adamr1699
Established
The foveon sensors are very intriguing to me especially for the price. Being limited to low ISO, less shots per charge and long post processing certainly would not me an issue. I can't image it would be worse that the time I put it processing film, scanning, dusting and color correcting.
adamr1699
Established
My print size varies but generally does not exceed 16x20 so I would think any resolution above 30 mp or so would be plenty.
adamr1699
Established
Thank you for all the responses! I figured I would clarify a few things:
-Resolution is a secondary concern to functionality, aspect ratio and "character" (as much as I hate that term particularly regarding digital imaging)
-I see no future in which this replaces my black and white process as I have yet to see an inkjet print that can hold a candle to a well printed silver gelatin print.
-Part of my problem with digital has been more to do with myself than the camera. In most shooting situations when I go out to make work digitally I take many more photos than I would on film and they are always worse. The only digital which I didn't have this negative experience was with an H3D-II 40, which I purchased on eBay but ended up having sensor issues. Hence my leaning towards this sort of camera.
-I also really enjoy CCD sensors as opposed to CMOS, they feel more filmic to me which of course could be entirely in my head but at the end of the day does it matter?
-Resolution is a secondary concern to functionality, aspect ratio and "character" (as much as I hate that term particularly regarding digital imaging)
-I see no future in which this replaces my black and white process as I have yet to see an inkjet print that can hold a candle to a well printed silver gelatin print.
-Part of my problem with digital has been more to do with myself than the camera. In most shooting situations when I go out to make work digitally I take many more photos than I would on film and they are always worse. The only digital which I didn't have this negative experience was with an H3D-II 40, which I purchased on eBay but ended up having sensor issues. Hence my leaning towards this sort of camera.
-I also really enjoy CCD sensors as opposed to CMOS, they feel more filmic to me which of course could be entirely in my head but at the end of the day does it matter?
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
I have pretty much exclusively shot film for the last three years. I recently shot a whole load of slide film which I loved, then compared it to the output of a Sigma DP1 I had but hardly used. The colour vibrancy of the Sigma was phenomenal, so I thought I'd try a Sigma SD Quattro and from that moment have not shot any film, colour or black and white.
Yes, you are limited to a very low ISO. Using OS lenses in low light has largely solved that one, or tripod for ultimate sharpness. I've abolished the tedium of scanning and using DNG I can get great results in Lightroom. SA mount lenses are less ubiquitous than the big names, but I've pretty much found all I want. The resolution with the Foveon sensor is amazing. I prefer the output to even medium format film, in both colour and black and white.
Battery life is low, get a battery grip which manages the draw much better than a single one in camera. I bought an SD Quattro off ebay in the UK from someone who had bought his from Sigma only months before. With the 30mm Art lens the total was £650. It is beautifully built, AF is slow though.
Done Fuji for some time - nice results but I never really loved the result in the way I do with the Sigma.
Yes, you are limited to a very low ISO. Using OS lenses in low light has largely solved that one, or tripod for ultimate sharpness. I've abolished the tedium of scanning and using DNG I can get great results in Lightroom. SA mount lenses are less ubiquitous than the big names, but I've pretty much found all I want. The resolution with the Foveon sensor is amazing. I prefer the output to even medium format film, in both colour and black and white.
Battery life is low, get a battery grip which manages the draw much better than a single one in camera. I bought an SD Quattro off ebay in the UK from someone who had bought his from Sigma only months before. With the 30mm Art lens the total was £650. It is beautifully built, AF is slow though.
Done Fuji for some time - nice results but I never really loved the result in the way I do with the Sigma.
sem
Registered User
Hi Adam,
I think it is more a question about the software you are willing to use and learn. When you get familiar you can produce nearly every look with any sensor.
The way is absolute different to film. If you develop you try to get most of every shot. In digital you have far too many shots. So in the beginning you spent lots of time with every shot. My daughter as a pro built a filter so every shot gets the same character. So it is easier to choose.
I use an old Canon body so nearly every lens is in reach and when I truly like the place I go back with a Hasselblad h, the 28 and the 100 with me.
But as you get older it is a question about weight you like to carry around.
Hope it understandible sorry for my English.
Best
Sem
I think it is more a question about the software you are willing to use and learn. When you get familiar you can produce nearly every look with any sensor.
