Medium Format Vs. 20D ??

[Bren at Bella Photography]

I need to understand the difference between a medium format camera like the mamiya 645 and my new Canon 20D. Does it ( 20D) have the ability to shoot the equivalent picture? Can't wait to hear back! I just bought a great book where the author gives the reader all the very important information about each shot, but now I see that the camera of her choice is a Mamiya 645 which makes me wonder if I can do this same work on my 20D. (I just got it and don't have a cf card yet so I"m veeeerrrrrrryyyy novice) :oops:

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Try to enhance a JPEG in PS and compare that to a RAW you will NEVER EVER go back to JPEG.
I shoot all my sport in JPEG (highest quality) but even my family shots are shot in RAW.
The only reason I shoot sports in JPEG is of the larger buffer I have available at the moment of the shoot.

I tried JPEG for a few studio shots once, just to see the difference and I will never use it in the studio, when doing enhancements on skin or hair like smoothing or fine sharpening jpeg just is not good enough, also when doing colortweaking JPEG will give much more colornoise than RAW.

[felix21685]

can you download other peoples automated actions in photoshop ?
some one said somehting about pekka's actions..please clarify

[MikeCaine]

I honestly think that for recreational and travel photography shooting in fine .jpg should be acceptable.
Regards,

Possibly for recreational use but not for travel photography as far as I'm concerned. If I spend a cople of thousand pounds on a holiday and I'm perhaps only passing through a place once in my life, sometimes in less than ideal conditions, I'd rather shoot RAW than JPEG. I always travel with a laptop so storage space isn't too much of an issue.

[johnlo]

I have NEVER shoot in RAW on assignment. I have been using JPEG normal for years now. Both on the Fuji S2 and with the 20D. 90% of my work is preschool photography.. no one will order prints larger then a 8x10.... with my Wedding, I am still using JPEG normal. I might go to Fine.. but that means I have to get more memory card. grrrrrrrrr!

[robertwgross]

I need to understand the difference between a medium format camera like the mamiya 645 and my new Canon 20D. Does it ( 20D) have the ability to shoot the equivalent picture?

No.

You might shoot with a similar perspective, but it would be very hard to compare a medium format film negative image to a Canon 20D.

Now, having said that, I would also say that for what most people shoot and with what they do with the photo, they cannot tell much different in the result. A discerning photographer would see loads of difference, and especially if the resultant image were being enlarged to 20x30 inches or larger. Find me a Mamiya that can shoot at 5 fps.

---Bob Gross---

[wilflee]

If you are shooting for yourself and you are happy with the quality/convenience of the 20D, then use the 20D. If you're shooting for someone else and they demand a MF and willing to pay for the extra cost of MF, then use MF. There are numerous differences between 20D & MF. The question is whether the difference is worth the price & hassle.

[Lesmac]

Don't get fixated regarding digital versus MF. Just go out and shoot, explore, experiment and enjoy your photography. As a novice your 20D will do more than you ever need.
Get to know your camera, and the issue of quality will be a non-issue.

Les
http://lesmclean.photoblink.com/

[miklav]

I need to understand the difference between a medium format camera like the mamiya 645 and my new Canon 20D. Does it ( 20D) have the ability to shoot the equivalent picture? <...>Technically speaking, you can not get the same quality picture from 20D as you would get from the medium format. Having a good professional film scanner you would get something like 60-80 megapixels picture from medium format (vs 8 Mpix on 20d) with wider tonal range than digital can make.

However if you an amateur you simply don't need that level of quality. Even printing A3 size posters for your own use 8 megzpixels is ok.

Talking about features, 20D probably has more than Mamya.

Also, medium format is expensive. Camera is expensive, lens are very expensive, film is expensive, processing too, and scanners are very expensive.

[johnlo]

I agreeed with the others said. Since you are stating that youre a "novice". Just play and learn your 20D. Its an awesome camera. MF & digital SLR (35mm) are in two different world. no need to get yourself all confuse with whats out there.. enjoy what you have now.... Go to Bestbuy and get yourself some memory card. or whichever store you prefer. Its a holiday weekend.. somebody has to have a sale.

