Mamiya can't flex on 10D's biceps

[AprilShowers]

Hi! I'm a newbie to this forum...

I'd like to know what people think about my shooting pro digital scenario. Its been brought up a million times I'm sure, but I have to ask, because I don't know any photogs that shoot digital in this area. :evil:
I bought a medium format Mamiya (whole kit and caboodle) and a 10D (minimum accessories, 550ex, 28-102 lens) and I'll be honest. I've used the 10D about 100 times in the last 6 months as compared to the Mamiya film monster about twice. :roll:

Strangely enough an employee from a camera shop in Lakewood tells me he switched "back" to film because he likes to 'print big' and digital doesn't allow him this option. At a recent wedding I did as a favor, the 'paid' photographer was shooting film and a mini-flash on a pod, while I used my 10D with 550ex. The guy eyeballed my camera the whole time and said at the end of the day he still preferred film.

Are these guys pulling my chain or do you think its the lack of knowledge about digital and the familiarity of film that keeps a helluva lot of photogs with film? It doesn't make sense to me. (and i'm blonde!)
Thanks,
April

[defordphoto]

Answer: Some people STILL prefer 12-inch, plastic, 33 RPM slabs to listen to their music.

There will ALWAYS be someone that prefers film.

[phili1]

Well you can print up to 16 x 20 with your 10 D. At this point my pro camera is film but my heart is in digital. I am waiting for the 20 D. Ok I have a Canon G3 digital camera and My EOS system film. I get better results fron the 4 meg G3 then If I scan my film in a Nikon Scanner. My opinion.

Allot of guys who shoot film medium format think that you cant get as good results from the Digital Slr's but they are mistaken. First off for weddings your largiest album is 8 x 10 and if your lucky the bride orders and 11 x 14 for the wall. a 4 meg camera will produce an excellent set of prints in all catagories. Second most labs can now convert a digtial file to produce a lab pint from them that exceeds the size capabilitis of Ink jets.

It was a hard transition for me and for most film users but that will change.

[mdude85]

Not only is it a lack of knowledge, it is a desire not to learn and to keep one's self stuck in the past for the sake of comfort. It is the same reason elder people still listen to records instead of CDs, even though CD quality is much better. They are simply used to living in the past (which personally is a bad thing but some other people may think otherwise) and find discomfort in learning new things.

In short, they don't shoot film because it's film, they shoot film because it's not digital.

And what is this nonsense with "print big"? That is just an excuse. Have they never heard of 11 megapixels + Genuine Fractals?

[DocFrankenstein]

One guy showed me what amazing results film can give you. "if you scan it with a negative scanner, you'll be amazed!) :roll: The colours, the detail... oooh was he excited.

In the end he showed me something like 1200*1800 pic, with horrid colours and you could see the noise showing. :roll:

I have made a very animate "wow". It looked like I was excited to see his pic, but I was genuenly surprised at how crappy it was. :?

[Sketcher]

My Uncle gave me a mint condition Mamiya RB67 and lenses. I can get a Digital Back for that sucker if I want to plunk down $16,000.00. Capable of producing 36MB 16bit files out of camera. I think I'll wait and see if price comes down a little ;).

IMO, simply saying you CAN do something in digital doesn't mean everyone SHOULD drop film. I think both crowds are prone to narrow focus when it comes to this argument. If you're into digital you're comfortable or at least willing to deal with a post processing learning curve. Most (not all) die hard medium format professionals have been at it for quite some time and are very good at what they do. Film processing is as easy to them as photoshop is to the digital crowd. Digital gives you incredible image manipulation, exceptional post processing flexibility and unprecedented turn-a-round of finished product compared to film but it IS NOT all encompassing.

Some of the best of you digital photographers though good at your digital craft would be helpless to create a passable film print from a medium format box w/out running out the film and emptying your pocket. Likewise, some of the most skilled medium format film guys are about as familiar with a computer as a 2yr old is with calculus. So, saying that They are stuck in the past though it may be true; they don't deserve the derision that many digital photogs aim at them. In their eyes, they can't do with digital what is second-hand for them to do in film.

