Tuolumne
Mentor
That is my experience from what I've seen of medium format photos online, although the explanation for it is obscure. It would seem that any image should be no better than the weakest link in the imaging chain, no matter its source.ywenz said:
/T
Tuolumne
Mentor
These are the kind of issues, mentioned in this post, that make me wonder about the digitization chain in creating digital files of medium format negatives:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=608615#post608615
/T
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=608615#post608615
/T
ywenz
Mentor
Here is a BIG frame from my Yashica 124G, shot hand held in a tight arena seat, and probably drunk with massive urge to hit the restroom. Film is 400NPH, scanned on my $150 Epson 4180 flatbed.. dpi setting? forgot..
The image resolution is superb for such a "sub par" workflow.. hard to imagine a digital crop sensor matching the MF format when lens+film+scanning are all improved, which you can easily, given my ghetto MF setup..
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1150/966406984_c789bc2e18_o.jpg
The image resolution is superb for such a "sub par" workflow.. hard to imagine a digital crop sensor matching the MF format when lens+film+scanning are all improved, which you can easily, given my ghetto MF setup..
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1150/966406984_c789bc2e18_o.jpg
Last edited:
Tuolumne
Mentor
That is a great example. While not the best, as you point out, the details on the faces of individuals in the distant crowd are clearly discernable. Now, why would that be, considering the degradation during scanning must be considerable? Or, another way to put it, why can't camera manufacturers make digital cameras as good as the far cheaper scanners that scanner manufacturers make?ywenz said:
/T
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
ywenz, I'm pleasantly surprised that you are leaning towards the MF over the digital cropped 35 solution. Has someone stolen your identity? 
(I'm a film dinosaur and should just stay out of this kind of thread.)
(I'm a film dinosaur and should just stay out of this kind of thread.)
ywenz
Mentor
FrankS: I always argue on the side of reason. The criteria in this case: raw resolution for landscape photography..
10 Years ago a reasonable question would be, why can't the camera manufactures make a digital camera as good as the far cheaper disposable cameras? Well, that was then...
Tuolumne said:
10 Years ago a reasonable question would be, why can't the camera manufactures make a digital camera as good as the far cheaper disposable cameras? Well, that was then...
Last edited:
Ben Z
Mentor
My hat's off to anyone with the gumption to hike with an upper-level DSLR and "pro" lenses capable of really detailed landscape photos, or a medium-format outfit. I tried it years ago, at Bryce/Zion national parks and if I hadn't stuck my M4 and 35-50-90 in a small bag at the last moment I wouldn't have had any keepers from the trip. I hadn't noticed "hiking" around the camera store how quickly I would become exhausted carrying a Pentax 67, 4 lenses, a backpack large enough to hold it, and a tripod and head big enough to hold it steady. Especially with a few thousand feet of altitude thrown in the mix.
Ed Schwartzreic
Well-known
Lots of entries on the thread in the hour or so since I was last here.
I was thinking of a) subjects at infinity, to deal with the DoF issues -- hence landscapes, as well as b) a still life of some sort, both of course with tripod-mounted cameras. Any suggestions?
I was thinking of a) subjects at infinity, to deal with the DoF issues -- hence landscapes, as well as b) a still life of some sort, both of course with tripod-mounted cameras. Any suggestions?
ywenz
Mentor
Ben Z said:
People do weekend hikes with 30-50lbs backpacks all the time.. if one is doing a simple day hike for photo ops, I'm sure they can substitute 15-20lbs of that for camera + lenses..
richard_l
Well-known
30-50 lbs for a weekender!?!? Ummm... There's been an ultralight trend for the past 15 or 20years, and the average for a weekender nowadays would be about 15-25 lbs. (Unless you're also lugging your girlfriend's gear.) That said, it's true that Galen Rowell lugged 60 lb packs with lots of photographic gear into the wilderness. Some of us, however, enjoy the walk as much as (or more than) taking pictures. Galen was a pro. That's a different animal.ywenz said:
Richard
Last edited:
KM-25
Well-known
FrankS said:
Well, lets start here:
The late Galen Rowell is arguably one the best landscape photographers of all time...he used 35mm exclusively.
I shoot landscapes professionally in a few modes...
