5D vs. Medium Format

[rssfhs]

Hello everyone! One of these days, I would like to upgrade my 300D to something
with more resolution. I do mostly landscape shots and my camera works great for
web display or for prints up to A3 size, but anything larger than that just doesn't
cut it.

Most of the people I shoot with are still using medium format cameras and
claim it will still be along time before digital cameras reach the same quality
level. Do they really know what they are talking about, or are they just ignorant
or too conservative to accept change?

I am keenly interested in the 5D, but $3,000 is a lot to shell out and then not be
satisfied with the results.

The guy in the camera store of course says that even the 20D has surpassed 35mm
film and is nearly equal to medium format, probably because he wants to sell me
one...

Can anyone out there convince me that I will be happy with my purchase, or should
I just go out and buy a used Mamiya or something instead? Thanks for your feedback!

[SkipD]

What is the end product you want to produce with the new camera?

I'd say that sales person is feeding you a line of BS when he says the 20D output is approaching MF quality. The 20D is a great camera (I own one), but it isn't going to produce really sharp photos - when viewed up close - much bigger than 16" x 20", and even that is a stretch. The resolution of the 5D isn't all that much better than the 20D.

[cdesperado]

I agree with what Skip said about the 20D not being anywhere near medium format quality; However, the resolution of the 5D is much better than that of the 20D (not that the 20D is lacking).

The 20D has 8.2 million pixels... the 5D has 12.7 million pixels. This means the 5D has more pixels than any other Canon camera, except the $8000 1DS MKII.

If you want medium format quality, you will need a medium format camera (at least, for now...)

For your digital comparison pleasure.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/comp...os10d&show=all

[rssfhs]

Originally Posted by SkipD

What is the end product you want to produce with the new camera?

Mainly for web use, but also for an occasional print enlargement of up to about 24x30.

[chtgrubbs]

I am very picky and conservative when it comes to quality. I usually don't enlarge my negatives more than about 10x, so I limit 35mm to 8x12, 2 1/4 negative can go up to 20x24, and for larger I shoot 4x5. But after seeing my first batch of 18x24 prints from my 5D I figure I will be using it and my 4x5 from now on. Of course, alot depends on your post-processing skills and the quality of your service bureau/printer.

[ssim]

Originally Posted by rssfhs

Mainly for web use, but also for an occasional print enlargement of up to about 24x30.

If it is primarily for web display the 5D (or pretty much any dslr) would do just fine. I haven't enlarged anything from my 5D yet but I have gone as large as 20X30 off of my 1DMKII and the quality is excellent even up close.

I have a Pentax 6X7 and a Mamiya RB67 and quite honestly they sit idle. I hardly ever use them. Yes, they produce great quality images but unless I know I am going to shoot something to go very large it is not worth it. Of course if you have lots of cash you could get a medium format with a Phase One back, now that would be sweet.

[HKFEVER]

My own opion only, even 1DsMKII can't catch MF with cheap FUJI Reala CS120 film.

May be it is limited by lens design, DR or resolution, I am not sure. And don't bother to find out. Just wait couple year cheap "digital what ever" will catch up the MF anyway. I guess....

At the mean time, live with it or you will miss out the game.

[Jim_T]

Digital photography has caught up with medium format.. If you want to shoot medium format digital you can buy the equipment today.

Outfits like Leaf make digital backs for several medium format cameras. The reason they aren't more popular is that they are far more expensive than film.. (The 22 Megapixel Aptus22 is about 30,000 bucks).. They've recently announced a 33 MP back.. You can impress your friends if you have a really thick wallet

http://www.leafamerica.com/20000.htm

[Hellashot]

Originally Posted by cdesperado

I agree with what Skip said about the 20D not being anywhere near medium format quality; However, the resolution of the 5D is much better than that of the 20D (not that the 20D is lacking).

The 20D has 8.2 million pixels... the 5D has 12.7 million pixels. This means the 5D has more pixels than any other Canon camera, except the $8000 1DS MKII.

If you want medium format quality, you will need a medium format camera (at least, for now...)

For your digital comparison pleasure.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/comp...os10d&show=all

It has more pixels, but they are bigger pixels than i the 20D. The 2 main advantages of the 5D over the 20D is being able to have truly super-wide FOV and it has spot metering.

[soupdragon]

Even though I owned a Hasselblad for many years coupled with a 40mm f4 CF for landscapes, if I had to make a choice now between a 5D and a medium format camera, I'd go 5D.

[SWPhotoImaging]

Originally Posted by rssfhs

Mainly for web use, but also for an occasional print enlargement of up to about 24x30.

If you want to produce mainly web output, pretty much any decent DLSR will do. No browser, and no computer monitor can come close to displaying the detail and crispness of even a 6Mp 300D image (properly focused and exposed of course). Video resolution is years behind printed resolution, which is lagging DSLR resolution by an order of magnitude.

[buze]

Funny that, just got myself a Bronica S2A and I'm now shooting 6x6 for landscapes on Provia 100F and get that scanned at 4800dpi. 8MP is clearly too small for detailed landscapes, I find myself seeing the interpolation in prints as small as 6x9.
12MP is just a couple hundred pixels more in width and the same in height. It's barely noticeable.

And it's FUN to shoot a camera that is older than me ! I use the 350D to frame & shoot, I then copy the settings on the Bronica, reframe and shoot. Easy; I don't even need a tripod.

[BTBeilke]

Originally Posted by Hellashot

It has more pixels, but they are bigger pixels than i the 20D.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Higher resolution, especially 50% higher resolution, is a significant improvement. And, larger photo sites (pixels) are also an improvement. Don't confuse the telephoto/crop factor/pixel density discussion for science. All that means is that in certain specific situations (telephoto), the 20D may be a better choice than the 5D. Nonetheless, all other things being equal, larger photo sites have improved signal-to-noise ratios (IOW, less noise) and improved dynamic range.

[Bob_A]

Originally Posted by HKFEVER

My own opion only, even 1DsMKII can't catch MF with cheap FUJI Reala CS120 film.

I really like Reala, it's a pretty nice negative film.

[Peter White]

Bring a CF card, your favorite EOS lens and your tripod to the camera store and make a few images. Take the CF card home, make some prints and look at the results.

Go back to the camera store and pick up the lens and tripod that you forgot to take home the day before.