What kind of piques my interest, is that there's an argument of what you can/can't do between the Canon models; 300D 6MP, 1DMKII 8MP, 1DS 11MP as compared to 35mm film. Having more flexibility in cropping is one of the benefits of larger sensor size and higher MP. So, using 35mm film as a reference - how is the comparison against medium format similarly relevant? It's relevant in crop factor and resolution. Sure, you can do some amazing things with the higher megapixel DSLR's, but current high megapixel DSLR's being a replacement for medium format film? Nah, at least not yet in a DSLR. Now if you're talking about that $13,000.00 digital back which is capable of producing 36MB images out of camera. Now there's where the digital argument is made. Sure, it's astronomically expensive, but it's digitally relevant to medium format film.

I know, their argument is "GO BIG or GO HOME". IMO, they're right - because if they do go digital, they're still operating on a plane that's far above our DSLR ozone.

[SnJPhoto]

April -
I have a 20 X 30 print hanging over my head that most people that visit myhome can not believe it came from a digital camera. Specifically from a 10D. The trick I believe is making sure you have a good place do your prints. I love my inkjet, but like the results of the photo processing done by places like iphotoshop.com or printroom.com better.

just my 2 bits....


Scott

[Sketcher]

Not only is it a lack of knowledge, it is a desire not to learn and to keep one's self stuck in the past for the sake of comfort. It is the same reason elder people still listen to records instead of CDs, even though CD quality is much better.
Hey people, the enjoyment of a craft does not necessitate that it ipso facto change with the times. So a 2005 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT is technologically superior to a '67 GT 350, does that fact make it a better, more valuable car? For that matter, can you actually work on that car as efficiently as the average car enthusiast can work on that GT 350? Sure, there are people who refuse to acknowledge the value or capability of each others format of choice, but it doesn't have to be a failing. For goodness sake, it may be a preference. Even if it's a preference born out of ingorance, it's not ignoble to be passionate about how you like to do things.

BTW, take the CD vs Vinyl argument into an Audiophile forum and you'll get your arse handed to you on a silicon blank. Familiar with the "Dynamic Range" limitations of digital in relation to film? There's just as significant a variance in audible quality of range between digital and analog reproduction. And it's not just limitation of CD... DVD audio blows away CDA and there's still a lively arguement of dynamic audio quality. Heck, high-end companies are still producing turn tables and vacuum tube amplifers, not because they're novelty; but because they can do something beautiful with audible dynamics that digital reproduction can't.

Would the average music lover be able to tell the difference? Perhaps, perhaps not. But for some, it's an important enough difference that it's worthwhile to spend $15,000.00 on an analog turntable or $45,000.00 for component vacuum tube amplifier and there's quality and variance to be found at every price range in between.

I'll leave the detail of the arguments alone at this point, other than to say that when you "Digital Photographers" get all high and mighty touting the merits of "L" glass, Pro gear, Canon vs Nikon and then digress waxing philisophically that it's the photographer, not the camera that makes the photograph. Well, it's STILL the Photographer behind the camera be it film or digital who is creating their image with their tool of choice.

[Ballen Photo]

Well, it's STILL the Photographer behind the camera be it film or digital who is creating their image with their tool of choice.

Well put Sketcher!
I DO believe that digital is finally in a position to compete successfully with film, and because this is the digital age, more up and coming photographers will migrate towards DSLR's, but that doesn't take anything away from film either.

Now back on topic, April, did this camera store employee that switched back to film because He wanted to make bigger prints mention how big He wanted to make them? Most people will not buy anything larger than 8x10 prints, and I've seen 20"x30" prints made on a regular basis by cameras such as the 10D. :shock: Realistically, how big do you need them to be? 8) 8)
-Bruce

[photography By Evangelos]

There is so much more I can do with my images than I could ever do with Film. With the D60 and the 10D I have made prints as large as 20x30. I never make larger prints than this. 11x14 and 16x20 are the most common size. I just do not understand these die-hard film guys who are poo pooing digital. Let me tell ya the wedding albums I do now are fantastic and I could never do it with film. Digital has made me more profitable with my business and saves me time. I have not touched a roll of film for over 3 years now and have never looked back once. So don't look back with the 10D, 20D or the 1D MK II you will never need film and the quality is just fine. DIGITAL IS NOW AND DIGITAL IS WONDERFUL. Let the Med format guy’s lug there old out dated equipment. Time is money and digital make lots of sense.



