MacDaddy
Certified Machead
The first is easy; the second is NOT! I'm COMPLETELY frustrated with my digital experiences to date, despite having some decent equipment (Olympus E-1 w/pro-level lenses). Since most of my photography is landscape, I believe a move on up to medium format is probably the wisest thing to do, Leica M8 lusts notwithstanding.
Here's the dilema—do I bite the bullet, go insanely into hock and get an ALPA TC with the new 36mm/5.6 Switar and kiss about $7,500 USD goodbye, PLUS go back to the hassles (and costs!) of film, finding a good lab to process medium format (and no, I do NOT have the space or ability to do that myself, durn it!) and adjusting my digital workflow to include scanning 6X9 negs and THEN figuring out how I want to print them, or do I wait to see what's coming at PMA in MArch and hope for a better and more affordable digital solution or invest in something like the M8 and ONE good lens whenever Leica settles down and fixes its issues? (And there are a number of pro photographers I've corresponded with who REALLY think there are serious issues with the Leica as a digital platform right now and who've told me to avoid it like the plague!)
Please understand; I LOVE the rangefinder experience (thus, the ALPA) and full manual control of the processes vs. dumb automation (yes, even with the M8 there is SOME! Sorry Jorge!) and the quality with the ALPA combo is breathtaking, judging from the photos I've held in my hands.
What are my options here, ladies and gentlemen? The goal is the very best photos possible with whatever system I use and the capability to do 16 X 20 fine art prints so I can hopefully sell some and recoup my costs at a minimum. Let the flaming hot responses begin!
Thanks for your input!
Here's the dilema—do I bite the bullet, go insanely into hock and get an ALPA TC with the new 36mm/5.6 Switar and kiss about $7,500 USD goodbye, PLUS go back to the hassles (and costs!) of film, finding a good lab to process medium format (and no, I do NOT have the space or ability to do that myself, durn it!) and adjusting my digital workflow to include scanning 6X9 negs and THEN figuring out how I want to print them, or do I wait to see what's coming at PMA in MArch and hope for a better and more affordable digital solution or invest in something like the M8 and ONE good lens whenever Leica settles down and fixes its issues? (And there are a number of pro photographers I've corresponded with who REALLY think there are serious issues with the Leica as a digital platform right now and who've told me to avoid it like the plague!)
Please understand; I LOVE the rangefinder experience (thus, the ALPA) and full manual control of the processes vs. dumb automation (yes, even with the M8 there is SOME! Sorry Jorge!) and the quality with the ALPA combo is breathtaking, judging from the photos I've held in my hands.
What are my options here, ladies and gentlemen? The goal is the very best photos possible with whatever system I use and the capability to do 16 X 20 fine art prints so I can hopefully sell some and recoup my costs at a minimum. Let the flaming hot responses begin!
Thanks for your input!
Toby
On the alert
Why not look at the mamiya 7II? - 6x7 would be an easier print job.
FrankS
Registered User
You could go MF or 4x5 for a WHOLE lot less than the Alpa option!!! For landscape, I'd go the Fuji 6x9 route, or Speed/Crown Graphic with 6x9 roll film back, which gives you the option of 4x5 sheet film.
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
Toby said:
that was my thought as well, M7II with the 43mm lens
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
You are nuts. There is absolutely no need to spend the money for the Alpa, even though it is an excellent camera. You can get very good results from much less expensive equipment. Since you like rangefinders and seem to want only one lens, why not check out the medium format Fuji G cameras with fixed lenses? The cameras are good enough, and the lenses are excellent. The 6x9 GSW with the 65mm lens would be a good choice. Or you could floow Toby and Tom's advice and look into the Mamiya 7 system, and get interchangeable lenses (although I'm no fan of the 43mm- go for the 50mm lens instead- it's much better than the 43).
If, on the other hand, you really want the best thing going for landscape work, get comfortable with a tripod and go large format. That's where all the real photographers wind up, eventually, anyway.
If, on the other hand, you really want the best thing going for landscape work, get comfortable with a tripod and go large format. That's where all the real photographers wind up, eventually, anyway.
rool
Well-known
$7500 in Alpa. You are nuts... or insanely rich!
MacDaddy
Certified Machead
Neither nuts NOR rich!
Neither nuts NOR rich!
As I said, I'd have to go into serious debt to get the ALPA system, something I'm reluctant to do. The "problem" with the Mamiya 7II appears to be availability stateside—Adorama, B & H and Amazon all list it as out of stock. What about the 645 series or a Rollei?