[booggerg]

I shot this with my Yashica 124G MF camera, hand-held at low shutter, scanned it in at 2400dpi on a cheapo Epson flat bed scanner. Ain't no way the 20D can do this kind of resolution... so there ya have it!

http://www.pbase.com/booggerg/image/45100490/original

[ScottE]

I shot this with my Yashica 124G MF camera, hand-held at low shutter, scanned it in at 2400dpi on a cheapo Epson flat bed scanner. Ain't no way the 20D can do this kind of resolution... so there ya have it!

http://www.pbase.com/booggerg/image/45100490/original
No, but if you just wanted a picture of the chealeaders from where you were positioned you could have just put a telephoto lens on the 20D and it would have had more resolution. Telephoto lenses don't come that long for medium format.

Also if the end product was to be a 4x6 or 8x10 inch print, it would have been almost impossible for a person with normal eyesight to see the greater resolution.

Larger format shine when it comes to making bigger enlargements. A 16x20 inch print from your MF would have noticeably more resolution than the same shot taken with the appropriate lens on a 20D.

Scott

[rlwass]

I just joined the forum to answer this specific question. I am really feeling pushed to digital because of the things it can do. I have been using a Hasselblad, having the negatives scanned and printed. I am interested in landscapes. I open crop the image. My best reading suggests that Canon has many advantages over the Hasselblad H1 medium format digital. More lenses, image stabilization, zooms, more cutting edge technology and a much bigger market and therefore greater likelihood of survival as a company. My concerns are about the size of the image capture and the quality of the Canon glass. I seldom enlarge beyond 20x20 but with cropping the effective enlargement may be double that. Comments from experience with both systems would be very much appreciated.

[ScottE]

On a 20x20 inch enlargement, the picture made from a 6x6 cm peice of film is going to have noticeably more resolution than the same shot taken by a 20D, unless you do some very severe cropping to get the shot from your 6x6.

I have seen some 16x20 inch enlargements from a 1DsMkII that look like they could rival the resolution of a medium format camera, but I didn't see photos of the same subject so that I could compare directly.

Scott

[booggerg]

No, but if you just wanted a picture of the chealeaders from where you were positioned you could have just put a telephoto lens on the 20D and it would have had more resolution. Telephoto lenses don't come that long for medium format.

Also if the end product was to be a 4x6 or 8x10 inch print, it would have been almost impossible for a person with normal eyesight to see the greater resolution.

Larger format shine when it comes to making bigger enlargements. A 16x20 inch print from your MF would have noticeably more resolution than the same shot taken with the appropriate lens on a 20D.
Scott

My example was of a comparison of resolution. Which I have proven. There was no talk of what I wanted out of that picture. I agree, when you print on small outputs, the 20D and MF will offer the same. But the truth is that MF will offer more raw resolution than that megapixel sensor in the 20D.

[elhalman]

you need double the 20D resolution to be able to compete with a medium format camera

the Canon 1DS MKII has a 16 Megapixel censor and some pro's claim that its image quality equals or surpasses some MF with digital backs:

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/Canon-1ds-mkii-p1.shtml

[Hellashot]

There is a medium format digital camera, 36x48mm sensor, 22MP out there.

[Mohawk]

There is a medium format digital camera, 36x48mm sensor, 22MP out there.

Isn't that particular camera priced some where around $25,000? And I think that is just a back, less the actual camera and lens.

If you are looking for MF quality, or close to, I think that the Canon 1DsMKII would be the way to go at $7900. But, you will have some HUGE files, as you would with your digital MF. Then there are the lenses, 16+mp will eat some lenses. Quite a few people are using the MF lenses on the 1DsMKII, due to the higher quality of those particular lenses.

Actually, a full frame 12mp body would be my choice, maybe Canon will surprise us all and make one soon. But, until that happens, I am very very happy with my 20D and 1DMKII. They still take incredible images at 8mp, and can be enlarged quite nicely. In fact, I really cannot tell the difference between my film images vs digital. And the ability to have the images right there, right now, is still mind bogling to me. I wish I would have had this gear when I lived and worked in Alaska.

