Pentax 645n Vs Canon EOS 10D
Posted 05/10/2003 - 10:29
Link
Ther is no doubt that the bigger the format, the better the potential quality can be. But, we don't carry 10 x 8 inch cameras because of the bulk and weight and the cost of film!
So, compromise is the order of the day, and each of us will find that compromise at a different point, which is why you will get comflicting advice.
As an example, my logic runs as follows. I would like to own a Pentax 67, the quality of which is superb, and the lenses are second to none. However, I would have to buy a 6x7 enlarger (mine is only 6x6), the weight of a simple kit with three lenses would be back breaking on the long walks I take, the cost per shot would be high and I would need a sturdy tripod at all times for the optimum results.
So I use a 645n instead, which is hand holdable, but also gives clearly superior quality to 35mm for the optimum in landscape photography and also for the smoother skin tones in studio portraiture. It is still heavy, though, and at present I can only afford the standard lens to go with it. So it has limited functionality at present and I mainly use it in the studio.
For the majority of my photography I use 35mm cameras for which I have a large number of lenses available and I can cover any job I want to do. Quality is good up to the 16x12 inch prints I make and very close to medium format if I use a tripod, T-Max 100 film and expose and process very carefully. It is much better than digital at this time.
Pentax lenses are extremely good, as good as anything else I have seen, and the SMC coating is highly effective at eliminating flare. Which format is a tough choice, but in general I would say decide what the final use of the pictures will be - how large will they be used - and only go above 35mm if you really need to. Otherwise, you might get more enjoyment out of having a wider variety of 35mm kit rather than a restricted specialist medium format one.
Goo luck!
So, compromise is the order of the day, and each of us will find that compromise at a different point, which is why you will get comflicting advice.
As an example, my logic runs as follows. I would like to own a Pentax 67, the quality of which is superb, and the lenses are second to none. However, I would have to buy a 6x7 enlarger (mine is only 6x6), the weight of a simple kit with three lenses would be back breaking on the long walks I take, the cost per shot would be high and I would need a sturdy tripod at all times for the optimum results.
So I use a 645n instead, which is hand holdable, but also gives clearly superior quality to 35mm for the optimum in landscape photography and also for the smoother skin tones in studio portraiture. It is still heavy, though, and at present I can only afford the standard lens to go with it. So it has limited functionality at present and I mainly use it in the studio.
For the majority of my photography I use 35mm cameras for which I have a large number of lenses available and I can cover any job I want to do. Quality is good up to the 16x12 inch prints I make and very close to medium format if I use a tripod, T-Max 100 film and expose and process very carefully. It is much better than digital at this time.
Pentax lenses are extremely good, as good as anything else I have seen, and the SMC coating is highly effective at eliminating flare. Which format is a tough choice, but in general I would say decide what the final use of the pictures will be - how large will they be used - and only go above 35mm if you really need to. Otherwise, you might get more enjoyment out of having a wider variety of 35mm kit rather than a restricted specialist medium format one.
Goo luck!
Best regards, John
Posted 05/10/2003 - 18:58
Link
David
Do you really mean 1000CM x 600CM - that is 10 Metres x 6 Metres.
The Cannon 10D produces images 3072 x 2048 pixels.
I assume you meant 1.0 Metre x 0.6 metre print size. Enlarging in Photoshop to a 1.00 Metre print reduces the pixels/inch to 78. For professional use many sources recommend 300 pixels / inch; although 150 is just about acceptable for home use. This would seem to rule out a 6mp digital camera.
Most film based 35mm exhibition prints (16'' x 12'') have a darkroom enlargement of 12x (assuming full frame).
A 1.0 Metre print from a 645 would be a 17x enlargement.
In my opinion very fine grain film and a 645 would be ok, but pushing it a bit for quality.
I hope I has assumed your print size correctly.
regards
grahamwalton
Do you really mean 1000CM x 600CM - that is 10 Metres x 6 Metres.
The Cannon 10D produces images 3072 x 2048 pixels.
I assume you meant 1.0 Metre x 0.6 metre print size. Enlarging in Photoshop to a 1.00 Metre print reduces the pixels/inch to 78. For professional use many sources recommend 300 pixels / inch; although 150 is just about acceptable for home use. This would seem to rule out a 6mp digital camera.
Most film based 35mm exhibition prints (16'' x 12'') have a darkroom enlargement of 12x (assuming full frame).
A 1.0 Metre print from a 645 would be a 17x enlargement.