The way is absolute different to film. If you develop you try to get most of every shot. In digital you have far too many shots. So in the beginning you spent lots of time with every shot. My daughter as a pro built a filter so every shot gets the same character. So it is easier to choose.
I use an old Canon body so nearly every lens is in reach and when I truly like the place I go back with a Hasselblad h, the 28 and the 100 with me.
But as you get older it is a question about weight you like to carry around.
Hope it understandible sorry for my English.
Best
Sem
Axel
singleshooter
Exactly my experiences when I came from film to digital.
Feel free to get and use the digital body you like in action and you can use your lenses on.
All the other things will be a question of your digital workflow sooner or later.
It takes a bit to find your individual setup of software. But it is really true, the camera hardware doesn´t matter if you once have found your software tools.
olakiril
Well-known
If you have lenses with a character that you like, then unfortunately you need to find a camera with an appropriate sensor size. As mentioned before, the Fuji 50R is your best bet at your price range. But nowadays there is a huge variety of lenses for smaller format sensors that can have a much larger set of "characters" to choose from.
The easiness of digital is a double-edged sword. Film forces you to slow down whereas digital cameras (with an exception of the older digital medium format cameras) are intentionally made to make the whole process very easy. So once we learn to pace ourselves in the same way as when we shot film, the experience & the results are better.
I get your frustration with Sony. I have the A7rIII and I only started enjoying it once I considered it as a clanky medium format camera. That being said, it is nice to have a camera that is a joy to use, but that is for the most part subjective.
A sensor is just a way to capture some light information. Modern CMOS sensors are far better at that than old CCD sensors and most of them can outperform MF film but many people underestimate the amount of work that has to be put in post. If you want to really maximize the output of a digital camera, you will need to learn to process RAW files.
This is indeed crucial with digital. I have found a way to minimize my processing time with presets that are automatically applied upon import with Lightroom but it took me a lot of time to figure out the parameters that work for me. Finding a post-processing workflow is as important as the camera (if not more).
Axel
singleshooter
The lousy experience to go through with digital at the beginning
Today with digital I make fewer pictures than I did with film.
Because there is no need to fill a film to get the picture.
If I have made two or three pictures of the same object it mostly sucks and the first stays the best.
Only sharpness control now and then leads to another one. You also will get used to it.
No matter if it is the camera or a smartphone. One picture and go.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
Photo printer inks have gotten very good. Prints produced by some photo printers (such as Epson and Canon) are virtually indistinguishable from darkroom "wet" prints.
lcpr
Well-known
GFX 50R is the best bet, but I've really been enjoying my X-Pro 3. The files hold up to 20x16 easily and you can go way bigger if you run the files through Adobe's Super Resolution upscaling, which works wonders.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I can only talk from my own experience. Two cameras I would be happy to recommend are the Nikon DSLR, and the Fuji X100 series. I am still using the Nikon D700, and the original X100. The X100 of course has only the 35mm equivalent focal length, unless you add converter lenses. But 35mm FOV is often just right, and when it is, the X100 is a dream camera to shoot with. It's worth having both. It sounds like you are doing pro work, and so I think you should probably consider the D850, as well as a more recent iteration of the X100 series, for the improvements that have been made with both. The X100v is now a 26MP camera, and the D850 is over 45MP, so either is good for MF quality, I believe.
aizan
Veteran
Aside from Fujifilm GFX, old Hasselblad H with Phase One backs are another option.
Micro 4/3 could also work out.
Micro 4/3 could also work out.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The best solution for a 'dedicated film shooter' using medium format film that wants to retain the feel and workflow of using their film camera is unfortunately a little expensive: buy the Hasselblad 907x body, take the included CFVII 50c back and install it onto nearly any Hasselblad 500 or 200 series body. The effect is like fitting a reduced format A16 back with an infinitely long roll of film in it ... you work with it in almost exactly the same way that you work with any film back on the traditional V-system Hasselblad body.
As much as using other bodies (like the Fujis with their focal plane shutter) with adapted lenses (from, say, the Pentax 6x7) can be done, some of the original feel and workflow is lost in doing that since the lenses are no longer coupled to the auto diaphragm mechanism. Using an SLR without an autodiaphragm lens can be done, for sure, but it is not the original experience and adds complication to the workflow.
