    find the scanned prints just as good if not better. Projection printing
    involves an enlarger lens that imposes its own degradation to the image,
    just as scanning does.

    > One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a
    > tripod
    > and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and another shot
    > with
    > the digital camera of their choice. We woould then make a 16x20 print and
    > put the
    > prints side by side for comparison. Interestingly enough I've never been
    > taken up
    > on that challange.


    Anything less than the 5D would show the 645 to be better. The 5D gives 645
    a run for its money, though.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 25, 2006
    #4
  5. Progressiveabsolution

    Stacey Guest

    Frank Pittel wrote:

    >
    > One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a
    > tripod and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and
    > another shot with the digital camera of their choice. We woould then make
    > a 16x20 print and put the prints side by side for comparison.
    > Interestingly enough I've never been taken up on that challange.
    >



    I agree and like you, all I ever see is people comparing film scans to
    Dslrs, most of the time using sub optimal scanning techniques.

    --

    Stacey
    Stacey, Sep 25, 2006
    #5
  6. Progressiveabsolution

    tomm42 Guest

    Frank Pittel wrote:
    > Progressiveabsolution <> wrote:
    > : I know this discussion has been beaten to a pulp, but why not ask some
    > : things that I hope haven't been touched upon so much...
    >
    > : 1) So the "resolution" has been the objective/scientific evidence that
    > : the 5D is as good as medium format. Then again, Rafe or Rafe B?
    > : (forget his name from terrapin) says that his prints from either the
    > : LS8000 scans of medium format and the digital prints are equal or that
    > : the digital exceeds the medium format when it comes to color. Since
    > : the LS8000/9000/Mulit Pro scanners are considered some of the very best
    > : available, it seems we are REALLY talking about putting one format next
    > : to another and comparing the two. The claim, and I don't say that Rafe
    > : said this, though maybe he did at one time, is that the Canon 5D or
    > : better yet, 1DSMKII shows more detail than MF film based cameras. One
    > : pointed out how they could count the hairs on the digital print but not
    > : on the film print. I guess this proves film doesn't actually capture
    > : "reality/objective" world afterall and all this time people using film
    > : have only managed to get "most" of the detail from life. However,
    > : higher end digital is capable of getting that detail the film can never
    > : get.
    >
    > The problem with comparing a scanned negative with a digital image is that
    > you're really comparing the scanner with the digital camera. A true test would
    > be to compare a print made from a digital image with a print made from a negative.
    >
    > One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a tripod
    > and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and another shot with
    > the digital camera of their choice. We woould then make a 16x20 print and put the
    > prints side by side for comparison. Interestingly enough I've never been taken up
    > on that challange.


    This is actually the test that convinced me digital was here. A friend
    shot for a minor league baseball team, he had a 6mp Kodak DCS760. The
    time came for the team picture, he used the Kodak as back up and his
    Mamiya 645 for the primary neg. Admittedly his 645 was old and somewhat
    beat. But looking at the 16x20 print and the file from the 645 it was
    obvious that the faces of the players were better deliniated on the
    digital file. Took a little to convince the team that a digital pic was
    our best output, their printer loved it. They printed the 18x20 team
    picture from the Kodak file, this was 2002. The next year the team
    president loaned my friend his Hassleblad, saying that film wouldn't be
    out done. That year there was a lot of rain, the team came up from
    Florida late so the they shot with the Hassleblad and the Kodak. The
    printer said he wanted the picture the next morning, guess which file
    they used again. The photographer printed the Hassleblad image. Yes it
    was better than the digital file but not by much, but the C41, even
    with rush processing was too late (the team was too cheap to keep the
    lab opened after hours a $500 charge). The rest is history.

    Tom
    tomm42, Sep 25, 2006
    #6
  7. Progressiveabsolution

    Frank Pittel Guest

    Scott W <> wrote:
    : Frank Pittel wrote:
    : > The problem with comparing a scanned negative with a digital image is that
    : > you're really comparing the scanner with the digital camera. A true test would
    : > be to compare a print made from a digital image with a print made from a negative.
    : Kind of hard to do this over the internet, whereas scans are pretty
    : easy.

