D200 vs 4x5

[mdmc]

This was interesting, to me anyway. I think the D200 holds up rather well.
Mark.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200/d200-vs-4x5.htm

[srobb]

Yes, but digital still has a ways to go to rival the kind of resolution you can get from medium format film. A 4X5 is one thing I will be putting on my wish list.

[Michael Fanelli]

This was interesting, to me anyway. I think the D200 holds up rather well.
Mark.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200/d200-vs-4x5.htm

High end digital matches medium format very well. But large format such as 4x5? Not yet! At least not in cameras that normal humans can afford. But its getting here, maybe in a few more years. It wasn't that long ago when 35mm film was the cat's pajamas and digital was a toy; we've progressed a very long way.

[another view]

I didn't read this, but I think he did this comparison with a D1H awhile back too. Personally, I think it's like comparing apples and orangutans. Large format is a whole different experience than shooting something like a D200 (whether it's 35mm, DSLR, latest greatest or not).

The results you get on large format will have a lot to do with the fact that you spent some time setting the camera up, really thinking about what you wanted and probably willing to wait until it happened. This isn't always the case with SLR's (I can admit it).

[shutterman]

High end digital matches medium format very well. But large format such as 4x5? Not yet! At least not in cameras that normal humans can afford. But its getting here, maybe in a few more years. It wasn't that long ago when 35mm film was the cat's pajamas and digital was a toy; we've progressed a very long way.

Maybe so, but I see a trememdous difference b/n my D100 and my Mamiya. the Mamiya blows it away (but it is harder to use!)

[Photo-John]

Yes, but digital still has a ways to go to rival the kind of resolution you can get from medium format film. A 4X5 is one thing I will be putting on my wish list.

srobb-
I actually think the top digital SLRs hold up fine against any medium format. And then there are digital backs. For years now, digital backs have been able to crush all film except 8x10. Of course, they usually cost around $15k + camera and lenses.

I've owned pretty much every kind of camera possible, including a 4x5 and a 6x7. I still own the 6x7, although I haven't used it for a couple of years. I'm curious if you've ever used a 4x5. The thing about large format is the slow, slooooowwwwwww speed of taking a picture. There is so much setup and planning involved that it requires a very different mindest and approach. If you make a mistake you don't just take another photo. You have to put your darkslide back in, flip the film holder, take your darkslide out, cock the shutter, and then you're finally ready. It's a very different type of photography. I've found that I just don't have the patience for it. And because it's so slow, I don't get to follow the creative flow that happens in my mind. So I don't get the best photos. The same is true with my 6x7.

35mm cameras revolutionized photography because they made it so easy for people to take pictures. That meant more photos and in the end, more photos means better photos. Digital is doing the same thing again. A good 4x5 transparency is a beautiful thing. But that doesn't mean it's the right thing.

[srobb]

Guess that's one reason I look at things the way I do. I have not owned/used any medium format camera, but that is one thing I would like to do in the future. As you said, it sometimes depends on the mindset of the individual behind it. I do have quite a bit of patience and a very big desire to catch the best image possible.

At the same time, there is no way I can afford things like that in a digital form. I have seen mention in other posts that the prices of medium formats seem to be coming down. I may have to see what they are running and try to figure out when I could fit one into the budget.

I think a lot of it has to do completely with the individual. I have seen interviews with a lot of pro nature/wildlife photogs that will only shoot film. Others have made the change to digital. Who's right, who's wrong? I have seen the results of good slides scanned with one of the good scanners made for that side by side with digital and I am still impressed with how the scanned slide images look compared to the digital.

[Photo-John]

Maybe so, but I see a trememdous difference b/n my D100 and my Mamiya. the Mamiya blows it away (but it is harder to use!)

Which Mamiya do you have? And have you compared it to a D2X or EOS 1Ds file? I've never been a fan of the 645 format. But I am in love with 6x7. However, I am convinced that the image quality, speed, and flexibility of the top digital SLRs make them more than a match even for 6x7 now.

[shutterman]

Which Mamiya do you have? And have you compared it to a D2X or EOS 1Ds file? I've never been a fan of the 645 format. But I am in love with 6x7. However, I am convinced that the image quality, speed, and flexibility of the top digital SLRs make them more than a match even for 6x7 now.

Hi John. I have the 645AFD. I haven't been able to compare it to the D2x or EOS (what the heck is an EOS anyway - ha ha ha). You are right abou the speed and flexibility though. I must say that for most of my paid work I am using the D100 for those reasons (also b/c it is a cheaper work flow). When I am doing serious landscapes or know that someone wants a large portrait print I will use the mamiya. Maybe it is b/c I am still hooked on the "look" of film that I like the 645.

