Digital Dilema

Hello to all. This is my first post and wanted to start out here on Layback Cafe. I have been photographing for many years and I am quite happy in the new world of digital. In fact, I embraced it a long time ago. That doesn't mean that I only shoot digital. I have certain clients that still request film, but I am sure it will be a matter of time before that changes. For my landscape photographs that have a lot of detail in them, I have always preferred my Pentax 67 (medium format) camera. My Canon 1Ds Mark ll which does a fabulous job of mid-range and close up, doesn't quite measure up to the task of capturing the fine detail of landscape photography.

I know you are wondering where I am going with this. In a nutshell, I prefer using digital for everything. I prefer the workflow and the flexibility, but I just can't get the quality that I am looking for with my Canon 1Ds Mark II. Perhaps the next generation Canon digital may do the job, but I don't think so. In many cases, the 1Ds Mark II exceeds what the current line up of lenses can handle anyway, so what good is a 22 MP (just guessing) going to give me? The only really big improvement is to move up to a medium format camera with a digital back, and I am not willing (or able) to make such a huge investment.

So I guess for the time being, I am living in the world of film and digital, using my Canon for many things but pulling out my Pentax 67 for my most serious landscape work.

Thanks for letting me ramble on a bit.
Best,
J. Paul

I'm still using 6x7 and even 4x5 for enlargements greater than 20x24, however I'd dispute that a higher resolution sensor can't wring yet more from the current lenses because high accutance film still can. I've seen a lot of technical arguments beyond my level of science in both directions ("I know you're smarter than I am, but I think you made up some of those words"--Rocky Rooster).

If Canon puts out a higher resolution camea, I'll see what the "ground truth" actually is before deciding what is or is not possible.

If the tooth fairy were to leave an Aptus 75 under my pillow, it would be very nice, though.

J. Paul,

Have you tried stitching pictures from your 1Ds2? A few 1Ds2 shots stitched together should be able to give you the detail you are looking for, i.e., detail equal to or better than 6x7 film. With a shift lens, you should be able to make stitching as easy and seamless as possible (though you could probably do fine without using a shift lens, too.) This won't work in every single landscape situation, but will in many... perhaps most.

I, too, dispute the notion that "...the 1Ds Mark II exceeds what the current line up of lenses can handle..." Perhaps this is true for a few rare cases of the extreme corners of shots taken at the smallest aperture with the worst zoom lenses in the most challenging light situations, however it is not generally the case (at least in terms of resolving power). I see some degree of single-pixel-width resolution in my pictures too often (including in difficult circumstances, such as in the edges and corners, at small apertures, in shadow areas, through teleconverters, etc.) to believe that my lenses are impeding the resolution my 1Ds2 sensor can record.

Mike

www.mikespinak.com

Thanks to Kirk and Mike for responding to my email. I guess I will have to see what the replacement will be for the 1Ds Mark II before I make a final judgement. Since I can't carry both my 6x7 Pentax and my Canon 1Ds Mark II in my backpack, I will have to decide on a per shoot situation which I will carry and which system will offer the best results. I will have to try stitching again to see what results I can get too. My first attempts at doing this were not so good, but I have since learned how to properly do it.

Maybe as Kirk pointed out the tooth fairy will bring me a Hassy and Phase One back. That would certainly allow me to put the Pentax 67 in the closet.

Thanks again!
J. Paul

jpaulmoore said:

Hello to all. This is my first post and wanted to start out here on Layback Cafe. I have been photographing for many years and I am quite happy in the new world of digital. In fact, I embraced it a long time ago. That doesn't mean that I only shoot digital. I have certain clients that still request film, but I am sure it will be a matter of time before that changes. For my landscape photographs that have a lot of detail in them, I have always preferred my Pentax 67 (medium format) camera. My Canon 1Ds Mark ll which does a fabulous job of mid-range and close up, doesn't quite measure up to the task of capturing the fine detail of landscape photography.

I know you are wondering where I am going with this. In a nutshell, I prefer using digital for everything. I prefer the workflow and the flexibility, but I just can't get the quality that I am looking for with my Canon 1Ds Mark II. Perhaps the next generation Canon digital may do the job, but I don't think so. In many cases, the 1Ds Mark II exceeds what the current line up of lenses can handle anyway, so what good is a 22 MP (just guessing) going to give me? The only really big improvement is to move up to a medium format camera with a digital back, and I am not willing (or able) to make such a huge investment.

