Hey Guys,

I have been very curious about film lately. I worked with film (35mm b&w) years ago and haven't touched it since. Right now I use a Canon 5D and 5D MII for Weddings, Portraits and Landscapes. For weddings and portraits I love it. For landscapes its been great, but I noticed that when I print larger than 16x20 I see the limits. I use the 24-105mm, 70-200 L IS f2.8 and a 180mm Macro (macro lens is the sharpest of the 3).

If I were to go with a Contax 645 system and use film (Good iso 50 and 100 films) would I see a difference here? I was thinking of getting this setup with a nice scanner. Right now the only Digital Back I would be able to get would be a P20 or something similar...so right now my main interest is film.

I have never really seen a good 645 Film scan, so I am truthfully in the dark here on how it compares. I only intend to use this camera for doing landscape shots, the wedding and portrait stuff will stay digital (unless someone wants black and whites only).

Please enlighten me

There are tons of threads on this topic here and elsewhere, a quick search will enligten you more than one single answer ever could.

My view is that you will not gain much with 645 compared to the latest bread of DSLRs, other might disagree.

- The resolution won't be that different,
- Your DSLR has more DR than slide film,
- Scanning is a pain.

One sure thing is that if you decide to try stitching with your 5DII you will be able to reach very easily levels of resolution far beyond what 645 could ever produce.

Cheers,
Bernard

I have stitched in the past (got a panosaur or whatever its called) and it works well in certain situations, but its a pain to do.

If I may ask, what part do you think is a pain?

The two 100+ megapixel examples below were shot this weekend. Capture time was around one minute or less and Autopano Giga was able to get a perfect stitch without any manual contribution. Open, click twice and you've got a 150 megapixel stitch that appears perfect to my eyes.





I you haven't stitched recently, then it might make sense to look at the latest software packages, starting with Autopano Pro/Giga. The progress in 2 years has been absolutely tremendous.

Regards,
Bernard

Hi,

Check this: http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...vs-mfdb-vs-film

and this: http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...-sony-alpha-900

I'd expect that there would be no benefit from 645 over Canon 5DII

Best regards
Erik

Moving objects are a pain and I can never make it look just right. One example would be movement in water, I went to Maui 2 years ago and ran into this issue trying to stitch a scene with water, I could never get it to look right.

However, I will say that the stitched images I did in yosemite turned out really well and made great large prints. You can only tell they were stitched if you know where to look.

Water is mostly not a problem with today's software. Perfect stitches are not only possible (there is nowhere where to look to find a flaw), they are also easy.

Before spending a lot of money on new hardware, you migh want to try downloading a trial copy of Autopano Pro and apply it to your difficult scenes?

Anyway, if you want to try film that can also be lots of fun and will deliver good results too. Good luck.

Cheers,
Bernard

downloading a trial copy of Autopano Pro
********
I dabbled with panos a year or so go and then stopped. Downloaded autopano and there is a big difference in ease of use and the end result.

Steve

I have many scanned negatives from 645 and 6x7 cameras from years past, and when making prints from those as well as the Canon's I get the feeling they are very similar in the ability to resolve detail. I don't think 645 film will deliver any significant advantage over a current 20+mp dSLR from canon or Nikon.

I find it surprising the OP feels 16x20 is the limit of the 5D Mark 2, because I see 16x20's as no problem, and have gone much higher with great results, including 30x40's of fairly large families. While the 5D Mark2 perhaps struggles a little at that size, so does 645 film. Thats' why I used a RB67 for families when I used film.

This year I switched from the Bronica RF 645 with Technical Pan film to a Canon 5D2 for my B&W landscape work. While the Bronica can easily resolve more detail than the Canon, and I can detect the difference in some prints that are larger than 16x20, I think, overall, the Canon shots are, on average, better. The main thing I miss with the 645 film -- even Tech Pan -- is the greater dynamic range of the film.

Paul
http://www.paulroark.com/

Hi,

I could see little difference in prints from my A900 and Alpha 700 at 16x24 inch although the difference was huge on screen at actual pixels. So I'd guess that 5DII may go for A1 (23x33") as it should be similar to my Alpha 900.

Best regards
Erik

Having shot landscapes on film until buying a dslr last summer, I would take the 5Dmk2 file over scanned 645 for any print size - 6x7 is a different story however and I'm not sure the 20+ MP dslrs are quite there yet.

I have sold my MF film cameras and stitch with my D700 and have never looked back. I still have my 4x5 though.

It really boils down to your shooting style. It is of lesser importance to have super hi res lenses and cameras if you shoot handheld, at low speeds, mostly of moving subjects, as I do. In many, if not most, of the situations I shoot, I encounter these circumstances. I know I could get far superior IQ with a tripod, MLU, lower ISO and all that, but then I wouldn't have the shot. It's not about great IQ, it's about great photographs, be them hi res or not.

Lately I don't feel so comfortable with the high mpx cameras when I shoot with proper tecnique, because of too much resolution. I need more elaborate and careful sharpening routines to obtain the image I like. Sometimes less is more. The sensor size in the 5D and the 1Ds is just right for the regular Canon zooms. Bigger than that and it starts to get fuzzy.

Read Erwin Putts blog The Tao of Leica. He has good stuff on the matter of your question.

All theories and pixels aside, it boils down to the quality of your scanner, your post processing and your printer. If any of those don't measure up to your current digital equipment and workflow, save your money.

We used 645 in our studio for almost 20 years, becoming quite well acquainted with its abilities and limitations with most films. All printing was done by our lab, traditional wet chemistry directly from the negatives or chromes. We could tell INSTANTLY when they switched and started scanning and digitally printing. Our 6mp Fuji S2's were giving demonstrably better results all the way up to 20x30". We canned the 645s. Ultimately we switched labs, but by then the damage had been done.

IF you are printing directly from the negative or chrome in the darkroom, I'd say that digital capture is going to have to work hard to keep pace. But if you're scanning and printing on a desktop, be suspicious. Be very suspicious.

You might be better off upgrading the 24-105mm lens.



They look pretty good from the small JPGs.

Who said stitching was just for DSLR acquired images? Anyway, I get very good range with Portra 160VC, and very little post correction otherwise needed to milk DSRL files for what I get in one shot on film.
Sensors are getting better, and I'm more concerned with the lenses (there's more to this than just cramming pixels - both film and sensors have the same job of duplicating what the lens delivers anyway), and so I'm getting an EOS adaptor for my Mamiya glass as pixels are cheaper.