I suppose that someday I will either get a better SLR or get a digital back for the mamiya b/c most paying folks don't care if it is film or digital. Right now I just have confidence that when I need to crop something or want a large print than the Mamiya is what I will use!

Now if you would be so kind as to donate a D2x I will compare away!

[almo]

srobb-
I actually think the top digital SLRs hold up fine against any medium format. And then there are digital backs. For years now, digital backs have been able to crush all film except 8x10. Of course, they usually cost around $15k + camera and lenses.

I've owned pretty much every kind of camera possible, including a 4x5 and a 6x7. I still own the 6x7, although I haven't used it for a couple of years. I'm curious if you've ever used a 4x5. The thing about large format is the slow, slooooowwwwwww speed of taking a picture. There is so much setup and planning involved that it requires a very different mindest and approach. If you make a mistake you don't just take another photo. You have to put your darkslide back in, flip the film holder, take your darkslide out, cock the shutter, and then you're finally ready. It's a very different type of photography. I've found that I just don't have the patience for it. And because it's so slow, I don't get to follow the creative flow that happens in my mind. So I don't get the best photos. The same is true with my 6x7.

35mm cameras revolutionized photography because they made it so easy for people to take pictures. That meant more photos and in the end, more photos means better photos. Digital is doing the same thing again. A good 4x5 transparency is a beautiful thing. But that doesn't mean it's the right thing.

I once watched a student use an 8x10 field camera to take a picture of Rosa Parks Circle, in downtown Grand Rapids, Mi.. She caught my eye because she was walking around the area for a good 20 or so minutes with what looked like a cinematography mockup lens. After a little while she went to her car some ways away and she pulled out a huge black metal case and a very big tripod, and lugged them back to the last spot she was standing at. She then opened that case and for the next 30 or so mintues she set up that camera, and then in 30 minutes she took 3 or so images.

I watched her for the better part of 2 hours and she took maybe 3 images.

Given the choice between that and the D200, I'll take the Nikon...Yes, even a Nikon

[Photo-John]

I once watched a student use an 8x10 field camera to take a picture of Rosa Parks Circle, in downtown Grand Rapids, Mi....

I watched her for the better part of 2 hours and she took maybe 3 images.

Given the choice between that and the D200, I'll take the Nikon...Yes, even a Nikon

It would be nice to see those images. I've printed from 8x10 negs and transparencies and they are beautiful. In the hands of the right photographer, an 8x10 is a powerful tool. And you can make wonderful, wonderful contact prints from a good black and white 8x10 neg. But the photographer has to really know what they're doing with it. They have to have a clear vision and be very patient. You don't get to experiment. You have to be able to visualize your final image very clearly. The nice thing about 35mm can digital, is that we get to go nuts, making a ton of exposures, tuning them up until we get it right.

[Brian_A]

srobb-
I've found that I just don't have the patience for it.
A good 4x5 transparency is a beautiful thing. But that doesn't mean it's the right thing.

I ran upon this in a Google search and couldn't resist replying, although I'm sure it'll prolly never be seen by the original posters.

I love that first part of the quote. Most people have no idea what true photography is. In this case, the author saved my respect by understanding that a good 4x5 transparency is beautiful.

Everyone now-a-days thinks they're a pro. Working for a little while in a camera store during a low part in my photo career taught me a few lessons. 9 out of 10 people on the net that claim they're a professional are full of it. When someone came into my shop and tells me they're a pro and then they tell me they shoot with a Canon Rebel or a Nikon D40 and a kit lens, I wanted to reach across the counter and give them all five across the face.
90% of those people also told me they didn't operate out of the 'P' mode.

It really kills me. I understand film is not for all, but if you're going to sit there and tell me you are a pro, you need to know how to operate your camera a little deeper than the 'P' mode.

So, that said, 4x5 (Or any large format photography) is completely different than what people see today as 'normal' cameras. Yes, they do involve a lot of time. You don't just put your camera to your face and click away, looking back and seeing if you got what you think is 'the' shot. With LF you actually have to THINK about what you're making a photograph of. If you ask any LF photographer, having to pay for the expensive LF film, gear and processing makes you want to see the best shots come out of it. You make a mistake and that's $5-10 depending on the film and processing you use. (IE E-6 or B&W) I'm willing to bet that the photographs you saw her make were all of the same thing. All she was doing was bracketing the image. More than likely she'll not use two of the images she took.

So, yes, does it take longer? Indeed it does. But when you are successful in making an image that you wanted, it makes it all worth while.

Also there is no 35mm digital camera that can even come close to a 4x5 negative or transparency scanned on a drum scanner. No way.

A good MF back or LF scanning back may compare, but I've even tried the MkIII's and while they're getting closer they're not there yet. One 4x5 scan can get me a 1gb working file. I'd like to see the MkIII or D3 do the same.

