Been hearing and reading alot about digital being the death of Medium Format..

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by nonamegiven, Nov 17, 2003.

  1. nonamegiven

    nonamegiven Guest

    I don't understand all this but some ads say some digitals are better
    or give you the same thing as medium format. I know that MF sales
    have been flat for some time and every mfg is looking for ways to make
    a profit. Maybe MF needs to go digital or is that possible? Lots of
    question during a techo shift.
     
    nonamegiven, Nov 17, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/mf-backs.shtml

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 17, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. nonamegiven

    gsum Guest

    There is loads of second hand MF gear on the market at the
    moment so it is a very good time to buy. If you're into
    landscapes, take a look at the Fuji 645 and 690 rangefinders -
    incredible lenses and very compact.

    Epson have released a groundbreaking product in their
    3200 flatbed scanner (see Photo-i for in-depth review)
    which costs about 250 UK pounds.

    Scanning a 6x9cm slide at a mere 1200 ppi gives a 10mpixel
    resolution image. When using a fine grained film such as
    Provia 100 no film nasties are apparent. Provia can be scanned
    at up to about 1800 - 2000 ppi, after which, grain becomes
    dominant and no further information can be obtained from the
    film.

    So to finally answer you question, I've gone from a Nikon D100
    back to film (at quite low cost) for the extra resolution but
    the D100 still gets far more use than the film cameras due to its
    convenience, features and the incredible quality of the images,
    within the limitations of the 6mpixel resolution. I don't think that
    Canon or Nikon will manufacture MF resolution digitals in the
    foreseeable future as they have not been involved in MF in
    recent years, and they know that the overall quality of their
    DSLRs equals that of 35mm film. A digital version of the
    Fuji GA645 - now there's a thought.

    Graham
     
    gsum, Nov 17, 2003
    #3
  4. nonamegiven

    Ron Hunter Guest

    It will require a LOT more pixels before medium format film is threatened.
     
    Ron Hunter, Nov 17, 2003
    #4
  5. nonamegiven

    Ken Burns Guest

    Medium format went digital a long time ago. Interchangeable digital backs
    for the MF cameras were available long before the digital equivalents of
    35mm. They've always been expensive, and therefore have been practical
    mostly for high volume commercial applications. If you want to see the
    latest ones, check out the new Hasselblad.

    KB
     
    Ken Burns, Nov 17, 2003
    #5
  6. nonamegiven

    Tom Monego Guest

    The reason for medium format sales being flat is the quality/cost of the
    equipment. Only the very wealthy or pros can afford it. 35mm films have gotten
    so good that the casual hobbyist doesn't see the need for anything larger.
    That said digital has also made in roads into the large print market. You can
    get very acceptable large prints from 5 and 6mp cameras, use resizing software
    and the results border on amazing. Are the prints better than enlarged mf
    prints yes and no. The top quality cameras Hassleblad, Rollei, 6x7 Mamiyas &
    Pentax a digital enlargement would have a hard time compeating against. Lesser
    mf cameras which unfortunatly are beat out by the better quality digital
    prints.

    Tom
     
    Tom Monego, Nov 17, 2003
    #6
  7. And even if you can afford it, the time required for scanning or B&W
    darkroom work makes it almost unusable. Sigh.
    Actually, 35mm films have gotten _worse_ over the years. K25 and Ektar 25
    are no longer available, and nothing has replaced them. The latest Fuji
    films (Velvia 100F and Astia 100F) finally give us some options with
    reasonably neutral color rendition and Provia 100F grain and sharpness, but
    they just aren't in the K25/Ektar class in terms of resolution and grain.

    And it looks to me that while a Rollei 35, CLE, Contax T and Provia/Reala
    allow the informed casual hobbyist to get good images, the prints most
    people get from 35mm film are seriously abysmal. Consumer 35mm films and
    consumer 35mm processing are so bad that consumer digital has no problem
    providing a significant improvement in image quality.
    It sounds as though you have problems with your printing/scanning services.
    There's a lot more information in a 645 frame than in a 6MP image. If you
    can't get better prints from 645 than 6MP digital, somethings wrong in your
    645 workflow. (Not that it's worth the effort fixing those problems; that's
    another question.)

    Also, there aren't any "lesser" mf cameras, other than pre-war old antiques.
    Even a 1950's Rolleiflex or a Fuji P&S 645 with Provia and a 4000 dpi
    scanner kicks 6MP digital's butt. (Of course, learning enough about scanning
    to be able to get better work out of 645 than 6MP digital is a rather
    pointless academic excercise: one could just spend the time moonlighting
    flipping burgers and buy a 1Ds on extra income.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 17, 2003
    #7
  8. nonamegiven

    Ray Fischer Guest

    They're lying.
    A medium format photograph is about the equivalent of a 50 megapixel
    digital camera.
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 18, 2003
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.