In my opinion very fine grain film and a 645 would be ok, but pushing it a bit for quality.
I hope I has assumed your print size correctly.
regards
grahamwalton
Posted 05/10/2003 - 20:19
Link
Graham,
What you say about pixels and dimensions is technically correct, but in practice it's not that simple
The 300dpi is for photographic quality. That is to say, if you use that resolution you will produce a very fine quality and finely detailed image. Printing a 6x4 at 150dpi is acceptable on a home inkjet, but 75dpi will show the blocks.
However, if the image is larger - such that you have to step back from it - the resolution issue changes. To illustrate - the average advert poster is positively huge. However, if you stand 1m from the board you can see they have far, far less than even 75dpi! You really need to account for distance too.
It boils down to the resolving power of the human eye, which I think stands at 100lines per inch at 1 meter (stand to be corrected). If you need to stand at 2meters, then that halves to 50 lines per inch. (Well, that's the idea anyway.)
That being said, you can take a good digital image, enlarge it and filter out the "jaggies" so it does not look so "digital". There's much you can do.
I have seen some beautiful large scale prints from a local studio ( www.richardlemon.co.uk ) who, I believe, uses a Fuji S2. They said they'd held off digital until they realised they had been looking at the "wrong" printer. For physical prints it's not as cut-and-dry as traditional film... BTW, a really good local very-large format printing company is www.spectrumphoto.co.uk who can produce truly stunning results from digital sources.
There are, as John says, compromises to be made. However, there are great advantages too in digital (speed of results, ability and cost to click away hundreds of images easily - I took 80 this afternoon). That said, the digital era is a very very fast moving one, and the cost of equipment is high (not just the camera, but the computer, software, printer etc).
If I were you, I would scout around the 'net and local studios and photographers to see just what can be done either way. For some really good digital images start here: www.pbase.com/francist (Canon gear). And the new Pentax *istD is looking very promising too
Hope that helps (a little),
Matt
What you say about pixels and dimensions is technically correct, but in practice it's not that simple
The 300dpi is for photographic quality. That is to say, if you use that resolution you will produce a very fine quality and finely detailed image. Printing a 6x4 at 150dpi is acceptable on a home inkjet, but 75dpi will show the blocks.
However, if the image is larger - such that you have to step back from it - the resolution issue changes. To illustrate - the average advert poster is positively huge. However, if you stand 1m from the board you can see they have far, far less than even 75dpi! You really need to account for distance too.
It boils down to the resolving power of the human eye, which I think stands at 100lines per inch at 1 meter (stand to be corrected). If you need to stand at 2meters, then that halves to 50 lines per inch. (Well, that's the idea anyway.)
That being said, you can take a good digital image, enlarge it and filter out the "jaggies" so it does not look so "digital". There's much you can do.
I have seen some beautiful large scale prints from a local studio ( www.richardlemon.co.uk ) who, I believe, uses a Fuji S2. They said they'd held off digital until they realised they had been looking at the "wrong" printer. For physical prints it's not as cut-and-dry as traditional film... BTW, a really good local very-large format printing company is www.spectrumphoto.co.uk who can produce truly stunning results from digital sources.
There are, as John says, compromises to be made. However, there are great advantages too in digital (speed of results, ability and cost to click away hundreds of images easily - I took 80 this afternoon). That said, the digital era is a very very fast moving one, and the cost of equipment is high (not just the camera, but the computer, software, printer etc).
If I were you, I would scout around the 'net and local studios and photographers to see just what can be done either way. For some really good digital images start here: www.pbase.com/francist (Canon gear). And the new Pentax *istD is looking very promising too
Hope that helps (a little),
Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
(For gallery, tips and links)
Posted 06/10/2003 - 02:48
Link
Graham, Thanks for your response and comments. Yes I did mean enlargements to approx 1.0m x 0.6m or there abouts. i.e. a decent sized framed result.
David
David
Posted 07/10/2003 - 08:32
Link
David,
i had the same thing last months. Should i wait and buy digital or not.
eventually i bought a 645nii besides my mz-s.
Before i had a pentax 67 which i took into the mountains on my back along with the mz-s (about 12-14 kilo..). After the trips i had the following problems.
1 weight
the weight eventually will exhaust you, and causing you to look
less hard for pictures after 5 hours of walking and climbing.
2 tripod
i did some shooting without a tripod and got some pics that where
shaken. Dof was low because i had to use F8 to get 1/60 or higher with
400 film.
So if you go for 67 you will need a tripod. I shoot a lot out of the hand.
