Canon 10 D or Pentax 67 II

[Ryszard]

Need help to made decision to go for Canon 10D or medium format Pentax 6X7, 67 II.
Do 6x7 camera is past ?? and Canon 10 D future?
Do digital photography replace 35mm film and medium format film ??
Do Canon 10 D is worth the money for amator ??
for me is verry expensive to pay aprox 1500$
and 500-1600$ for lens.

[CyberDyneSystems]

But,.. you won't have to pay for film. :)

I think many would argue that DSLRs rival if not surpass 35mm photography in many aspects. I've never heard anyone say that DSLRs rival or even come close to Medium format though.

But they are so different they are hard to compare.

In the long run a DSLR such as the 10D will be a less expensive hobby,. no film less porcessing. (you do need a computer and printer etc... which adds up,. we'll call that the processing costs)

If you have not used Digital yet,. then you may not be prepared for the freedom that "No Film-No Processing" has to offer. It is wonderfull. :)

[defordphoto]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
I think many would argue that DSLRs rival if not surpass 35mm photography in many aspects. I've never heard anyone say that DSLRs rival or even come close to Medium format though.

Except when speaking of the Canon 1Ds. But there is some serious money there.

As for selecting the 10D over a medium format, it depends on the application. Are you doing professional studio work or what?

[mwinog2777]

Its all digital. Forget about film. Passe'. Take the leap.

In the long run you'll save a bundle; no film, processing is free, and no problem printing up.

[lluscombe]

Should I buy a pickup truck, or a small sedan? Depends on your needs. The 10D will never match the medium format in terms of resolution, especially when enlarged. If I were doing just landscapes, and not many of them but requiring highest quality, I would use medium format. But I do all kinds of photography (including landscapes) so use a 10D. It is a reallyy amazing camera, but is not medium format, though with certain subjects it will probably be quite close up to 8x10.

This is my opinion from my experience. And, though I don't use it any more, film is not going away yet...

[excessnoise]

Many medium formats have digital backs now. Rollei, Mamiya, Contax, etc. Medium format capture backs are digital "backs" for film cameras allowing you to shoot film or digital on the same job using the same camera / lens combo.

[Ryszard]

Thank all of you for opinion in reg to my question, "Canon 10D or Pentax 67 II".
I go for Canon, but first have save som money.
Ryszard

[damnengine]

digital doesn't rival film yet (in resolution), since a 35 mm frame (good film) has a resolution of over 40 megapixel.

[lluscombe]

The comment about film is probably correct - I have heard those figures before (40 MP). As long as we are using an APS sized sensor, there will be a limit to the reosolution. At some time in the future, all of these cameras with APS sized sensors will be a laugh - we will be wondering how we ever managed with them.

I used to think that with 6mp (or even 2.7MP Nikon D1) I could out-perform film, as I have read in many places, for example:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/D1_review.html

But I have found that still film has advantages in the reolution, though probably not shadow detail, grain, noise, color accuracy, etc. Even with the best lenses, and careful editing, I have not been able to quite get enlargements from 3 or 6 MP SLRs that match a GOOD 35mm print; but look how far I was able to push the Nikon D1 2.7 MP CCD:
http://www.violins.ca/nikon/photographs/violetnef4.jpg

Hard to get that smoothness from film, I think. Resolution is decent, but I really feel that film would be miles ahead.

[D60DIETER]

Hi folks,

on my opinoin the decession is an easy one. If your heading for prints above 30"*20" you should go for the Pentax 67 or any other medium format camera ( there are some which are much easier in handling and better in tec ), but think about the total process costs!!!

If you can stay underneath the above named format I would go for digital. I´ve done several printouts in this format from my D60 pictures. They are great (after some PS work).

And if you do landscape and you like to have highest resolution, then you can make a cluster of overlapping pictures and stitch them together, to getas many MP you want to have.

I´ve done the 10D way and have spent more money for excellent lenses!! Because the quality of a picture depends very much on the lenses.