BTW, the reasons the ALPA is high on my camera radar are twofold: Long-term durability (I'd REALLY like to only have to buy just one camera and use it for a VERY long time) and unbelievably sharp lenses. How do the lenses from these other systems you all are recommending compare to the Schneider and Rodenstock ones from ALPA?
Neither nuts NOR rich!
As I said, I'd have to go into serious debt to get the ALPA system, something I'm reluctant to do. The "problem" with the Mamiya 7II appears to be availability stateside—Adorama, B & H and Amazon all list it as out of stock. What about the 645 series or a Rollei?
BTW, the reasons the ALPA is high on my camera radar are twofold: Long-term durability (I'd REALLY like to only have to buy just one camera and use it for a VERY long time) and unbelievably sharp lenses. How do the lenses from these other systems you all are recommending compare to the Schneider and Rodenstock ones from ALPA?
40oz
...
why do you think a rangefinder is best for landscapes?
If it were me, I'd look at what I wanted out of a 6x9 system, and ignore the rangefinder/slr/tlr issue unless it came down to competing systems. You certainly don't have to spend a minimum of $7500 just to get into 6x9 film. And the usefulness of a rangefinder is largely negated when shooting landscapes from a tripod, as far as I can see.
I have a very hard time believing there is ever going to be a medium format digital system that is cheaper than a film system. A digital system needs all that a film system needs, *plus* the sensor hardware/software, so I can't see how it could ever be "affordable" if a corresponding film system isn't. You can wait forever for something to come down the pipe, or you can make a decision based on what's out there now, and get started.
As far as whether to go with film or digital, the choice is easy if the film is 6x9. Go with film. Most cities of any size have a pro lab that can do traditional B&W on premises, or you can easily do it yourself in your living room. Using C41 negative film, the number of processors is actually numerous, even if not every drug store can handle 6x9. C'mon, you are prepared to spend $7500 on a camera and lens, but not willing to pay more than minimum wage for processing, or invest any of your own time in ensuring a quality end product?!? Does not compute
Given the size of 6x9 negatives, you can easily see which ones are worth printing/scanning from a proof sheet. At that point, you can drum scan, flatbed, film scanner, whatever, or wet print.
Just to be honest, if you want to sell a 16x20 fine art print to recoup your expenses, you need to use film because digital prints are worth little more than the paper and ink, literally. A wet print is a unique piece of craftsmanship, but you can run off as many digital prints as you want for no more effort than running one. They are priced accordingly.
If it were me, I'd look at what I wanted out of a 6x9 system, and ignore the rangefinder/slr/tlr issue unless it came down to competing systems. You certainly don't have to spend a minimum of $7500 just to get into 6x9 film. And the usefulness of a rangefinder is largely negated when shooting landscapes from a tripod, as far as I can see.
I have a very hard time believing there is ever going to be a medium format digital system that is cheaper than a film system. A digital system needs all that a film system needs, *plus* the sensor hardware/software, so I can't see how it could ever be "affordable" if a corresponding film system isn't. You can wait forever for something to come down the pipe, or you can make a decision based on what's out there now, and get started.
As far as whether to go with film or digital, the choice is easy if the film is 6x9. Go with film. Most cities of any size have a pro lab that can do traditional B&W on premises, or you can easily do it yourself in your living room. Using C41 negative film, the number of processors is actually numerous, even if not every drug store can handle 6x9. C'mon, you are prepared to spend $7500 on a camera and lens, but not willing to pay more than minimum wage for processing, or invest any of your own time in ensuring a quality end product?!? Does not compute
Given the size of 6x9 negatives, you can easily see which ones are worth printing/scanning from a proof sheet. At that point, you can drum scan, flatbed, film scanner, whatever, or wet print.
Just to be honest, if you want to sell a 16x20 fine art print to recoup your expenses, you need to use film because digital prints are worth little more than the paper and ink, literally. A wet print is a unique piece of craftsmanship, but you can run off as many digital prints as you want for no more effort than running one. They are priced accordingly.
Last edited:
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
Rodenstock and Schneider really do make the finest lenses around. But using them handheld on a scale focus camera is not going to yeild the best possible images from any system.
Going into debt for a camera is not a good idea, unless you are a pro and cheaper equipment just won't what you need it to. In real world shooting, esp. handheld, the cameras recommended will give you excellelent results.
Oh, and everything 40oz. says above is totally right on. Just re-read that post and you are done.
Going into debt for a camera is not a good idea, unless you are a pro and cheaper equipment just won't what you need it to. In real world shooting, esp. handheld, the cameras recommended will give you excellelent results.
Oh, and everything 40oz. says above is totally right on. Just re-read that post and you are done.