If you want to do a lot of landscapes, a 67 is the size to go for. 4x5" even better...
That's why i searched and came to the 645. it's light, very good light measuring, and very good optics for reasonal prices and a lot of 2nd hand stuff to get. It's very easy to shoot out of the hand and there's the possibility to use a dedicated flash which i have for my mz-s.
Why not digital:
1 price
2 a lot of problems at this moment. It has a long way to go..
3 when you buy one, you won't be able to sell it afterwards
because after a year a new one with more pixels is there and no one
want the older.
4 can't compete to medium format
5 Digital has only one type of film. I can choose which kind of film to use
portrait/50 asa...
6 Black and white sucks which digital. I shoot a lot of b/w. number of
Gray tones is with digital very low.
7 dof is very high with current lenses. If you want to shoot a pic where
for instance only the eye of the person is sharp, is not possible digital
because the dof is already very large.
8 storing images is a boring proces that takes a lot of time.
cd-r's must be copied fresh after some years otherwise you will loose
information on the cd. So it's possible that after 10 years you take a
cd, and can't read it anymore...
Anyone who says digital is cheaper, i smile at. The camera isn't worth anything after buying, the shutter goes for 50000 pictures. After that the shutter should be renewed for some 400 euro... printing at a store through the internet aks for startup costs about 1,50 euro. The print is more expensive 55cents than normal printing (35-45 cents) from negatives. So i thing it would be at break even unless you are a lousy photographer with 1 good picture out of 100.
regards,
Willie Jan
i had the same thing last months. Should i wait and buy digital or not.
eventually i bought a 645nii besides my mz-s.
Before i had a pentax 67 which i took into the mountains on my back along with the mz-s (about 12-14 kilo..). After the trips i had the following problems.
1 weight
the weight eventually will exhaust you, and causing you to look
less hard for pictures after 5 hours of walking and climbing.
2 tripod
i did some shooting without a tripod and got some pics that where
shaken. Dof was low because i had to use F8 to get 1/60 or higher with
400 film.
So if you go for 67 you will need a tripod. I shoot a lot out of the hand.
If you want to do a lot of landscapes, a 67 is the size to go for. 4x5" even better...
That's why i searched and came to the 645. it's light, very good light measuring, and very good optics for reasonal prices and a lot of 2nd hand stuff to get. It's very easy to shoot out of the hand and there's the possibility to use a dedicated flash which i have for my mz-s.
Why not digital:
1 price
2 a lot of problems at this moment. It has a long way to go..
3 when you buy one, you won't be able to sell it afterwards
because after a year a new one with more pixels is there and no one
want the older.
4 can't compete to medium format
5 Digital has only one type of film. I can choose which kind of film to use
portrait/50 asa...
6 Black and white sucks which digital. I shoot a lot of b/w. number of
Gray tones is with digital very low.
7 dof is very high with current lenses. If you want to shoot a pic where
for instance only the eye of the person is sharp, is not possible digital
because the dof is already very large.
8 storing images is a boring proces that takes a lot of time.
cd-r's must be copied fresh after some years otherwise you will loose
information on the cd. So it's possible that after 10 years you take a
cd, and can't read it anymore...
Anyone who says digital is cheaper, i smile at. The camera isn't worth anything after buying, the shutter goes for 50000 pictures. After that the shutter should be renewed for some 400 euro... printing at a store through the internet aks for startup costs about 1,50 euro. The print is more expensive 55cents than normal printing (35-45 cents) from negatives. So i thing it would be at break even unless you are a lousy photographer with 1 good picture out of 100.
regards,
Willie Jan
Posted 07/10/2003 - 09:32
Link
It all boils down to your final imaging needs.
But then again, to each his own.
I've been a 35mm film SLR user for about 6-7 years now and have been happy with prints up to 8R in size. The reason I jumped into the digital bandwagon is that I have proven that a 6MP DSLR has sufficed my personnal applications as well those 'comercial' ones. It can stand on it's own against a 35mm film. I also find it to be of less in shooting costs in the long run.
Furthermore, I have also been a Computer Graphics enthusiast for quite some time now (3D Studio MAX, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.) and I learned by heart the pros and cons of digital imaging as well as its beauty.
Cheers.
ShotGun
But then again, to each his own.
I've been a 35mm film SLR user for about 6-7 years now and have been happy with prints up to 8R in size. The reason I jumped into the digital bandwagon is that I have proven that a 6MP DSLR has sufficed my personnal applications as well those 'comercial' ones. It can stand on it's own against a 35mm film. I also find it to be of less in shooting costs in the long run.
