Digital Medium Format

I

ivoeman

Messages
7
Name
Ivo Eman
Edit My Images
No
Hi,
I am a fanatic medium format user and shoot with a Mamiya RB67 Pro. This is a film camera and gives stunning images. We all know that developping film gets more expensive and more difficult to get done. So I am now considering making the step to digital.

The question for me is which one to go for. Does anybody has advice on how, for example, the DSLRs compare to digital backs or the Mamiya ZD camara? I have little experience and would like to have some ideas and experiences.

Cameras I am considering (disregarding the prices)
Nikon D700, Canon 5D (for the price)
Mamiya Back for RZ67, Mamiya ZD (for pixels and image quality)

Thanks,
Ivo
 
ivoeman said:
We all know that developping film gets more expensive and more difficult to get done.
Click to expand...


If you are a pro shooting hundreds of rolls a year then yes it probably would be more cost effective to buy a digital back (if you had an RZ or RZProIID) But for amateurs like myself it's still way cheaper to buy 5 or 10 packs and either develop myself or use a mail order lab like DLAB7 then scan the transparencies.

Got to do the maths and see what savings could be made I suppose, though even with the digital back for the RZ you're still going to lose a big chunk of that 6x7 loveliness
 
I can't recommend using a digital back on the RZ.

That's what I did but although there's nothing wrong with the quality (way above any so-called full frame DSLR) the difference in sensor size/film size means that it's impossible to get any lenses that produce a wideangle effect
 
Some thoughts on medium format digi, in no particular order.....

You could get hold of a back for the RB for a couple of grand. It will be a small sensor though, in terms of crop factor to the 6*7 neg. This means that you will struggle to shoot anything wide.

Even the old backs like the Valeo 11 produce stunning files and having 16 bit capture means that an 11 megapixel digiback is a different league in terms of image quality to an 11 megapixel DLSR.

You don't get high ISO performance with digibacks. Consider 400 to be top of the green so to speak. You can use 800 on the newer models but it's not what they're about. Coming from film, this isn't really going to rock your world though is it. People using the newer Nikons are getting used to using 3200 and upwards as a regular occurrence.

I use Canon kit when MF isn't practical, for speed or wide lenses mostly and coming from mamiya lenses on a leaf back, I tend to consider the very best canon glass as barely passable.

If you're looking to pass on the best images you can to clients, I'd say a digiback is more or less a standard requirement. If you just want to take your time and enjoy making fabulous images for your own pleasure, stick with film. Digi still cant touch it for delicacy of tone and quality of shadow detail.

Then again, no film will ever give you the 12 stops of exposure latitude that MF digi will. ;)
 
Prices for these backs arn't cheap. The best price I found for the ZD back is around £5,000. They do have a larger CCD than the 5D ( OK I know the 5D has a CMOS) but it's smaller than the full frame of the camera. OK you also get 22Mp files.

I can't find a back for the RZ, but then I haven't been looking to hard. Most of these backs use a 36 x 48mm chip, much smaller than the full frame with either camera.

Generally due to the larger photosite these chips have, the noise in the image is very low. However you have to trade this off against the price.

Like all camera systems is horses for courses. It all depends on what you want to use the image for and how large it is going to be used.

There has been some discussion over on the Luminous Landscape site about MF digital backs and the Canon EOS 1Dslll. The general opinion is that the MF backs yield a better image, due to the capture technology used. However they are comparing Leaf and Phase One systems. These cost at least twice as much as the Canon.

Unless you are doing high end catalogue work, or need really big enlargements I think the 5D or the 700 would be excellent cameras. I have a 5D in my kit and am very pleased with the results. I should also add I have also used 6 x6 as well, and whilst I do occasionally get the urge for a larger camera, I believe the results I get from the 5D are superior to scanned 6x6 trannies. In fact many non photo enthusiast magazines no longer accept anything else but digital files . Plus shooting RAW also gives me more control over the final image
 
Great, thanks for all your input!

Wide angle is crucial to me. I use a 45mm on my RB and don't want to compromise on that in fact. I will probably keep shooting on film for now. In that case I might consider a 5D.
Does anybody know if the Mamiya ZD 645 camera has the same wide angle problem?

Cheers,
Ivo
 
The problem with any digital back is the limitation of the chip. As far as I am aware you will still have a wide angle problem as the chip will be smaller than the normal film format.
 
The standard sensor size for backs is now 6*45 and IIRC the first to offer this was the Valeo 22, which if you were to try and P/ex with Leaf would probably be worth less than £2k now.

The widest lens that you can get as far I know, is 28mm. Although there might be a Schneider Digitar 24mm for view cameras. The cost of the Mamiya 28mm for the AFD or ZD cameras is a tad over £3k, so it's not a cheap party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top