    If you want to compare a scanner with a dslr then it's a reasonable test.

    : > One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a tripod
    : > and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and another shot with
    : > the digital camera of their choice. We would then make a 16x20 print and put the
    : > prints side by side for comparison. Interestingly enough I've never been taken up
    : > on that challange.
    : Planing on coming to Hawaii anytime soon?
    : You let me use my tripod and you will loose, I have a very good tripod.

    I have a very good tripod too. Alas I don't see going to Hawaii anytime soon.

    --




    -------------------
    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
    Frank Pittel, Sep 25, 2006
    #7
  8. Progressiveabsolution

    rafe b Guest

    "Frank Pittel" <> wrote in message
    news:p...

    > One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a
    > tripod
    > and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and another shot
    > with
    > the digital camera of their choice. We woould then make a 16x20 print and
    > put the
    > prints side by side for comparison. Interestingly enough I've never been
    > taken up
    > on that challange.



    You're on, Frank.

    Full contact info is on my website (on the "Ordering" link.)
    Email me off-line and we'll work out the details.

    The best digicam I own at present is a 10D, but at 16x20",
    I'm not too worried. In a pinch, I can borrow a co-worker's 5D.

    I've got a set of three 20" x 30" prints in a room here where
    I work. Two were from 645 MF, (scanned on LS-8000)
    and one from the 10D. All three prints were made by a local
    lab on a Durst Epsilon (basically, a LightJet.)

    To date, nobody has guessed correctly which print came
    from the 10D. You'd think, with 33% odds, at least one
    of these would have guessed by now.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
    rafe b, Sep 25, 2006
    #8
  9. Progressiveabsolution

    Stacey Guest

    rafe b wrote:

    >
    > "Frank Pittel" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >
    >> One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a
    >> tripod
    >> and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and another
    >> shot with
    >> the digital camera of their choice. We woould then make a 16x20 print and
    >> put the
    >> prints side by side for comparison. Interestingly enough I've never been
    >> taken up
    >> on that challange.

    >
    >
    > You're on, Frank.
    >
    > Full contact info is on my website (on the "Ordering" link.)
    > Email me off-line and we'll work out the details.
    >
    > The best digicam I own at present is a 10D, but at 16x20",
    > I'm not too worried. In a pinch, I can borrow a co-worker's 5D.
    >
    > I've got a set of three 20" x 30" prints in a room here where
    > I work. Two were from 645 MF, (scanned on LS-8000)
    > and one from the 10D.


    Again this is comparing the LS8000 to the 10D, that was his point!
    --

    Stacey
    Stacey, Sep 26, 2006
    #9
  10. Progressiveabsolution

    Scott W Guest

    Stacey wrote:

    > Again this is comparing the LS8000 to the 10D, that was his point!


    So far there has not been one person who has shown an optical print is
    better then
    one from a scanned negative.

    There have been a lot of people who have made that claim but to date I
    have not seen
    any thing to back up this claim.

    On the other hand I have seen lots of data showing a print from a
    scanned negative is better then an optical print from the same
    negative.

    But anyway believe Rafe as talking about an exchange of prints

    Scott
    Scott W, Sep 26, 2006
    #10
  11. Progressiveabsolution

    Stacey Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:

    > "Frank Pittel" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> The problem with comparing a scanned negative with a digital image is
    >> that you're really comparing the scanner with the digital camera. A true
    >> test would
    >> be to compare a print made from a digital image with a print made from a
    >> negative.

    >
    > Most people who have actually compared projection prints with scanned
    > prints find the scanned prints just as good if not better.


    I guess I'm not most people...