Furthermore, I have also been a Computer Graphics enthusiast for quite some time now (3D Studio MAX, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.) and I learned by heart the pros and cons of digital imaging as well as its beauty.
Cheers.
ShotGun
http://www.photonski.com/shotgun
http://www.pbase.com/santyluib/first_istd_sample_photos
---------------------------------------
"It's only a Pentax!"
http://www.pbase.com/santyluib/first_istd_sample_photos
---------------------------------------
"It's only a Pentax!"
Posted 07/04/2005 - 07:13
Link
I take issue with the following points for the following reasons...
Why not digital:
1 price - Yes, the camera costs..however I have shot literally 5000 images which have cost me nothing to process - with film I paid an average of Au$2.00 per image whether it was a keeper or not.
2 a lot of problems at this moment. It has a long way to go..if it has a long way to go, how come I can produce an image 2m wide with better resolution than 4X5?
3 when you buy one, you won't be able to sell it afterwards
because after a year a new one with more pixels is there and no one
want the older. And the way digital is going nowadays, no-onw wants to buy MF equipment now.
4 can't compete to medium format - In fact a 6Mp image has less artifacts when enlarged to 2m than a piece of Velvia 50 shot on 6X7
5 Digital has only one type of film. I can choose which kind of film to use
portrait/50 asa... nonsense - I can shoot ANY colour temperature and ISO from 200 - 3600
6 Black and white sucks which digital. I shoot a lot of b/w. number of
Gray tones is with digital very low. I can show you images where you will not pick the difference.
7 dof is very high with current lenses. If you want to shoot a pic where
for instance only the eye of the person is sharp, is not possible digital
because the dof is already very large. Very untrue - shoot a 50mm lens at F1.7 and the effect is amazing
8 storing images is a boring proces that takes a lot of time.
cd-r's must be copied fresh after some years otherwise you will loose
information on the cd. So it's possible that after 10 years you take a
cd, and can't read it anymore...yes, it takes a lot of time but no longer than storing hard copies. Sensible people are backing up on hard drives - not CDrs.
Anyone who says digital is cheaper, i smile at. The camera isn't worth anything after buying, the shutter goes for 50000 pictures. After that the shutter should be renewed for some 400 euro... printing at a store through the internet aks for startup costs about 1,50 euro. The print is more expensive 55cents than normal printing (35-45 cents) from negatives. So i thing it would be at break even unless you are a lousy photographer with 1 good picture out of 100. See my comment above - even if you shoot one good picture out of 100, that's all you pay for 55cents rather than $55 to get the whole film done.
I'm not knocking film...it has it's bonuses but I get very annoyed about people knocking digital when they don't know much about it (i.e. no experience with it).
I have used everything from APS, through digital, 35mm, MF, LF etc. etc. It all has its place and digital is the current market winner and as long as that's the case, it will outrun film very quickly. In some ways it has.
Why not digital:
1 price - Yes, the camera costs..however I have shot literally 5000 images which have cost me nothing to process - with film I paid an average of Au$2.00 per image whether it was a keeper or not.
2 a lot of problems at this moment. It has a long way to go..if it has a long way to go, how come I can produce an image 2m wide with better resolution than 4X5?
3 when you buy one, you won't be able to sell it afterwards
because after a year a new one with more pixels is there and no one
want the older. And the way digital is going nowadays, no-onw wants to buy MF equipment now.
4 can't compete to medium format - In fact a 6Mp image has less artifacts when enlarged to 2m than a piece of Velvia 50 shot on 6X7
5 Digital has only one type of film. I can choose which kind of film to use
portrait/50 asa... nonsense - I can shoot ANY colour temperature and ISO from 200 - 3600
6 Black and white sucks which digital. I shoot a lot of b/w. number of
Gray tones is with digital very low. I can show you images where you will not pick the difference.
7 dof is very high with current lenses. If you want to shoot a pic where
for instance only the eye of the person is sharp, is not possible digital
because the dof is already very large. Very untrue - shoot a 50mm lens at F1.7 and the effect is amazing
8 storing images is a boring proces that takes a lot of time.
cd-r's must be copied fresh after some years otherwise you will loose
information on the cd. So it's possible that after 10 years you take a
cd, and can't read it anymore...yes, it takes a lot of time but no longer than storing hard copies. Sensible people are backing up on hard drives - not CDrs.
