steved122
Newbie
do you think it is worthwhile to go digtal now that quality seem to be getting better do you think I'll be losing quality by swtching I enlarge 11x14 and b/w developing film is getting so expensive so that's also why I'm looking I'm looking at ily e3 canon 5d and nikon d300
photogdave
Shops local
There are no digital cameras that can do what the Mamiya 7 and XPan can do. Simple as that.
Welcome to the forum!
Welcome to the forum!
Andrew Howes
Established
I will give a different opinion,
If you properly profile your camera, and you can customise it quite a bit, you can get far more accurate results with much less effort than with film. I think sometimes people see what they want to see when comparing film and digital, maybe I am guilty of that too, but geez the quality of my colour prints went through the roof when I went digital in 2002. (from 35mm colour neg)
How much time you spend in the digital darkroom is up to you. If you overshoot or shoot sloppily, digital can be a blessing or a curse, but if you nail your exposure and white balance, your post work time will be much more productive than in a wet darkroom. Seriously I cant see how a good scan can be any easier than a properly exposed and profiled dslr image. There is a reason that film is rarely used by the majority of pros and serious ametures anymore. Either "everyone else is an idiot" or there just maybe something to that digital stuff after all.
Only you can weigh up whether the results you want can be matched, surpassed or gotten close enough for the blessings and curses of digital or if the look, the results and associated drawbacks of film, convenience of one over the other, are worth staying with what you have. It is an objective decision, you need some hands on to make an informed decision.
I still use film, but not for any serious or paid work anymore. I use MF film for the look I get with the lenses and the physical size of the format, I think that is the most obvious difference.
If you properly profile your camera, and you can customise it quite a bit, you can get far more accurate results with much less effort than with film. I think sometimes people see what they want to see when comparing film and digital, maybe I am guilty of that too, but geez the quality of my colour prints went through the roof when I went digital in 2002. (from 35mm colour neg)
How much time you spend in the digital darkroom is up to you. If you overshoot or shoot sloppily, digital can be a blessing or a curse, but if you nail your exposure and white balance, your post work time will be much more productive than in a wet darkroom. Seriously I cant see how a good scan can be any easier than a properly exposed and profiled dslr image. There is a reason that film is rarely used by the majority of pros and serious ametures anymore. Either "everyone else is an idiot" or there just maybe something to that digital stuff after all.
Only you can weigh up whether the results you want can be matched, surpassed or gotten close enough for the blessings and curses of digital or if the look, the results and associated drawbacks of film, convenience of one over the other, are worth staying with what you have. It is an objective decision, you need some hands on to make an informed decision.
I still use film, but not for any serious or paid work anymore. I use MF film for the look I get with the lenses and the physical size of the format, I think that is the most obvious difference.
photogdave
Shops local
I agree with pretty much everything you said. That's why I stopped shooting 35mm color neg years ago. However, I just finished looking at some slides I shot on Velvia 100F with my new Nokton lens, projected with a Leitz Pradovit - and damn! digital sure can't do that!
I think the OP is a little confusing because he asks should he replace his XPan and Mamiya 7 with digital in the title but then talks only about quality of enlargement. Again I'll say that no digital camera can do what the XPan and Mamiya 7 can do - in terms of form and function anyway.
arturo
Member
I think there is no straight answer, it depends what you mean by 'better quality'. I own a Xpan II and a Nikon D2x and I use them both although for different things. If you want to shoot panoramic with a DSLR you must either crop top and bottom or take several shots and stich them.
Advantages of the DSLR:
- Better sharpness. If for you quality means only sharpness, this is the way to go
- Lower noise with high ISO. The gap between digital and film is wider at ISO 1600 than at ISO 100.
- If you scan Xpan shots with a film scanner and you stich 'half-pictures', you could spend longer in the computer than processing RAW files from a DSLR.
Advantages of Xpan/Mamiya:
- Real panoramic approach. You look through the viewfinder and you see a panoramic image (at least in the Xpan). It makes a difference when framing and composing a picture.