1. FujiGSW690III. Really sharp lens, really light and easy to use camera, but won't do as I am hanging on a ledge looking at a fine landscape across the valley while in mid-climb.
2. Nikon FM3A, Leica M6, Canon 5D and hopefully the Leica M8. All more portable solutions to a larger / heavier medium or large format camera. So the fleeting moments in high places where one's exposure to the elements take a front seat to a photograph, well.....this leads to landscape images that no medium or large format is suited for.
I suppose if Cinematographer David Breshears can haul a 25 pound Imax camera to the summit of Everest, I could manage to tote a medium format camera to 14,000 feet.
But the point is, the image defines the image, not the tool used.
Last edited:
KM-25
Well-known
Ben Z said:
This past Sunday, I hauled my back country photo pack up some 4,000 vertical feet to 12,456 feet in just 4 miles, made it up in 1:53.
In just camera terms, the pack contained one 6x9 rangefinder, One Canon 5D, 16-35-II, 50 macro, extension tube, 85 1.8, flash, pocket wizard, spot meter, three batteries, 20GB in CF cards, 10 rolls of 220 Velvia, Gitzo medium carbon fiber. The whole thing weighed close to 36 LBS at launch with a full 100 OZ water bladder.
I don't use the dorky photo backpacks, can't put my Camelback bladder, clothes, avalanche equipment, bivy sack and all that more-important-than-photography stuff in it.
I spent over 6 hours at 12000 to 12,456 feet shooting stock.
I also use the light and fast as hell approach....I am really looking forward to the M8 helping in that role....
[email protected]
Established
I am a happy M8 user, AND a very happy MF user (Rolleiflex 2.8 Xenotar).
There is simply no comparison between the files. Each has its own look, to be sure, but the 'flex, when used properly, produces a better, more detailed file. Hands down. Does that make me unhappy with my Leica? Not at all. It's great for street situations where speed and discretion are required. It is capable of fine landscapes, too. Just not MF quality.
You can find examples of work from both cameras, plus my Hexar RF on my flickr site.
There is simply no comparison between the files. Each has its own look, to be sure, but the 'flex, when used properly, produces a better, more detailed file. Hands down. Does that make me unhappy with my Leica? Not at all. It's great for street situations where speed and discretion are required. It is capable of fine landscapes, too. Just not MF quality.
You can find examples of work from both cameras, plus my Hexar RF on my flickr site.
iml
Well-known
My Rolleiflex 3.5 is lighter and easier to carry long distances than my M6. I use both for landscape photography, but for max quality there's no doubt the Rollei wins.
This "M8 files look like MF" idea seems to be around in the ether, I haven't yet seen any images which make me think it's true. This is not to say the M8 isn't capable of making very good images, of course.
Ian
This "M8 files look like MF" idea seems to be around in the ether, I haven't yet seen any images which make me think it's true. This is not to say the M8 isn't capable of making very good images, of course.
Ian
Toby
On the alert
I would say that if you are going to spend M8 money on a landscape camera, you could buy virtually any type of camera with that budget, 4x5 6x17 or 6x12, or some pretty nice nikon glass for your D200. What you need to know is what you intend to shoot and where, and in what style, as equipment wise the possibilities are endless with this budget.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
iml said:
You wouldn't, Ian, not on Internet Jpegs that is. Have a look at large prints: The MF wins on resolution, the M8 on definition. The net result is that the quality is similar. 35 film is behind both....Unless, of course the image on th 35 film is made by the better photographer, in that case, and every case, the image wins over the technique....
Last edited:
iml
Well-known
Jaap, I've seen large prints. I've had a reasonable amount of exposure to M8 outputs, not just on the web. It's a good camera, no doubt, but I don't think it matches MF.
Ian
Ian
FrankS
Registered User
KM-25 said:
Originally Posted by FrankS
A better tool for this job is a medium format camera; the best tool for this application is a large format camera, given your criteria for large prints, and where sharpness and detail rendering are a big consideration.
I don't see how this can be argued.
I'm sticking to my guns on this. The OP empasised those criteria, not light weight or ease of handling. For your application of cliff climbing and ledge camping, I would not recommend a LF camera.