Angelo 8)

[Sketcher]

;)

For the record, Digital kicks a$$ in more ways than one. It's a pretty specific, unique application where medium format in and of itself bests today's best DSLR technology. My ranting above was just in regard to how we treat each other and respect a way of doing things.

I will stand solid in my CD vs Analog audio argument however ;).

Say goodnight Gracie.

[Dans_D60]

Ever hear term “disruptive technologies”. Digital photography is clearly one of them. True disruptive technology are those technologies that displace existing technologies and if the commercial sector doesn’t adapt, they simply are displaced … PC for out-of-business. When Nikon announces they will no longer manufacture ANY film cameras after 2007 is quite obvious that the industry is transforming … and quickly. At least Nikon recognizes the disruptive nature of digital photography and is trying to keep up. Sure there will always a place for small “niche” players, but we are clearly in the transition from film. Some 30 years ago, I truly thought the state-of-the art in audio equipment was a DUAL turntable (Germany) and McIntosh tube Amplifier (United States). These companies (for the most part) are gone. Sure you see the “brands” around but that copyright was sold as part of the liquidation processes. It really doesn’t matter if one believes film or vinyl is worse or better. The facts are the facts and right now we’re witnessing a disruptive change and like it or not, film is on the way out and will be part of the niche market in just a few short years. Even Hasselblad threw in the towel and was forced to sell a majority stake to a Honk-Kong firm that makes digital backs. I still own film camera bodies and they will remain part of my collection and will be used for fun. But, no longer will I use film in a commercial venue. Just not worth it anymore.

Dan

[mdude85]

Hey people, the enjoyment of a craft does not necessitate that it ipso facto change with the times. So a 2005 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT is technologically superior to a '67 GT 350, does that fact make it a better, more valuable car?

Yes, if you're comparing the technological advances of both cars, to determine truly which one is a better performer, regardless of which one is a "classic" and a "true performer in its day."

Also, I am not an audiophile and I won't comment on the CD/analogue discussion. The point is that many people still listen to records because they are nostalgic, even if the quality is not up to par.

[jgbeam]

Answer: Some people STILL prefer 12-inch, plastic, 33 RPM slabs to listen to their music.

There will ALWAYS be someone that prefers film.

The best analog recordings are better than the best CD's. Problem is, you have to spend megabucks on a system that gets you to that level. Unless you have heard a properly setup, audiophile turntable, tonearm, cartridge combo, you will not believe what I say. I have a very good, but no where near state-of-the-art, system and I prefer analog to digital, as many other music lovers do.

I resisted digital cameras for a long time and when I finally got a G3, I found the shutter lag and recycle time intolerable. I really liked the convenience of "free" shots and making my own prints, however, so I perservered. When I got the Rebel, all my digital problems went away and I sold my manual focus lenses on ebay, except for my two favorites. The same thing hasn't yet happened in the music world. Vinyl still rules! (Especially at $1.00 per disc). :D :D :D

Jim

[abel]

you know i have NO experience with film other than those $4 dispoable cameras... hehe

although, i am interested in buying an old cano ae-1 35mm camera just to play around with etc.. i think that would be cool from time to time. something a little old skool... :)

[AprilShowers]

thanks for all the feedback!!!

I was particularly shocked by the Nikon news and Hasselbad throwing in the towel. I can't believe that!!! Also, I agree with the preference (car/vinyl example) who cares if digital outweighs one or lacks in other departments ( i CERTAINLY will continue to shoot with pixels) what matters is the artist BEHIND the camera. Many other great points were made, I appreciate everyone's point of view.