Anyone who says digital is cheaper, i smile at. The camera isn't worth anything after buying, the shutter goes for 50000 pictures. After that the shutter should be renewed for some 400 euro... printing at a store through the internet aks for startup costs about 1,50 euro. The print is more expensive 55cents than normal printing (35-45 cents) from negatives. So i thing it would be at break even unless you are a lousy photographer with 1 good picture out of 100. See my comment above - even if you shoot one good picture out of 100, that's all you pay for 55cents rather than $55 to get the whole film done.
I'm not knocking film...it has it's bonuses but I get very annoyed about people knocking digital when they don't know much about it (i.e. no experience with it).
I have used everything from APS, through digital, 35mm, MF, LF etc. etc. It all has its place and digital is the current market winner and as long as that's the case, it will outrun film very quickly. In some ways it has.
Posted 07/04/2005 - 10:16
Link
Bear in mind that the post you were responding to is two years old, when a lot of misconceptions existed.
Even so, almost every point he made was rubbish, especially as regards cost and print quality. The only point I agree with concerns b&w, where I do think that film still beats digital, and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future, unless somebody brings out a dedicated db&w camera with no anti-aliasing filter.
Poor sap bought a 645. I don't envy him the task of selling that in today's market!
G
Even so, almost every point he made was rubbish, especially as regards cost and print quality. The only point I agree with concerns b&w, where I do think that film still beats digital, and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future, unless somebody brings out a dedicated db&w camera with no anti-aliasing filter.
Poor sap bought a 645. I don't envy him the task of selling that in today's market!
G
Posted 07/04/2005 - 11:23
Link
Quote:
The only point I agree with concerns b&w...
I have found that doing B&W with the *ist-D DSLR just requires a different way of looking at digital.The only point I agree with concerns b&w...
Here's my penny's worth:
* Don't do B&W conversion "in camera"
* Shoot RAW - this gives you far more "headroom" than JPG
* Use Capture One. It can be set to a complete B&W workflow which is just amazing.
* And/or learn to use Photoshop to do decent B&W
True, there are almost too many ways of performing B&W conversion in Photoshop. The Capture One B&W route is very nice though
http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_08/essay.html
The link shows results from a D1x, but the quality of B&W is just as good from the *ist-D and *ist-DS.
Matt
Posted 07/04/2005 - 12:39
Link
Matt,
I'm not saying b&w on a digital camera is bad, just that film is better. And the only way to compare the two is by comparing prints, with the film one being done properly (no digital scanning of the neg, then printing).
Putting something up on the web may show that digital is OK, but it doesn't tell the whole story.
G
I'm not saying b&w on a digital camera is bad, just that film is better. And the only way to compare the two is by comparing prints, with the film one being done properly (no digital scanning of the neg, then printing).
Putting something up on the web may show that digital is OK, but it doesn't tell the whole story.
G
Posted 07/04/2005 - 13:05
Link
George,
That's true. The trouble with digital for B&W are the many steps that need to be mastered: capture (easy), processing (takes time), printing (more difficult).
Getting a decent B&W "real" print takes more effort from digital, it's true. What's also true is that getting trying to print with colour output equipment is not the best way I have seen wonderful results from the specialist black and white ink sets... but I haven't found a "real" black and white digital print output yet.
Matt
That's true. The trouble with digital for B&W are the many steps that need to be mastered: capture (easy), processing (takes time), printing (more difficult).
Getting a decent B&W "real" print takes more effort from digital, it's true. What's also true is that getting trying to print with colour output equipment is not the best way I have seen wonderful results from the specialist black and white ink sets... but I haven't found a "real" black and white digital print output yet.
Matt
Posted 18/05/2005 - 17:32
Link
No matter how old this thread is and no matter what figures you throw around 'dpi" or resolution wise, I'll tell ya right now that Canon can't touch the 645. I often hike in 7 miles or more with my older 645 to elevations of 13k' or more and wouldn't dare bring that digital dinsoaur. It's much heavier then the 645 and I've yet to see an image that compares with what I can get on Velvia or Ilford BW. Digital is great for sports and photo journalism but it sux for landscapes. I've tried them all, am very experienced with the "digital darkroom", photoshop and have been a pro for 20 years.
Posted 18/05/2005 - 18:13
Link
In the 18 months or so since I offered my own comments in this thread, much has changed.
I no longer use medium format since I did some still lifes in digital and found they were sharper, cleaner, crisper...I now use digital SLRs and compact cameras for prints happily up to A3 for competition entries, including for landscapes.