Last edited:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Rob: It might be easier for the RFF psychiatrists to prescribe if you lay down on the couch and tell us why you are "COMPLETELY frustrated with my digital experiences to date". It sounds like you are not happy or comfortable with the file quality you're getting from the E-1 for 16x20 print sizes.
But the good doctors don't want to ass-u-me anything, so maybe you can help us out?
Edit: BTW, I don't do serious landscape handheld, no matter what camera I'm using.
But the good doctors don't want to ass-u-me anything, so maybe you can help us out?
Edit: BTW, I don't do serious landscape handheld, no matter what camera I'm using.
Last edited:
emraphoto
Veteran
for that kind of dough that camera would have to be making money in return (fine art sales... stock... whatever) for MYSELF to even consider such a purchase.
the amount of money on film, paper, processing whilst you go through the inevitable adjusting period will also put a sizeable hole in your pocket. i know a VERY good landscape photographer that does everything on an old workhorse hasselblad (500 series something or other). i belive he is scanning on a epson 4490 for the primary scans and takes the negs he wants to print from in for scanning.
i TOTALLY agree that digital has a very serious achille's heel when it comes to highlights. film (for now) is the way to go in my books. sooo...
how bout a good ole 645. bronica? one of the fuji's? a contax 645? that seems the way i'd be heading. (actually i'd just buy a mamiya 7 as mentioned numerous times above)
the amount of money on film, paper, processing whilst you go through the inevitable adjusting period will also put a sizeable hole in your pocket. i know a VERY good landscape photographer that does everything on an old workhorse hasselblad (500 series something or other). i belive he is scanning on a epson 4490 for the primary scans and takes the negs he wants to print from in for scanning.
i TOTALLY agree that digital has a very serious achille's heel when it comes to highlights. film (for now) is the way to go in my books. sooo...
how bout a good ole 645. bronica? one of the fuji's? a contax 645? that seems the way i'd be heading. (actually i'd just buy a mamiya 7 as mentioned numerous times above)
MacDaddy
Certified Machead
Actually, I DIDN'T say that a rangefinder was best for landscape, but..I'm also comfortable with that way of shooting and get cross-eyed trying to use the "ground glass and upside down" method! As for processing, it's not a matter of costs, although that MUST figure into the equation, since it works out to somewhere around $1-3 per photo with shipping costs to and from the nearest decent lab to me (E-6 in Atlanta, GA, USA); a cost I'll gladly bear to get what I want. As to 6X9, btw, that is the LARGEST size photo this camera setup is capable of producing. Its film back will easily shoot the whole medium format gamut of sizes-depends on what I load it with!
I agree with all you said about medium format digital (See William Carter's review of the Phase One P30 over at Luminous Landscape for a fresh idea of the costs and issues!), which is one reason I'm looking to go back to film (Other than the incredible detail with the format on film)!
I agree with all you said about medium format digital (See William Carter's review of the Phase One P30 over at Luminous Landscape for a fresh idea of the costs and issues!), which is one reason I'm looking to go back to film (Other than the incredible detail with the format on film)!
MacDaddy
Certified Machead
I wouldn't DREAM of handholding a medium format camera to do landscape! It's on a tripod or not at all for me!
MacDaddy
Certified Machead
Trius;
Even using a borrowed Nikon DX2s for 3 weeks with four of Nikon's best lenses, the quality of the final files lacked the detail and "punch" I associate with a quality film shot! So, yes, I AM frustrated! The Olympus happens to be the system I own at the moment and I've seen excellent results from other photographers using it, but up-resing it to 16 X 20 leaves much to be desired, even using Genuine Fractals.
Even using a borrowed Nikon DX2s for 3 weeks with four of Nikon's best lenses, the quality of the final files lacked the detail and "punch" I associate with a quality film shot! So, yes, I AM frustrated! The Olympus happens to be the system I own at the moment and I've seen excellent results from other photographers using it, but up-resing it to 16 X 20 leaves much to be desired, even using Genuine Fractals.
PlantedTao
Well-known
emraphoto said:
try keh.com - they have all that gear.
and yes, your insane if you drop $7K, especially if you are not a pro and are already selling mad amounts of silver prints...
you know how many "landscapes" you could fly to for that amount of cash!
MacDaddy
Certified Machead
PlantedTao:
I'm not selling "mad amounts of silver prints"—YET! I HAVE had some moderate success selling some of my DIGITAL prints up to about 11X14, but beyond that size am not due to the limitations of the various digital systems I've owned or rented the last 2 years. I have a very good, experienced developer/printer lab (see previous posts) and will do all scanning myself from the negatives they develop so I get what i want. I believe others have said what I agree with- digital medium format is at least 5 years out from being as good and as affordable as film. I know Michael reichmann and others would call that a blasphemous statement, but if so, why do so many top end landscape and nature magazines still print the majority of their magazines using FILM based photos?