- At equal FOV, you do not get the same picture from a cropped DSLR picture and from a panoramic one, the perspective is different. For instance, the Xpan lens 45mm gives you the FOV of a 25mm in 135 format, but the image looks like two 45mm images put together, it does not look like a 25mm cropped.
- At equal FOV, you get the same picture from several stichted DSLR images and from a panoramic camera, but the trick of stichting DSLR images does not work if you shoot moving subjects like people. For that you must take all the picture at once. Instead it works for landscapes.
All in all, I believe the DSLR will give you better image quality in absolute terms, but it would be worse from the creative point of view. As for time spent in front of the computer, there is no clear winner; it all depends on your workflow scanning vs. processing RAW files. From a cost viewpoint, I am not certain digital is cheaper in the long term; think of extra batteries, memory cards, hard drives, software, new computer, screen, calibration devices, etc.
Arturo
Advantages of the DSLR:
- Better sharpness. If for you quality means only sharpness, this is the way to go
- Lower noise with high ISO. The gap between digital and film is wider at ISO 1600 than at ISO 100.
- If you scan Xpan shots with a film scanner and you stich 'half-pictures', you could spend longer in the computer than processing RAW files from a DSLR.
Advantages of Xpan/Mamiya:
- Real panoramic approach. You look through the viewfinder and you see a panoramic image (at least in the Xpan). It makes a difference when framing and composing a picture.
- At equal FOV, you do not get the same picture from a cropped DSLR picture and from a panoramic one, the perspective is different. For instance, the Xpan lens 45mm gives you the FOV of a 25mm in 135 format, but the image looks like two 45mm images put together, it does not look like a 25mm cropped.
- At equal FOV, you get the same picture from several stichted DSLR images and from a panoramic camera, but the trick of stichting DSLR images does not work if you shoot moving subjects like people. For that you must take all the picture at once. Instead it works for landscapes.
All in all, I believe the DSLR will give you better image quality in absolute terms, but it would be worse from the creative point of view. As for time spent in front of the computer, there is no clear winner; it all depends on your workflow scanning vs. processing RAW files. From a cost viewpoint, I am not certain digital is cheaper in the long term; think of extra batteries, memory cards, hard drives, software, new computer, screen, calibration devices, etc.
Arturo
elude
Some photographer
the question is all about : how do you work ?
b&w film is not that expensive in my opinion. a good digital print is worth a lot of money too.
b&w film is not that expensive in my opinion. a good digital print is worth a lot of money too.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
On the other hand the XPan gives you rectilinear panoramics only. Personally I find them rather boring; I prefer the cylindrical projection that you get either from swing-lens cameras or from stitching. That's a matter of personal preference.
I am not sure I understand what you mean. The XPan is a crop camera, it takes a lens with a large image circle and crops away the upper and lower parts.
The perspective you get from an XPan with a 45mm lens and from a cropped Mamiya 6x7 shot with a 45mm lens is identical. Try it out, take a shot with each camera and compare. Why should it be different with a DSLR?
What is true is that you can't sensibly compare FOV on cameras with different horizontal/vertical aspect ratios without specifying what FOV you talk about. However, if you specify that you are, for example, talking about horizontal FOV, the perspective of an XPan panoramic and a cropped DSLR panoramic will be identical as long as the lenses produce the same FOV. This is simply a result of the rectilinear projection the lenses deliver.
Philipp
Last edited:
David Goldfarb
Well-known
If your main concern is the cost of B&W film processing, then consider doing it yourself. It's not difficult or expensive, and you'll get more control over the process.
Printing is another matter, but there are skills and costs associated with both digital and wet printing. Personally, for B&W, I don't think a good inkjet print looks as good as a good wet print, and that would be the main reason to stick with your film cameras, if your main interest is B&W.
Printing is another matter, but there are skills and costs associated with both digital and wet printing. Personally, for B&W, I don't think a good inkjet print looks as good as a good wet print, and that would be the main reason to stick with your film cameras, if your main interest is B&W.
oftheherd
Veteran
I have a simple P&S digital camera. It can give me pretty good snapshots. If I am careful, it can also give me good photos to enlarge. I don't own a DSLR, but I have to believe it would do better than my P&S.