PS: the Pentax 67 is well known for its hard mirror clash.

[Robert]

I believe that the quality of the images from a high quality SCANNED 6x7 negative will surpass that from your 10D. I recently purchased a 1Ds and I can tell you that the images from it are as good as and perhaps better than those from either my Rollei 6008 and Leica M7. I scan my negatives with a Nikon Coolscan 8000. Frankly I don't see need for my medium format camera at this time. I would speculate that images from your 10D using an L lens, shot in RAW and 16 bit will equal those from a Pentax 6x7. Also, as others have mentioned, there is the cost of film and processing. Assuming $10 per roll of 120 film ($4 for film and $6 for processing), it will require around 150 rolls of film to pay for your 10D. Also, there is the depreciation,, size and weight factors of the Pentax 6x7 that should be taken into account.

Hope this helps in some way.

[Slow]

Robert wrote:
Also, as others have mentioned, there is the cost of film and processing. Assuming $10 per roll of 120 film ($4 for film and $6 for processing), it will require around 150 rolls of film to pay for your 10D. Also, there is the depreciation,, size and weight factors of the Pentax 6x7 that should be taken into account.


What about costs of photo quality printing paper, ink, electricity, your time (£12 p/h! also while your processing on pc you aint out taking pics), Also a 10d will depreciate quicker than a Pentax 6x7! (look at the D30's!)
I have no axe to grind either way as I use Digi, 35mm and have 3 Koni omega 6 x 7 cameras so have the best of all worlds....
I would , if starting again, keep going on 35mm for at least the next 18months as the saving made by going digital over 35mm are negligable unless you earn your living from photography!

[Robert]

Slow.....I agree with you about the time. Digital does require a lot of time, expense of materials, computer hard and software. From a control standpoint it was worth it for me. For the first time I have conrol of color like I have had with b & w for many years. Instant verification is another big plus factor for me which saves time and reduces risk.




Canon 1Ds, 17-40, 24-70, 50 1.4, 85-1.2, 100 macro, 100-400; Leica M7, 24, 35, 50; Rollei 6008, 80, 60mm.

[Slow]

Totally agree with the instant view! Helps in my job as well as I seem to spend most of my time attempting to photograph very reluctant children so I usually take a quick snap of them and show them the result, this usully results in a complete change of heart and willingness abounds....I can see both sides of the coin though and as stated before if I didn't earn my living from photography would probably still be shootng 35mm (but possibly) dipped toe with an early 1.3mp Oly 960 (read cheap/second hand) or similar...

[PhotoBuc]

I've been reading a lot of the replies and I think you should check out an article from Shutterbug. The editor (I think) did a comparison of images from his Hassleblad and 1Ds and found that the images from the 1Ds were sharper and contained like shadow detail. While I realize that you are asking about the 10D, I think it is important to consider what you will be doing with this camera (as most of your replies were asking the same thing). I have 2 1D's and have produced 20x30 images that are tack sharp and have great shadow detail (10 are hanging in Fenway Park in Boston). I do not shoot commercially, as I think the guy in the Shutterbug article was pleasantly surprised by the results and does shoot commercially. His bottom line response was that in his opinion, the digital images were equal if not better than those produced via medium format and given the choice, he would pick digital.....

[barryfernelius]

I'd imagine that a Pentax 67 II would produce a better image than a Canon 10D. But I'm not so sure that it would win out against a Canon 1D.

Take a look at this article for some interesting results.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

-Barry R. Fernelius

[Slow]

barryfernelius wrote:
But I'm not so sure that it would win out against a Canon 1D.



Do you mean the Canon 1Ds?

[Vaio]

I disagree with all of those who say that Digital has not surpassed 35mm ...

There is no way in H*ll that 35mm is better than the 10D resolution...

DIgital has surpassed the 35mm and has and is given medium format a run for its money...

Film is fading away , just like cassettes and VHS tapes...

get with the program, its the digital era...