I'm not selling "mad amounts of silver prints"—YET! I HAVE had some moderate success selling some of my DIGITAL prints up to about 11X14, but beyond that size am not due to the limitations of the various digital systems I've owned or rented the last 2 years. I have a very good, experienced developer/printer lab (see previous posts) and will do all scanning myself from the negatives they develop so I get what i want. I believe others have said what I agree with- digital medium format is at least 5 years out from being as good and as affordable as film. I know Michael reichmann and others would call that a blasphemous statement, but if so, why do so many top end landscape and nature magazines still print the majority of their magazines using FILM based photos?
MadMan2k
Well-known
I would say get a good MF SLR setup and use a viewfinder prism if you don't like the regular finders. You can get pro MF stuff for ridiculously cheap used now, browse keh.com for average prices. 3k would get you a pretty complete Mamiya or even Hasselblad setup, which probably would have cost five times that new.
Have you tried a full-frame Canon DSLR? The 5D makes images that are about on par with MF scanned with a good scanner (not a drum scanner though), depending on who you ask, and it can be had for about $2500. The 1DS mk2 is even higher res, and they should be coming out with a 22mp model this year, and putting the 16mp into the 5D's replacement.
The thing with digital is, you have to do a lot of work in the 'digital darkroom' to get effective prints. You need to convert from RAW, process them without throwing away details in PS, prepare them for the printer, calibrate your monitor and use profiles for the printer, paper and inks you're using, etc.
RAW images, even JPG images from DSLR's never look good, they're meant to save as much detail as possible so they can be optimized in post processing. It's not 'doctoring' or making something out of nothing, it's completing the intended process to get a final image.
Have you tried a full-frame Canon DSLR? The 5D makes images that are about on par with MF scanned with a good scanner (not a drum scanner though), depending on who you ask, and it can be had for about $2500. The 1DS mk2 is even higher res, and they should be coming out with a 22mp model this year, and putting the 16mp into the 5D's replacement.
The thing with digital is, you have to do a lot of work in the 'digital darkroom' to get effective prints. You need to convert from RAW, process them without throwing away details in PS, prepare them for the printer, calibrate your monitor and use profiles for the printer, paper and inks you're using, etc.
RAW images, even JPG images from DSLR's never look good, they're meant to save as much detail as possible so they can be optimized in post processing. It's not 'doctoring' or making something out of nothing, it's completing the intended process to get a final image.
MacDaddy
Certified Machead
Thanks to all for the input!
Thanks to all for the input!
I'm still about 4 months out from making my decision, but will be investigating options and will let all know when it happens. I also will post a few photos regardless of what I get, so stay tuned!
If I've done this right, I've included a shot I took New Year's Day near Brasstown Bald in north Georgia, USA with the Olympus. I can only imagine what it would look lik in the proper format with a good lens and film! Enjoy!
Thanks to all for the input!
I'm still about 4 months out from making my decision, but will be investigating options and will let all know when it happens. I also will post a few photos regardless of what I get, so stay tuned!
If I've done this right, I've included a shot I took New Year's Day near Brasstown Bald in north Georgia, USA with the Olympus. I can only imagine what it would look lik in the proper format with a good lens and film! Enjoy!
Attachments
Last edited:
Dougg
Seasoned Member
Definitely nuts! The camera has no rangefinder or reflex focusing, just the ground glass should you wish to use it... and is wildly, extravagantly expensive.
But, maybe barring a large format view camera, and given greater portability and hand-holding, the Alpa is magnificent for landscape. The lenses are what it's all about, I think, and other matters of precision such as film flatness etc.
If I were a similarly nutty landscape enthusiast, I could go for the magnificent Alpa myself! (Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz infected me with Alpa-desire in their book Rangefinder. His has an odd film format that doesn't use the full width of the 120 film in order that a particular Biogon lens would cover).
But, maybe barring a large format view camera, and given greater portability and hand-holding, the Alpa is magnificent for landscape. The lenses are what it's all about, I think, and other matters of precision such as film flatness etc.
If I were a similarly nutty landscape enthusiast, I could go for the magnificent Alpa myself! (Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz infected me with Alpa-desire in their book Rangefinder. His has an odd film format that doesn't use the full width of the 120 film in order that a particular Biogon lens would cover).
BrianShaw
Well-known
MacDaddy said:
!ylkciuq ti ot desu teg uoY