But I still don't believe any current digital will outdo my Mamiya's 6x7 negatives. Not color, not b/w. Is digital good enough for the OP? Only he can decide. It is sure a far cry above the old days (10 years ago or so) of digital. But I still like film. Anyone who doesn't can use digital with my blessing.
But I still don't believe any current digital will outdo my Mamiya's 6x7 negatives. Not color, not b/w. Is digital good enough for the OP? Only he can decide. It is sure a far cry above the old days (10 years ago or so) of digital. But I still like film. Anyone who doesn't can use digital with my blessing.
NickTrop
Veteran
Kodak Survey Shows that Professional Photographers Remain Ardent Users of Film More Than Three-Quarters of Photographers Surveyed Will Continue to Use Film, Even as Some Embrace Digital Technology, “It’s An ‘And’ World Where Digital and Film Co-exist and Complement Each Other”
ROCHESTER, N.Y., Sept. 19 -- A survey of more than 9,000 professional photographers in the U.S. shows that film continues to have an avidfollowing, with 75 percent of photographers saying they will continue to use film, even as some embrace digital imaging technology.
http://forums.photographyreview.com/archive/index.php/t-36587.html
Maybe it's those serious amateurs and pros know something about film? Before you make an unsubstanitated gross generalization, I would check your facts. Your next sentence I didn't quote was something about "idiots"?
Here's my gross generalization:
Only pros and serious amatuers shoot film because to be a pro or serious amatuer appreciating and shooting film is a prerequisite. I say only "wannabees" hacks shoot digital exclusively.
It's commical sometimes when you go on a DSLR board. The lack of basic knowledge of photography is staggering. But they sho' know their software and all about the latest digicam.
|
RObert Budding
D'oh!
I shoot both film and digital. And I'll continue to use my Mamiya 7. But now that I've seen the high ISO performance of the Nikon D700, I think I need a new camera!
sirius
Well-known
If size and cost are not a concern for you. The new behemoth Canon 1Ds Mark III is supposed to be as close to medium format quality as any 35mm DSLR has achieved yet. Personally, I love what the Canon 5D does with a good lens and that is a camera I would like to own. It has a more medium format look than most---which sounds like something that appeals to you. They are coming out with an new version in a few months.
I think the question of quality is mute, digital has won. It has better resolution, lower grain, and better low-light capabilities. It produces results that are more like how our eyes see the world, how can that be bad? It's a huge advantage to be able to look at the LCD to see if you got the shot if your type of photography relies on catching the moment. People blink a lot. As well, the workflow with digital can be a lot faster if you need that.
Of course, "quality" is a judgement call. Many people still prefer the "warmth" of vinyl records to CDs. Many people like the way of working with the classic film cameras. They produce nice results with a unique look in the flood of digital out there. Increasingly, people will take the digital look as norm and film photos will look old or seem more artistic (i.e. old processes like cibachrome).
I love the way my pictures look from my lenses. I don't mind developing and scanning my own black and white, but I have been happy with my Epson R-D1 results as well. I like the size of the rangefinders and the challenge of having to think about the machine so much (focus, aperture, parallax & speed) makes me consider more closely the kind (feel) of picture I would like to make.
I think the question of quality is mute, digital has won. It has better resolution, lower grain, and better low-light capabilities. It produces results that are more like how our eyes see the world, how can that be bad? It's a huge advantage to be able to look at the LCD to see if you got the shot if your type of photography relies on catching the moment. People blink a lot. As well, the workflow with digital can be a lot faster if you need that.
Of course, "quality" is a judgement call. Many people still prefer the "warmth" of vinyl records to CDs. Many people like the way of working with the classic film cameras. They produce nice results with a unique look in the flood of digital out there. Increasingly, people will take the digital look as norm and film photos will look old or seem more artistic (i.e. old processes like cibachrome).