Of course, the Hasselblad setup is most economical if you already have a V system kit. It worked well for me since I had my 500CM and four lenses already, but the price is about double that $4000 max goal you had in mind even for that.
G
As much as using other bodies (like the Fujis with their focal plane shutter) with adapted lenses (from, say, the Pentax 6x7) can be done, some of the original feel and workflow is lost in doing that since the lenses are no longer coupled to the auto diaphragm mechanism. Using an SLR without an autodiaphragm lens can be done, for sure, but it is not the original experience and adds complication to the workflow.
Of course, the Hasselblad setup is most economical if you already have a V system kit. It worked well for me since I had my 500CM and four lenses already, but the price is about double that $4000 max goal you had in mind even for that.
G
shawn
Veteran
Under almost any normal lighting condition this is almost meaningless though since you set the lens to whatever aperture you are shooting with, focus and take the shot. You don't need to be wide open to focus, then stop down to shoot like a SLR would need. It is actually somewhat simpler than the original workflow since you are already seeing the shooting DOF and don't have to worry about DOF preview like you would on a SLR.
Shawn
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Only if you normally shoot at near wide open. While I'm often shooting at 1 to 2 stops down from wide open with APS-C and FF format cameras, with medium format you run out of DOF too swiftly at large apertures.
Trying to focus a lens at f/11 to f/16, where I often am with 6x6, 645, and f/8 with 33x44mm, is generally pretty imprecise, even with an EVF or LCD, and modern focusing aids.
Don't get me wrong: I do a lot of lens adaptation with the Leica CL, SL, Panasonic GX9, and Hasselblad 907x. But the workflow and constraints make them way way different from shooting a Hasselblad 500CM fitted with CFVII 50c back, which feels just like shooting with the A16 back aside from the slightly smaller format.
G
shawn
Veteran
Can't speak to 44x33 (yet but very soon) but with FF shooting stopped down isn't an issue. Even if you have to open up to focus and then stop down to shoot that workflow is no different than large format photography.
Shawn
Peter_S
Peter_S
Another consideration with the GFX - you may be able to use some of your existing lenses with adapters, and vignetting/soft corners could be cropped out anyway when going to 6:7. Fuji files are also very easy to edit.
Else, older digital backs (some are CCD, not sure how they are priced these days) on Mamiya AFD or Hasselblad H-series may be options, or, again, Pentax 645D. Since aspect ratio ranks high on your list, any 3:2 camera will be a compromise.
Else, older digital backs (some are CCD, not sure how they are priced these days) on Mamiya AFD or Hasselblad H-series may be options, or, again, Pentax 645D. Since aspect ratio ranks high on your list, any 3:2 camera will be a compromise.
So, why not the Pentax 645D?
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
Sigma in SDQ and DPQ offer 7:6, no doubt as a nod or a bow to MF film users. (Also 1:1, 3:2, 4:3, 21:9.) I enjoyed a Fuji GR670 for years, and like square format too, so this ticks a MF box for me.
I own an SDQ, DPQ2, and DP3 Merrill. Although I am lazy enough to wish I didn’t *have* to use Sigma developing software (being accustomed to Lightroom for other cameras), the Foveon images are worth the hassle.
Here are three versions of the same landscape, at the north end of Jack’s Valley in Nevada, shot with the SA 17-50mm 2.8. The third image was manipulated (foreground, sky) more than the others.
I rarely set the Sigmas to display color, or develop Foveon for color. If landscape were all I photographed, I might change my view. But if I’m photographing landscape, at least one Sigma is part of the kit.
I own an SDQ, DPQ2, and DP3 Merrill. Although I am lazy enough to wish I didn’t *have* to use Sigma developing software (being accustomed to Lightroom for other cameras), the Foveon images are worth the hassle.
Here are three versions of the same landscape, at the north end of Jack’s Valley in Nevada, shot with the SA 17-50mm 2.8. The third image was manipulated (foreground, sky) more than the others.
I rarely set the Sigmas to display color, or develop Foveon for color. If landscape were all I photographed, I might change my view. But if I’m photographing landscape, at least one Sigma is part of the kit.
shawn
Veteran
Set the quattros to shoot DNG and lightroom can process the files fine. Soo much nicer than dealing with SPP. You can even put the DNGs through Adobe camera raw first to losslessly compress them to save a bunch of space.
Shawn
Shawn