snakyjake
Newbie
 Offline
Posts: 3
|
 |
« on: December 19, 2012, 04:33:07 PM » |
 Reply
|
Seeking someone who has test shots to compare the Nikon D800E w/ prime lens, 6x7 scanned film using Imacom (and future Plustek Opticfilm 120), and digital 645.
I don't photoshoot to make money, but do it for art. This means I'm picky, have the time to get it the way I want, but don't have a large budget ($10K max, more comfortable with $5K). The scenes I capture are special to me, which is why I preferred MF to 35mm 10 years ago.
Since the film processing/print labs no longer locally exist like they used to, and technology has advanced over the past 10 years, it is time re-evaluate my equipment and investment. Whatever I decide is going to cost me good money, so I'm ready to re-evalute my total investment and perhaps move to a different platform.
• Have a medium format film (Mamiya 7II and Mamiya RB67) setup.
• I photoshoot landscapes with buildings or old objects in the photo, but nothing that requires tilt/shift.
• Demand dynamic range, contrast, and resolution at every corner. I don't like seeing grain or noise, or edge blurriness.
• I like my photos to either make you feel like you're there at the scene.
I've spent two weeks searching and reading the web on the subject. From I've gathered so far:
• Nikon D800E receiving a lot of praise. But I'm concerned the lenses lose focus at the edge. Also concerned about depth of field or losing shadow detail.
• Seen some results of very high end medium format digital backs. Way too expensive for me.
• Digital 645 I'm more curious about. But I'm not sure how it compares to the other options. Not sure of the differences between Pentax, Mamiya, Hasselblad. I don’t need anything fancy or fully automated (I’m used to mechanical cameras). Prefer awesome landscape/scene lenses, solid and durable construction.
• Since I already have MF film camera, scanning seemed like a logical choice. But I’m hearing that scanning film has its own set of negatives, though not exactly sure what they are. Probably can’t afford an Imacom, so I’m considering either Plustek Opticfilm 120 (depending on reviews), or outsourcing my negatives for scanning (which is expensive too).
So either way, I’m looking at spending money and time. I’m at a fork in the road, and need to decide which new road to take. Hoping for a road that doesn’t leave me down a dead end or having to re-invest another $5-10K 5 years from now (though this may be the reality).
Thank you,
Jake
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ian99
Jr. Member
Offline
Posts: 63
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2012, 09:34:33 AM » |
Reply
|
Jake, I have a RZ67 system plus DSLRs. An Imacon will cost $5-10K. IMO a better route is the Nikon 9000ED scanner, which I just happen to have on sale right now!!
Check the For Sale pages or send me an email.
Ian99
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Nelson
|
|
« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2012, 10:23:36 AM » |
Reply
|
Jake, Another option which has worked well for me (YMMV)...If you are located in the US All of my commercial work is digital. I rent the cameras as needed. However, for all my photography, I still shoot my RZ. 4x5 & 35mm film cameras. I send the C-41 to http://phototechlabs.com/ for processing and reference scans. GREAT processing and terrific reference scans. I then send the one or two images (keepers) to be drum scanned here: http://www.eigerstudios.com/. For years I've been scanning on my flatbed scanner and am quite good at it. However, I'm limited by the hardware, time it takes and my skill level (I'm good just not great at it). I'd rather be photographing than scanning. For me the difference in scans between a skilled/experienced drum scanner and my flatbed is enormous. Lenny is just terrific. I've had great success with USPS Priority Mail (so far...). It's fast and cheap to ship, if in the US. No, it's not instant like digital, however, film is not digital, and a CCD/LED scanner is not the same as a drum scan by an experienced tech. This method has been working for me, being able to fondly use my existing film cameras/lens. Food for thought... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
snakyjake
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 3
|
|
« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2012, 02:57:50 PM » |
Reply
|
Michael,
How would you compare large prints from your digital (something like MF645 40MP) vs. 6x7 film drum scanned? Also curious how a MF 40MP compares to Nikon's D800E.
The way I'm seeing it:
* Keep my 6x7 and drum scan.
* But if D800E is as good as a drum scan, then just buy the D800E.
* If MF 645 with 20 or 40 mega pixels is better than drum and the D800E, I'll set a goal to save up for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob C
|
|
« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2012, 03:57:18 PM » |
Reply
|
If you are used to MF film and not into 135 format film, then you must expect to find things very different using a small camera, tiny viewfinder etc. etc. and I don't think that you'd find it a better experience at all.
I used both formats all my working life, and am in the FF digital (Nikon) world right now. I know this: I have often wished that I still owned my old 500 Series 'blads. Why? Because small cameras were and still are very convenient for shooting model pix, but for anything else, I would really prefer the slower, far more studied approach that MF forces upon you. Of course you can shoot 135 format slowly; trouble is you never do. Or at least, I can't.
If your interest is in b/white, you can process your own stuf at home quite easily. If you like colour, then continue as you're doing and send off to a lab you trust. I have an idea that they have reached a critical mass, where those that survived so far now have all of the market to themselves and might find that good enough for future existence; maybe the film-making people will feel the same. Either way, I don't think there's a need for a rush to jump right now.
Rob C
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
dlimited
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 18
|
|
« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2012, 10:04:33 PM » |
Reply
|
Jake,
I sent you a PM
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FredBGG
|
|
« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2012, 11:37:44 PM » |
Reply
|
• Digital 645 I'm more curious about. But I'm not sure how it compares to the other options. Not sure of the differences between Pentax, Mamiya, Hasselblad. I don’t need anything fancy or fully automated (I’m used to mechanical cameras). Prefer awesome
Jake
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
FredBGG
|
|
« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2012, 11:41:37 PM » |
Reply
|
• Digital 645 I'm more curious about. But I'm not sure how it compares to the other options. Not sure of the differences between Pentax, Mamiya, Hasselblad. I don’t need anything fancy or fully automated (I’m used to mechanical cameras). Prefer awesome
Jake
The Pentax 645D while being the least expensive is very well weather sealed for water and dust. Neithe Mamiya or Hasselblad are weather sealed. Same goes for the lenses. http://youtu.be/7wPD1wRpelsAlso the Pentax has two card slots so you have either redundancy (images saved once on each card) or twice the storage capacity. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dennishh
|
|
« Reply #12 on: December 22, 2012, 10:32:15 AM » |
Reply
|
Thanks for doing the comparison! Did you happen to shoot a series that f5.6? Seems like some diffraction is starting to happen with the Nikon at F11 would be interesting to see the two at f5.6 or f8
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BernardLanguillier
|
|
« Reply #15 on: December 24, 2012, 09:06:07 AM » |
Reply
|
Thanks for reminding us of that article. It is pretty fascinating to realize that most top APS cameras, if not 4/3, today are clearly superior to the 1ds in all aspects. Cheers, Bernard |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
A few images online here! |
|
|
|
Go Go
|
|
« Reply #16 on: December 24, 2012, 10:04:56 AM » |
Reply
|
For all things related to analog photography you might want to check out apug.org!
A great resource!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