I love the way my pictures look from my lenses. I don't mind developing and scanning my own black and white, but I have been happy with my Epson R-D1 results as well. I like the size of the rangefinders and the challenge of having to think about the machine so much (focus, aperture, parallax & speed) makes me consider more closely the kind (feel) of picture I would like to make.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
This is simply not true, in my experience! Typically, I print from my 5D at 15 by 10 inches, but I have more than a few 24 by 16 inch prints that work really well. It depends on the image and how you view it, as well as your expectations. My 1Ds3 allows me (assuming I use both correctly) to produce even nicer 24 by 16 inch prints and crops suggest that mich bigger would be possible with a bit of care and sensible viewing distance.
I don't have an LS9000 and Mamiya 7, but suspect that that combination should beat the 1Ds3 sometimes (although there are people who have carreid out experiements suggesting otherwise). I also know people (pros) who have given up 5 by 4 film for a Canon 5D as they can get prints that meet their requirements much more easily and cheaply - and up to big sizes).
I have recently started shooting some 35mm B&W again alongside my digital work, but both have a place.
One of the problems is that muich depends on your digital camera and film scanning/printing approach. But all digital cameras are not the same and a point and shoot is very much not the same as a high end dslr. (I also have a ricoh gx100 and have produced prints up to 21 by 14 from that - although that was to obtain a particular effect using the noise inherent in the image).
No easy choice, both work well, although I like the ability to shoot and stitch panoramas of still subjects with digital.
Mike
sojournerphoto
Veteran
My experience exactly - film for the (35mm) rf and digital for slrs (there again my only film slr is my AE-1). I would like to try a Mamiya 7 though.
Mike.
craygc
Well-known
I will preface this with "this is not an attack but merely provoking discussion" 
Given the huge digital only, non-film appreciative market out there, along with the "digital is superior" marketing machines, isnt the phrase "supposed to be" just slightly loaded?
Do not fall into the trap of repeating the metrics of the digital-rules crowd when extolling image-evaluation metrics; what about latitude and tonal transitioning for example
How our eyes see the world never was the yard stick by how photographic imagery was measured. B&W and IR are a prime examples. and certainly not the only examples. We dont all shoot crime scenes
Actually, eyes are very strange and unusual devices; cameras (of any kind) never work like them, and we probably never want them to work like them: Have a look at this What art tells us about the brain
Its almost one of those motherhoods that for most sounds true and comforting ...question everything!
Well, people have survived more than adequately without this feature for decades. Especially with a rangefinder! I also agree it works for the masses but is not a replacement for frequency of use and experience.
Hmmm... didnt you say "I think the question of quality is mute, digital has won" above
..and as a finally comment, I have NEVER yet seen a digital image come close to competing with something from my Mamiya 7II on sharpness; let alone tonality. I actually find that its so damn sharp I actually need to smack it on the head with some Gaussian blur just to stop it hurting my eyes
Given the huge digital only, non-film appreciative market out there, along with the "digital is superior" marketing machines, isnt the phrase "supposed to be" just slightly loaded?
Do not fall into the trap of repeating the metrics of the digital-rules crowd when extolling image-evaluation metrics; what about latitude and tonal transitioning for example
How our eyes see the world never was the yard stick by how photographic imagery was measured. B&W and IR are a prime examples. and certainly not the only examples. We dont all shoot crime scenes
Actually, eyes are very strange and unusual devices; cameras (of any kind) never work like them, and we probably never want them to work like them: Have a look at this What art tells us about the brain
Its almost one of those motherhoods that for most sounds true and comforting ...question everything!
Well, people have survived more than adequately without this feature for decades. Especially with a rangefinder! I also agree it works for the masses but is not a replacement for frequency of use and experience.
Hmmm... didnt you say "I think the question of quality is mute, digital has won" above
..and as a finally comment, I have NEVER yet seen a digital image come close to competing with something from my Mamiya 7II on sharpness; let alone tonality. I actually find that its so damn sharp I actually need to smack it on the head with some Gaussian blur just to stop it hurting my eyes
Last edited:
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I will preface this with "this is not an attack but merely provoking discussion"
Given the huge digital only, non-film appreciative market out there, along with the "digital is superior" marketing machines, isnt the phrase "supposed to be" just slightly loaded?