So I guess for the time being, I am living in the world of film and digital, using my Canon for many things but pulling out my Pentax 67 for my most serious landscape work.

Thanks for letting me ramble on a bit.
Best,
J. Paul

Click to expand...

What in the quality are you missing? Is it resolution, contrast, dynamic range or what else?

I like the Pentax 6x7. However, I find it hard to believe you can't manage with existing lenses including exotic lenses with adapters.

Can you give examples where your 1DII failed you?

If it is skin color, then you would be expressing a particular taste.

Asher

Dear Asher,
Thanks for responding! I am not sure I can articulate what it is exactly, but I would guess that it is more of a resolution issue. When I am shooting a big scene with lots of detail such as foliage, is when I really notice it. I have heard others compare the 1Ds Mark II to 645 format. Having shot Velvia for years, the images from the 1Ds Mark II have to be tweaked a bit to get that look. One thing about film is that it is all there, you either have it or not.

I have not tried any different combinations of exotic lenses with adapters, nor have I used any other Raw converter software other than ACR and occasionally DPP.

Thanks,
J. Paul

jpaulmoore said:

Dear Asher,
Thanks for responding! I am not sure I can articulate what it is exactly, but I would guess that it is more of a resolution issue. When I am shooting a big scene with lots of detail such as foliage, is when I really notice it. I have heard others compare the 1Ds Mark II to 645 format. Having shot Velvia for years, the images from the 1Ds Mark II have to be tweaked a bit to get that look. One thing about film is that it is all there, you either have it or not.

I have not tried any different combinations of exotic lenses with adapters, nor have I used any other Raw converter software other than ACR and occasionally DPP.

Thanks,
J. Paul

Click to expand...

J.,

With portraits, there is no shortage of detail in almost all cases, except perhaps for hair. The question here it seems is one of tone or the relative plastic look depending on RAW processing.

There is also noise in objects of uniform texture such as sky and sheet metal seen in architecture.

MF such as Phase One deals with this issue.

Detail rich subjects such as foliage or grasses are easily handled by a 1DII with Zeiss, Leica, Olympus or Nikon wide angle lenses. One may have to stitch, but it is worth it.

Full frame cameras need these lenses. I use the Zeiss Contax Distagons for this and the detail rendered is excellent. I can't beleive that any ordinary film will out resolve these combinations.

A bargain way to start is to buy the Zeiss 28mm 2.8 MM Distagon. It is very inexpensive and so sharp with excellent color rendering. Zeiss lenses perform very well wide open too.

With film, no one would take development to chance for serious work. Similarly with digital. With the latter, there are many more dimensions of creativity and therefore ways of screwing up great images.

RAW development is still a work on progress. Try different processors and you m,ight find the look you want. Some like FredMiranda.com actions to get the Velvia look. There are many options available from other sources too to choose from, some probably free.

I suggest you post a link to an image and start a thread, "Getting the Velvia Look" and see what response you get in the RAW forum.

Good luck,

Asher

Are we sure it isn't the same problem we had back in the late 70's when movie film (my media) was replaced by Video tape?

Lighting became a real headache in that video was a "flat" medium whereas with film there was a more pronounced illusion of a 3rd dimension. Perhaps in part this was due to the layered chemical process of film as opposed to the "too-accurate" reproduction of digital equipment. Even within Video, there was a phospher based 3-tube (gun) initially and it wasn't as pronounced as the eventuall adoption of the CCD.

Different media? sure but identical technology employed. Us 'old-timers' still recall the warmth and that something special about film. Give it another generation and it will be moot.

Michael Reichmann & friends have put out a DVD of 'real' images that exemplify what you can expect from a high-resolution full-frame camera, & from larger digital backs. You can order the DVD from the Luminous-Landscape website & make your own comparison to see just what you're gaining/missing.

movie film/video

Re movie/video.

wrt prosumer video cameras/film cameras, - the more recent video sensors are about 1/3 inch square, so the problem is one of increased depth of field, i.e. everything will be more or less in focus, it is more difficult to accentuate the subject by making it the only in-focus object. Also film grain and scratches, jitter, and frame speed (24fps film/ 30ish for ntsc - never the same colour - Pal is better wrt speed, and colour, usually).

Mind you, its a bit like making a laser printed letter look like hand typed, imho. If digital had been invented first folk would be wanting to emulate that look in film.

Best wishes,

Ray