The guy at the camera store never mentioned "how big" he liked to print. But merely alluded to digitals faults like it was an 'ex' girlfriend or something.

I think i'll hock my camera on eBay or something. Anybody want a Mamiya 645 pro with a 110 &220 back with 3 lenses, an Eflash and a charger???

:lol:

[CyberDyneSystems]

I think that Digital shooters may be less high and mighty.. and more defensive, as well as sick and tired of the "Digital will never = film" Mythology that has allready been proven unsound.

The truth is that Digital allready surpasses 35mm film.. (grated at much higher cost of Camera) ...so it is back to the Mamiya where the debate can rage.

There are two types of Film loayalists.. those worth listening to,. and those that aren't. The one worth listening to has actually tried Digital and has reasons for remaining with film.. again.. these tend to be large or medium format users.

If you want Mamiya quality large prints,.. that too can be acheived with digital in the form of medium format digital backs or the 1Ds.

[jgbeam]

Shutterbug recently did a comparison between medium format film and digital slr's (a Nikon D70 or D100, I forget). They scanned the MF image and compared prints and pretty much called it even. Very minimal post-processing was done. If one of those Nikon's came even with the MF, the Canon dslr's would blow away the MF! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Jim

[w10d]

Haven't been to this forum for ages, but the name Mamiya caught my eye today, so I've just read this thread. Here are a couple of observations re- comparing DSLR's and MF fim:

I've spent most of my career behind a Mamiya RZ, using a 645 for some jobs, and a 10D for about a year - The comparisons I'm making are between scanned film and digital capture (NOT prints).

Firstly, there's an enormous difference in quality between the 645 and RZ and it's always seemed to me that that difference is increased by the scanning process. I'm quite confident that I could produce a better quality image from the 10D than I ever could from a 645 drum scan. (Though the 10D's file will be more restricted in terms of enlargement or cropping).

I recently shot with a hired 11 mega pixel back on an RZ - Great quality, but I was really expecting to be blown away by the results, unfortunately the 10D has spoilt me and I was a bit underwealmed.

Just after I bought the 10D I took it along to a studio job I was shooting on the RZ with E6. I used it on each different shot, just as a test. After I had handed off the retouched pictures to the client I took a closer look at the 10D results - having just finished working on drum scans from 6x7 film they didn't look fantastic, but I was reasonably happy with the quality, (and very pleased with the way it coped with different lighting set-ups). In the end I liked an eye close-up from the digital, and have printed it at A3 - it sits in my portfolio next to a print from the RZ and looks great. (However, I can see a difference in similar shots, even at A4).

Direct comparisons aside, digtal and film scans are quite different to work with but are quite capable of producing results that are hard to tell apart (mostly depending on what the final output is...). Which is better? Frankly, who gives a ****, I know what I prefer to work with javascript:emoticon(':lol:')

:lol: :lol:

[mjordan]

Hi! I'm a newbie to this forum...

I'd like to know what people think about my shooting pro digital scenario. Its been brought up a million times I'm sure, but I have to ask, because I don't know any photogs that shoot digital in this area. :evil:
April

April, there are a whole bunch of digital shooters in the Seattle area. Here is a site you might check out:

http://ajmontgomery.com/psap/forum/ in the Gig Harbor area, but with members all around the Seattle area (and down into Oregon as well).

Here is another group that does scenics and outdoors shots in the greater Portland area as well as into Washington:

http://pacificnw.naturephotographers.net/index.htm

Mike

[DocFrankenstein]

DIGITAL RULES. 35mm film just doesn't do it anymore.

Yeah, it creates "beautiful effects" or noise, if you want to tell the truth, on anything larger than 8*10. :P

I have just finished printing some of my rebel pics from i960 and only medium format can match that quality.

Cheers 8)

[tofuboy]

Both formats have their pros and cons... of which everyone touched on. The only thing left to decide is which fits your needs the best... Digital is for me. Also, I'm in Seattle too :)