Best for taking landscape.

[Hadley]

I was thinking of upgrading, and the photo's I really like taking are landscapes. Now I was just going to go for a straight digital upgrade to something full frame. However one of my guru's of photography said that it would be better for me to go for a medium format film camera like a Mamiya or a Hasselblad. Of course this is all assuming that I can't afford the a large format camera (which I can't).

Any thoughts? I'm not a die hard professional, however I'd describe my self as a keen amature. I think what I'm really worried about it loosing the convenience and flexibility of digital. Also I was planning to take it out in some very nasty weather and conditions, I know that the pro-range digitals are very well sealed to the elements, what about medium format cameras?

 

[dinners]

Moving to medium / large format film is not so much an upgrade but a whole new aspect of photography.

Budget obviously plays a huge part in any decision you make but full frame digital might be the obvious next step.

It's a huge qustion really - what are you missing with your 20D and what are you wanting to do that you can't do already ?

 

[Hadley]

Moving to medium / large format film is not so much an upgrade but a whole new aspect of photography.

Budget obviously plays a huge part in any decision you make but full frame digital might be the obvious next step.

It's a huge qustion really - what are you missing with your 20D and what are you wanting to do that you can't do already ?

I think what I want at the end of the day is better image quality. My 20D's good, but I'm under the impression that I could get so much more from a newer/speced up camera.

However I think the angle that my photography friend is coming from is that should I ever take something that I'm really proud off, I wouldn't be able to print it above A3 and not use it commercially. This was part of his argument for going medium format. He also gave me the impression that my OM2 would produce much better images with film that any current digital camera.

He also said that no proffesional landscape photographer is useing digital at the moment.

Also going full frame gives access to some higher quality lenses that would be lost on the 1.6 crop.

Again I think it's going back to IQ, or have I been lead astray with dreams of all this expensive equipment that I'd never use to it's full potential?

 

[dinners]

I think what I want at the end of the day is better image quality. My 20D's good, but I'm under the impression that I could get so much more from a newer/speced up camera.

Yes and No - For landscapes you should be OK.

However I think the angle that my photography friend is coming from is that should I ever take something that I'm really proud off, I wouldn't be able to print it above A3 and not use it commercially.

Size wise - going above A3 is a MP issue when it comes to 'printing' but commercially that depends on what the images are being used for.

He also said that no proffesional landscape photographer is useing digital at the moment.

That's not true any more

Also going full frame gives access to some higher quality lenses that would be lost on the 1.6 crop.

It's not that going full frame gives access to 'better lenses' - more a case of Full frame 'deserving' better lenses.

Quality lenses (L for example) are top notch right to the edge but your cropped camera only uses the sweet spot in the middle of the lens. A full frame camera deserves a decent lens as it uses all of the image but something like the EF-S 17-55 is a superb lens on a cropped sensor.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

If you're not already using L-glass, then I'd suggest upgrading your lenses first. I'm not a Canon user, but when I started using the top end Nikon lenses, I noticed a definite difference. Remember that if you're upgrading to full frame, you might be needing some new lenses unless you've already got some full frame compatible lenss.

Medium format is great, and certainly cheaper than investing in a full frame body and lens. However, near if you've never used film before, you might be in for a shock in terms of things like the time taken to set things up, the limited number of exposures, and of course the cost incurred each time you send a film away for processing and scanning (unles you're scanning yourself, in which cse you'll need to factor in the cost of a good quality medium format scanner as well.)

 

[Hadley]

When I was refering to better lenses I was thinking of getting the 17-40L, which wouldn't be as wide on a crop sensor.

Also on another note, I have used 35mm film before.

Having thought about it I'm just a bit bothered by loosing the ease of Digital. and the cost of developing film.

 

[Tracer]

Have a look at this post on DPreview by Roman Johnston, about making large prints from a D70 (6mp). Then look at the rest of the thread which gives some links to some of his other threads on the same subject.

I'm sure you don't need to go to to the hassel of medium format. Depending on your long-term budget you could upgrade your lens(es) first, maybe getting FX ones so that they would fit a later FX body. Also a decent tripod if you don't have one already.

I believe stock photo libraries ask for images of around 50mb and no reasonable camera is going to give you that yet. Up-rezzing is used - you can use Photoshop though I believe one of the best is Genuine Fractals which is a lot cheaper than a medium format camera!

FWIW I once, for fun, had a 10" x 15" enlargement made by Snapfish of a landscape I took with a Powershot A520, a 3mp compact. I resized it first in Elements 2. I was astonished at the result - close up you could see individual blades of grass and amazing fine detail, and in fact it looked better in the print than on the monitor.

If Ii were you I would stick to digital, at least for the moment, and avoid a lot of frustration and debt!