    From what I've seen scanned prints have artifacts that optically printed
    versions of the same negatives won't have. From what I've seen you end up
    with the worst of both worlds, grain from the film and noise from the
    scanner. Especially when the negative is dense, which tend to make better
    optical prints. I'm talking negative films as optical prints from slides
    have always been a problem.

    Of course you can do digital adjustments to the prints that are scanned and
    fix problems which sometimes makes doing them that way turn out better. I
    just don't buy that scanned and printed color negative film looks as good
    as optically printed color film when a high end enlarging lens is used
    correctly.

    --

    Stacey
    Stacey, Sep 26, 2006
    #11
  12. Progressiveabsolution

    Stacey Guest

    Scott W wrote:

    > Stacey wrote:
    >
    >> Again this is comparing the LS8000 to the 10D, that was his point!

    >
    > So far there has not been one person who has shown an optical print is
    > better then
    > one from a scanned negative.


    How can you "show this" without scanning it?

    >
    > There have been a lot of people who have made that claim but to date I
    > have not seen
    > any thing to back up this claim.


    Kinda hard to do over the internet isn't it? How can you show an optical
    print on-line without scanning it?

    Given that "a lot of people make this claim", you are convinced that they
    all are making this up?

    Like I said in another thread, using slide film I feel a scan may produce
    better results depending on the subject matter but with negative film a
    scan just combines the worst of both, film grain with digital noise
    introduced by the scanner.

    >
    > On the other hand I have seen lots of data showing a print from a
    > scanned negative is better then an optical print from the same
    > negative.


    What data? On-line data showing scans? Of course people into digital stuff
    are going to present their case on-line! And most go into this data search
    wanting their digital workflow to be better are are using poor quality
    optical printing as their data point.

    >
    > But anyway believe Rafe as talking about an exchange of prints
    >


    But they are SCANNED negative prints. That was his point, everyone is
    trying to compare scanned film to digital capture!

    --

    Stacey
    Stacey, Sep 26, 2006
    #12
  13. On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:18:35 -0400, Stacey <> wrote:


    >Again this is comparing the LS8000 to the 10D, that was his point!



    I'm ready to do exactly the test that Frank Pittel asked for:

    The same scene captured on film and digitally.
    The film (chrome or negative) will be printed optically.
    The digial capture would be printed on... whatever --
    inkjet or LightJet, it's all the same to me.

    So far, I haven't heard from Frank, but I'll repeat: I'm
    ready and willing to do the test you propose. Contact
    me offline.

    As for scanning prints, there's simply no issue. You
    can't get much more than 10-15 lp/mm on paper, with
    practical wet or dry printing processes. So any decent
    flatbed scanner (eg. the Epson 4990) can truly see
    100% of what's on the print.

    And please... dynamic range? No print has a range
    of more than 2.5, absolute max. These days that's
    no challenge for a good scanner.

    Comparing? Well yes, that's the problem. You can't
    compare physical prints over the internet, which is
    why we need to scan the print.

    The only subjectivity left at that point would
    concern tonality -- not resolution.

    I have in the past organized "traveling portfolios"
    that allow for *real* print sharing. But this is an
    amazingly slow process... it took nearly a year
    to make the loop among eight participants.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
    Raphael Bustin, Sep 26, 2006
    #13
  14. Raphael Bustin wrote:

    > I'm ready to do exactly the test that Frank Pittel asked for:
    >
    > The same scene captured on film and digitally.
    > The film (chrome or negative) will be printed optically.
    > The digial capture would be printed on... whatever --
    > inkjet or LightJet, it's all the same to me.


    If you want to keep the playing field level, you really should use the same
    lens on both cameras, at the same aperture. Is that possible?

    Paul
    Paul Saunders, Sep 26, 2006
    #14
  15. On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:13:22 +0100, "Paul Saunders"
    <> wrote:

    >Raphael Bustin wrote:
    >
    >> I'm ready to do exactly the test that Frank Pittel asked for:
    >>
    >> The same scene captured on film and digitally.
    >> The film (chrome or negative) will be printed optically.
    >> The digial capture would be printed on... whatever --
    >> inkjet or LightJet, it's all the same to me.