Mike

[Mohawk]

Bloo'

Back in the day, I lusted for a MF system. The images were always impresive to say the least. But, it was just to cost prohibitive for myself. In fact, after being forced to sell my Nikon gear a few years ago, I kinda gave up on photography. I still had the bug, but could not afford to get back what I had lost. Then, with the advent of digital, the steady falling prices, and being back on my feet fianancially, have me back in the game! I know longer want the MF gear, for all of the reasons you stated above. I'll just wait for that 12mp full frame, or even 1.3x crop body. We should have one from Canon within another year. At least one can hope.

Mike

[blue_max]

I had a Hasselblad outfit and drum scanner. I believe I now have more control and can produce a better quality output from my 10d and L lenses. I sold my medium format equipment at a huge loss and can't believe that this Canon equipment holds it's value so well. I bought the Hasselblad thinking that quality would always be a good investment.

Medium format is dead. In the 'old days' you had to spend thousands of pounds just to get to the digital stage, after having gone through processing. Now you can do it at home.

Another industry bites the dust.

Graham

[wilflee]

I had a Hasselblad outfit and drum scanner. I believe I now have more control and can produce a better quality output from my 10d and L lenses.
I'm not surprised that film + scanner can't compete with a 10D.

For the best image, the tool (camera & lens combo) chosen for the job should match the format of the final output. For digital final output (such as computer screen) or low res print media (newspaper & magazine, inkjet printer), DSLRs can't be beat for convenience and capability. But for prints on photographic paper (archival quality wall displays etc.), film camera's quality can't be beat. The resolution is almost infinte and the shadow/highlight details have many more shades than 8 or 16 bit pixels.

If I'm shooting stuff for my web page or catalogs, it's DSLR because scanned film prints not only are more expensive and time-consuming, it also looks horrible. If I'm shooting pictures to be hung up on the wall, it's 6X6 & hours in the darkroom.

[blue_max]

I'm not surprised that film + scanner can't compete with a 10D.

For the best image, the tool (camera & lens combo) chosen for the job should match the format of the final output. For digital final output (such as computer screen) or low res print media (newspaper & magazine, inkjet printer), DSLRs can't be beat for convenience and capability. But for prints on photographic paper (archival quality wall displays etc.), film camera's quality can't be beat. The resolution is almost infinte and the shadow/highlight details have many more shades than 8 or 16 bit pixels.

If I'm shooting stuff for my web page or catalogs, it's DSLR because scanned film prints not only are more expensive and time-consuming, it also looks horrible. If I'm shooting pictures to be hung up on the wall, it's 6X6 & hours in the darkroom.

I think you may be jumping to conclusions about my intended useage (which I didn't state). I shot my pics on the Hassy for a gift catalogue for high quality repro. I am a graphic designer and got fed up with setting a shot up and doing everything but pushing the shutter, so bought my own kit. I shot a catalogue very successfully and bought a drum scanner at nearly £12000 pounds to scan them in.

My point was that with digital imaging at the point it is at now, with such fantastic sharpening programmes, I could easily produce better quality with my Canon equipment, than I did then.

That has been my experience, in my field. My shots from Snappy Snaps ( :o ) look better than any film I have had developed.

Graham

[blue_max]

Oh, I'm sure my little bubble will burst if and when I decide to shoot film again, but i agree that if you're shooting for web use or for publication where the image size is 4x5 film seems impractical and not at all time-efficient. I just finished a jewelry project in which the product was shipped to me and I had ONE day to photograph each batch. I couldn't have accomplished that with film, even with same-day E-6 processing.

I don't think I'd go into traditional portraiture with an 8mp digital camera, though.

Don't forget that you can have slides made of your digital files. There is more than enough data. Then you can print to any size. I would imagine that traditional portraiture would not require brutally sharp images anyway. My 10d gives me 26x17cm files at 300dpi (high quality print resolution). I could probably double that with careful interpolation and sharpening and still have a good quality image. If anything, a print requires less data. It would be interesting to see if you get an improvement in quality by using film. If you try it, please let us know as it's an interesting comparision.

Graham