Let me give my two cents:
I have the D70s (which I won in a sales contest, that makes owning it kosher lol) and I do use limitedly (pretty much only for band photography of my buddies bands) and I have shot the D2X, and it is an impressive camera, but in my opinion it just doesn't stand up to a 4X5. Its sacrafising quality to save money and time. If everyone did that then there would be no qualilty products in this world.
Though I love my F100 with TTL flash, its a godsent in flash photography.
"The negative is the equivalent of the composer's score, and the print the performance." ~Ansel Adams
.. but fair... Harsh, but fair...
Originally Posted by david b
He couldn't find a dead horse.
Originally Posted by roteague
If you are in the UK, I'd be interested in buying your 1Ds. I need a DSLR, but if there is one thing that really puts me off, well it's those small sensors. Now a 1Ds, Mmmmmm.
Originally Posted by bobbysandstrom
I dont think that is really a dead cow......
it is more than likely a prop
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I think I need to give my toyo 810G a hug.
DIGITAL IS FOR THOSE AFRAID OF THE DARK.
Go for it Frank. Just don't get rid of the LF camera until you really find that you don't use it any more. Put it in safe storage, because sure as you like, 3 or 4 years from now you will regret disposing of the great LF camera you had and you'll go out and buy another one.
I have a drum scanner and a 4870 and when comparing sharp photos, a super sharp 6x7 drum scan is about like a 4870 4x5 scan. Even when comparing a 1000 dpi scan from each the 4870 is still a bit fuzzier.
Originally Posted by Frank Petronio
Personally I think the 645 cameras are more in line with the current high mp digis. IE if i drum scan a 645 E100G slide at 2000 dpi, even with no sharpening, it creates a 17mp file that is very very clean, and has a similar edge sharpness to digital and 690 is roughly double that or 34mp. There is more detail beyond that depending on all the variables, like lenses etc, but from what I have seen 2000 dpi is the break from where E100G goes from being very clean to resolving grain more along with more detail as you go up.
In general I figure about 1 sq inch of super clean film drum scanned is worth roughly 4-5mp being conservative. Fact is there are just not that many great 4x5 film scanners. Look at this.
If you shoot something like a Rollei with adox microfilm or Efke 25 you will be totally blown away.
A d2x is a fine professional camera, but you can do a relay nice 11x14 print from a SD9 and they cost about $500. I expect they will have a new camera coming out soon too !!!
You may want to do what a totally film friend of mine does and use a flatbed for previews and send out the good ones. Either that or drop back to a 6x6 or 6x7 MF and go with a Nikon scanner.
Read This then take two aspirins and go to bed. Doctors orders. I had to read this one twice !! Makes me want a Leica MP.
Shoot a 1Ds mkII, it will put you off the Nikon. I carry two Canons, 4 4x5s, 3 6x9s, 4 MF cameras and an 8x10 and enjoy them all. The wonderful thing about the advent of computers is that multi-tasking was invented. (I run a MAc and a PC too) You don't have to be mutually exclusive to one setup..EC
If you are shooting mono and want to produce legacy prints then forget it. I shoot all subject matter, but one thing remains constant; it has to last to appeal to me. A selenum toned print is a known quantity, digital is not!
Last time I exhibited along with a pixelographer (who did abstract/fairly innovative unashamedly digital stuff - it was honest!) there were those who liked traditional and those who liked the digital. Lets just say those 'into the digital' spent most of their time talking kit and photoshop and printers not about imagery, as this was not their aim. Their aim was to absorb themselves in a new insurmountable topic with never ending gizmos etc and it showed. Please dont become one. I cant tell you how boring they were. I love to talk photos, but this was camera club nausea....get a digi camera and make your own decisions after busting your balls to produce digital with that depth that someone else mentioned. IMO even Barry Thornton sold out. He NEVER used to wet print on matt paper (Dmax reduction and loss of depth unsuitable for most but not all landcsapes) then (like other converts) when digitally outputting, matt paper is suddenly pictorially perfect essential as its the only type that wont fade in 5 minutes)......draw your own conclusions. IMO they moved to keep up with a market shift to digi caused by the masses who are not as obsessive, have neither the time nor the inclination to push the limits. Even many pros fall into this category where absolute physical print quality is not essential (as titends up as a poster or a magazine advert). This was their market, not those who really give a damn about that glow. They ran to the dollars, understandably; everyone has to live! I assume your image making is about a love of subtlety, depth and the pull of a truly enduring image? Who gives a toss what the average person thinks and even less about what the average camera club judge thinks (more unsharp mask required...) This is about things they dont have to feel. Its about you and your standards.