    >
    >If you want to keep the playing field level, you really should use the same
    >lens on both cameras, at the same aperture. Is that possible?



    Hard to do, if it's my gear we're talking about.

    I only have one lens for the 10D (17-40 L zoom)
    and it won't fit on the 645.

    I have an adapter that fits Nikon F optics to the
    10D. But in a comparison of 35mm film to 10D,
    the film is bound to lose.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
    Raphael Bustin, Sep 26, 2006
    #15
  16. Progressiveabsolution

    Stacey Guest

    Raphael Bustin wrote:

    > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:18:35 -0400, Stacey <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Again this is comparing the LS8000 to the 10D, that was his point!

    >
    >
    > I'm ready to do exactly the test that Frank Pittel asked for:
    >


    Then "just do it" ..
    --

    Stacey
    Stacey, Sep 28, 2006
    #16
  17. Progressiveabsolution

    Guest

    Paging Frank Pittel (- was "Canon 5D vs. Medium Format (Film)")

    Frank, you seem to have vanished! After your comments about nobody
    ever taking you up, that looks a little suspicious..

    I'll put $10 on Rafe. (O;

    Just as an aside, I found this one I hadn't seen before:
    http://www.ales.litomisky.com/shootout/analogversusdigitalshootout.htm
    - the methodology seems just a little flaky in places, but it's *drum
    scans* for a change, and compares a Hass to a 5D to Nikon/Velvia.. (O:
    Interesting..


    rafe b wrote:
    > "Frank Pittel" <> wrote in message
    > > One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a
    > > tripod
    > > and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and another shot
    > > with
    > > the digital camera of their choice. We woould then make a 16x20 print and
    > > put the
    > > prints side by side for comparison. Interestingly enough I've never been
    > > taken up
    > > on that challange.

    >
    > You're on, Frank.
    >

    (snip)
    , Oct 17, 2006
    #17
  18. Re: Paging Frank Pittel (- was "Canon 5D vs. Medium Format (Film)")

    On 17 Oct 2006 01:08:23 -0700, wrote:

    >Frank, you seem to have vanished! After your comments about nobody
    >ever taking you up, that looks a little suspicious..
    >
    >I'll put $10 on Rafe. (O;
    >
    >Just as an aside, I found this one I hadn't seen before:
    >http://www.ales.litomisky.com/shootout/analogversusdigitalshootout.htm
    >- the methodology seems just a little flaky in places, but it's *drum
    >scans* for a change, and compares a Hass to a 5D to Nikon/Velvia.. (O:
    >Interesting..
    >
    >
    >rafe b wrote:
    >> "Frank Pittel" <> wrote in message
    >> > One more then one occasion I've challanged digiheads to go out setup a
    >> > tripod
    >> > and make one exposure with my Mamiya 645 and Fuji 160 NPS and another shot
    >> > with
    >> > the digital camera of their choice. We woould then make a 16x20 print and
    >> > put the
    >> > prints side by side for comparison. Interestingly enough I've never been
    >> > taken up
    >> > on that challange.

    >>
    >> You're on, Frank.



    Indeed, Frank's absence on this matter has been noted.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
    Raphael Bustin, Oct 17, 2006
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Guest
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    504
    Mxsmanic
    May 23, 2004
  2. Guest
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    428
    Guest
    May 23, 2004
  3. Beowulf

    11MP digital or medium format film?

    Beowulf, Aug 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    56
    Views:
    1,819
    Darrell Larose
    Sep 5, 2004
  4. Rick Baker
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,179
    Scott W
    Mar 17, 2006
  5. Progressiveabsolution

    Canon 5D vs. Medium Format (Film)

    Progressiveabsolution, Sep 25, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    187
    Views:
    3,999
    Kinon O'Cann
    Oct 19, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page