I shoot 35mm film for a bit of variety and for the particular properties of some b/w films, but it's less necessary than it was.
Much has changed....
I no longer use medium format since I did some still lifes in digital and found they were sharper, cleaner, crisper...I now use digital SLRs and compact cameras for prints happily up to A3 for competition entries, including for landscapes.
I shoot 35mm film for a bit of variety and for the particular properties of some b/w films, but it's less necessary than it was.
Much has changed....
Best regards, John
Posted 29/07/2005 - 15:36
Link
Hi,
I am a former studio pro shooter, I shot mainly advertising work on large & medium format and the digital V film debate I find amusing....there is lots of nonsense talked and lots on mis-information...this is my view for what it is worth.
1. Resolution & pixel count is quoted regularly, however there are LOTS of other aspects to image quality which are conveniently ignored or glossed over, such as tonal gradation, contrast, ability to hold shadow & highlight detail, proper natural colour reproduction..etc.
2. To produce 'proper' quality digital images DOES require lots of time on a PC with good software and the ability to use it properly..this hardly makes digital faster or more convenient in my opinion.
3. There is an increasing number of pro & semi-pro users of digital actually moving back to film after finally realising digital is not all Nikon & Canon make it out to be.
4. The market for some MF film gear is actually increasing and some items are going up in value!
5. It is true that at first look, a properly executed digital print can look cleaner, sharper etc than a film print, however look a little longer and the limitations of digital become apparent.....I saw some large digital prints at the NEC focus on imaging show, produced by Sigma on their stand, they looked very impressive at first but a longer look and they just looked wrong! the colours were un-natural and looked 'forced' like Velvia on steroids! also the tonal gradation was not so good, highlight detail was lost and they just looked TOO sharp and generally un-natural.
6.It seems to me people are confusing 'sharper' with 'better'. In comparison to the above, the 'Earth from the air' travelling show featured 5 foot by 3 foot prints from 35mm Velvia, with stunning results, which I believe no digital camera could hope to get near.
I do not see Charlie Waite, Lee Frost, Joe Cornish or other highly regarded landscape photographers using digital...they still use medium format film..that should tell it's own story,
Regards Steve.
I am a former studio pro shooter, I shot mainly advertising work on large & medium format and the digital V film debate I find amusing....there is lots of nonsense talked and lots on mis-information...this is my view for what it is worth.
1. Resolution & pixel count is quoted regularly, however there are LOTS of other aspects to image quality which are conveniently ignored or glossed over, such as tonal gradation, contrast, ability to hold shadow & highlight detail, proper natural colour reproduction..etc.
2. To produce 'proper' quality digital images DOES require lots of time on a PC with good software and the ability to use it properly..this hardly makes digital faster or more convenient in my opinion.
3. There is an increasing number of pro & semi-pro users of digital actually moving back to film after finally realising digital is not all Nikon & Canon make it out to be.
4. The market for some MF film gear is actually increasing and some items are going up in value!
5. It is true that at first look, a properly executed digital print can look cleaner, sharper etc than a film print, however look a little longer and the limitations of digital become apparent.....I saw some large digital prints at the NEC focus on imaging show, produced by Sigma on their stand, they looked very impressive at first but a longer look and they just looked wrong! the colours were un-natural and looked 'forced' like Velvia on steroids! also the tonal gradation was not so good, highlight detail was lost and they just looked TOO sharp and generally un-natural.
6.It seems to me people are confusing 'sharper' with 'better'. In comparison to the above, the 'Earth from the air' travelling show featured 5 foot by 3 foot prints from 35mm Velvia, with stunning results, which I believe no digital camera could hope to get near.
I do not see Charlie Waite, Lee Frost, Joe Cornish or other highly regarded landscape photographers using digital...they still use medium format film..that should tell it's own story,
Regards Steve.
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
2277 posts
24 years
My main aim is to maximise the quality of the final shot i.e. sharpness, colour saturation etc. at say 1000cm x 600cm print.
As I don't have heaps of spare time I have decided not to get involved in digital at this stage due to the demand of image improvements through photoshop or what ever. Therefore my plan was to buy say an eos 33 body and put my money into the L series professional lenses that could be used on a canon digital body in the future.
BUT having researched it appears that professional landscape photographers tend to use medium or large formats.
Typically the more people I speak to the more confused I get. What I really want to know is will the 645n medium format give me the best result or would a 6mp digital be a better option?
Also how do the pentax lenses rate against other lenses, such as the pro series by canon.