-Brian

PS: If you shoot

A) With a Rebel or D40/40x/60 etc
B) Don't know how to shoot out the 'P' mode
C) Still only own the kit lens(es)

and call yourself a pro, please promtly laugh at yourself in a mirror.

[Photo-John]

Brian-
You called? I see all :-)

And I'm gratified to hear that you found this thread via Google and were interested enough to give us a visit. I hope you'll stick around.

A little background on me - I took tons of photography in college in the eighties, worked in labs for years, printed for some of the best, and have shot with everything short of a 5x7 camera. I've also done drum scans and done large format digital prints. I still keep a 5x7 Ilfochrome print of a rare Ducati, made from a 6x7 transparency - just because it's so rich and beautiful.

But the reality is, for most of us, digital is better. And even a Digital Rebel or D40. It means we get more volume and that often matters more than the perfection required by large format. You could say that most people just don't have that kind of talent. And then there are revered photographers like Galen Rowel. He couldn't very well use a 4x5 while hanging off cliff walls. It just wouldn't be the right tool for the job. And for me, shooting mountain biking or skiing, large format and even medium format doesn't make sense. In fact, I love the small cameras like the D40 because they mean I can go farther and longer in the backcountry.

One last thing - pro just means you get paid. As much as we might resent it - and we means me, too - there are people out there who can get it done with an entry-level camera in P mode. Some of them have the eye and some of them are just great at marketing themselves. But if they're getting paid, they're professionals. You don't have to respect them. But by definition, they're pros.

Hope you stick around. We need more people here with the breadth of experience you have. And it was fun to see this thread pop up again

[drg]

K.R.'s article at this writing is nearly three years out of date. 2006 when he wrote it didn't account for a lot of the learning curve that was happening with Digital Photography. Even allowing for that . . .

There's some problems with his testing methods (a KR known issue), such as comparing bad scans (by his mention in the logo/watermarking) with rescaled digital photos and even using photos for comparison that are incorrectly white balanced.

But leaving those issue aside as well, Rockwell hadn't learned at this point or doesn't acknowledge the myth about rescanning with 'better' scanners in the future. Film breaks down at about the level he's reportedly scanning it. Grain and the the structure appears in even the best film around 2500-3000 dpi. It's a mechanical limitation. The best usable image you'll ever really get from a 4x5 is far below the 12000x15000 theoretical maximum. 8000x10000 from my Sinar is about all I've ever really needed or seen the appropriate quality to warrant the file size.

A lot of otherwise technically adept photographers never fully understood that scanners themselves interpolate. Or they rescan the image and add all the numbers up to produce a 'bigger' image via the same Bayer style (though variing and different algoritms) re-sampling and color interpolation as digital sensors in cameras. Read in detail the technical docs for say, oh, an Imacon drum scanner. Just a suggestion.

Film, and I still shoot film but for special purposes, legacy issues (related to work and '10 year' projects), and for some black and white custom work, isn't as John mentioned the same thing as digital. At all.

MF and LF in film is as much a mindset for me as a technical realm. Since first working extensively with Digital, I've taken 1-2 weeks a year to just go shoot on BIG film. I'll expose maybe two or three shots a day on average. There will be 35mm test shots everyday to see if it is going to work on that emulsion. Generally though it is very different.

MF/LF in digital can be the same way too. If as mentioned below you are working in a studio with a modern Hasselbland, you can wind up shooting just as much as with any digi-camera.

The D200, while a fine camera, and I shot 3000+ images with one over a month a half within a year of it's original release, was not the best choice for comparison. It certainly has been supplanted by numerous/better/more capable cameras in the intervening 2-3 years.

Most of the testers who compared the Canon MkIIds quickly agreed that it easily surpassed film at the same ISO levels up to 400 ISO or greater. Sure, it does not produce as many 'pixels' natively as a MF camera . . . but they are clean and not laden with noise and the irregularity of film.

One further and contemporary note to Rockwell's revue, he apparently was completely unaware of what some of the rest of the photographic world was doing at the time. Stephen Johnson (leave aside his personal quirks and self promotion) by 2006 was working exclusively with digital and Better Light Scanning backs for his MF cameras. The results speak for themselves. Not cheap, but film MF photography isn't as cheap as the articles in question want you to believe and the convenience and success level for 'working professionals' just isn't really suitable anymore. A Hassy with digital capability has long (years) been the choice for much of the commercial/fashon world for studio work, and the FF Canon and Nikons are the fields cams of preference.

This isn't meant to be a diatribe against film or MF film as I still, at least for a planned period of time (about a year at this writing) have reasons and stock to use alongside of digital imaging. After that, and depending upon a large variety of issues, I see my work all becoming digital.