Do not fall into the trap of repeating the metrics of the digital-rules crowd when extolling image-evaluation metrics; what about latitude and tonal transitioning for example
How our eyes see the world never was the yard stick by how photographic imagery was measured. B&W and IR are a prime examples. and certainly not the only examples. We dont all shoot crime scenes
Actually, eyes are very strange and unusual devices; cameras (of any kind) never work like them, and we probably never want them to work like them: Have a look at this What art tells us about the brain
Its almost one of those motherhoods that for most sounds true and comforting ...question everything!
Well, people have survived more than adequately without this feature for decades. Especially with a rangefinder! I also agree it works for the masses but is not a replacement for frequency of use and experience.
Hmmm... didnt you say "I think the question of quality is mute, digital has won" above
..and as a finally comment, I have NEVER yet seen a digital image come close to competing with something from my Mamiya 7II on sharpness; let alone tonality. I actually find that its so damn sharp I actually need to smack it on the head with some Gaussian blur just to stop it hurting my eyes
I think you are right to question - there is a strong marketing push for digital technology (with constant upgrades as in the phone market) and just as the CD replaced vinyl due to it's greater convenience rather than sound quality (initially at least) (!!!) the same can be said for much digital pho9tographic equipment. I have access to 3 point and shoots as well as my dslrs and they fall various distances short of 35mm film in many areas, but they are all good enough for most people and much more ocnvenient. Thay can all also be used intentionally to create pictures with a particular 'look'.
Not many people only taking family snaps and suchlike (friends down the pub) an be bothered to carry a 5D around, never mind paying for and carrying a 1Ds3. The latter in particular produces astounding output. However, given my cynicism about the independence/rigour of many tests, I don't feel able to say the 1Ds3 outperforms 6 by 7 without carrying out my own tests.
photogdave
Shops local
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I'm a mathematician by training and employment - I can and have done the sums. Hence, until I see the difference I haven't said that a 1Ds3 offers better image quality than a 6 by 7 etc - in fact my view tends the other way for the reasons you list - however, in spite of the 'push to digital' and the excitement of new toys distorting people's vision, there are a lot of people out there claiming that prints from digital match or exceed those from film formats that are larger.
Clearly there is more going on than just resolution or sharpness, presumably noise/grain and colour fidelity also have an impact. This is quite apart from the fact the the approach ued to scan matters. The information that I have seen (limited) suggests that an epson v750 can achieve about 2400dpi, giving around 40 megapixels from a 6 by 7 frame and the Nikon LS9000 gets close to 4,000dpi, giving about 100 megapixels. Depending on the film each pixel may or may not be as useful (i.e contain as much extra extractable information) as those from a digital sensor.
Of course you can also wet print ratehr than scan, but again need high quality optics to maximise the quality of your final print.
When I have a suitable 6 by 7 camera (I do have an old 6 by 9, but the ground glass is cracked and I've lost the film back), then I'll do a comparison because I am interested.
Mike
Clearly there is more going on than just resolution or sharpness, presumably noise/grain and colour fidelity also have an impact. This is quite apart from the fact the the approach ued to scan matters. The information that I have seen (limited) suggests that an epson v750 can achieve about 2400dpi, giving around 40 megapixels from a 6 by 7 frame and the Nikon LS9000 gets close to 4,000dpi, giving about 100 megapixels. Depending on the film each pixel may or may not be as useful (i.e contain as much extra extractable information) as those from a digital sensor.
Of course you can also wet print ratehr than scan, but again need high quality optics to maximise the quality of your final print.
When I have a suitable 6 by 7 camera (I do have an old 6 by 9, but the ground glass is cracked and I've lost the film back), then I'll do a comparison because I am interested.
Mike
Tuolumne
Veteran
Check out this article - a test of the Mamiya 7, two Rolleis, and a Hassey:
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html
/T
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html
/T
Andrew Howes
Established
Just try it out and see what you like.
I would sell the xpan and buy a d80, a kodak slr/n or something like that and keep the mamiya, you would miss it if you sold it, you probably would not use it much if you kept it, but it is too nice to get rid of.
I would sell the xpan and buy a d80, a kodak slr/n or something like that and keep the mamiya, you would miss it if you sold it, you probably would not use it much if you kept it, but it is too nice to get rid of.