File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Dear /p/,

Starting today I am going to put all of the money I can possibly muster towards buying a 503CW.

I do not expect to eat anytime soon.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006:12:25 11:41:26Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width380Image Height300
>> Anonymous
Question: Is that a digital-backed Hasselblad or a film-backed one?

Because full-frame DSLRs have image quality superior to MF film, and a 5D might be a bit less starvation-causing.
>> Anonymous
>>62012"Because full-frame DSLRs have image quality superior to MF film"
I don't even know where to begin on this one.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
A used Hassy is way cheaper than a 5D.

Go for it, dude.
>> Anonymous
>>62012

The stock 503CW is a film-back. But I can switch it later.

Stock 503CW: ~$4,000

Most of the digital backs I've seen are at least twice that.
>> Anonymous
My main problem in switching to Medium is that I'm going to have to a.) have my own scanner or b.) have consistent darkroom access so I can make prints and scan those.

With 35mm I can sometimes fudge it and go to Rite Aid or something to get negscans and not have to worry about it. But somehow I suspect they don't have the gear to scan 120.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>62017
Why scan prints? If you're going to have to buy a scanner anyway, get one that can scan medium-format negatives.
>> Anonymous
>>62021

Coolscan 9000 ED is ~$2,000 where I've seen it.
>> Anonymous
>>62013
They can have, but only at sensitivities like 1000 and up. But I don't see any point in using high-sensitivity films with MF cameras anyway.

Also, why Hasselblad? There are less overhyped alternatives, and the quality is determined mostly by the lens and film used, not by camera body (unless it leaks light, has a misplaced focal plane or something like that).
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>62023
You realize that's not the only scanner in the world that can scan medium format negatives, right?

For example, I've heard good things about the Epson 4990 and it can be had for under $500.

Me, I've got a Canon CanoScan 8600F which I'm quite happy with and which costs less than $200.
>> Anonymous
>>62013
That's what I've always heard: that full-frame DSLRs surpass MF film.

If I'm wrong, please correct me.
>> Anonymous
>>62028

Ah, nevermind then. I figured other medium format scanners would run more or less the same.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Crops courtesy of Luminous Landscape.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:07:12 17:31:34Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width331Image Height970
>> des
>>62021
If you're going to hand-make the prints, then you might as well scan them.
>> Anonymous
>>62035
That's large format, not medium format.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>62036
Yeah, but the impression I got was that he was printing specifically to scan the prints, which seems a bit odd unless you're doing some Art in the printing side specifically (and whatever weird technique you're using can't be done in Photoshop instead). And it sounded mostly like he was doing that because he didn't want to buy a film scanner.
>> Anonymous
>>62042

Oh, I was just going on the assumption of a really expensive medium format scanner, so I wouldn't have any way of sharing my shots with my /p/eers and that sort of thing. Printscans would be the main alternative if I didn't have access to one.
>> Anonymous
>>62035
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

Luminous Landscape?
>> Anonymous
>>62053
So, a 17-megapixel 1DsII has comparable or better quality than MF film, depending on how the latter is shot and processed, and the difference will probably be more in favor of the 1Ds at higher sensitivities.
This is a serious argument against buying expensive film MF cameras. While nothing can beat resolution/price ratio of a Kiev, top-of-the-line Hasselblads look extremely overpriced if you add film and development costs...

(On the other hand, I remember Luminous Landscape pronouncing the Four Thirds system an immediate dead end because they expected everyone else to offer cheap full-frame DSLRs by 2005; and look at what we got now. So everything they say should probably be taken with a grain of salt)
>> Anonymous
>>62059
Well, that's prediction, and Reichmann (the guy who ones LL) wrongfully assumed that everyone else would prefer the advantages of full frame to the advantages of a slight crop like he does.

I think it would be possible for all DSLRs to have a full-frame sensor at a reasonable cost. The 5D relative to the 30D proves that; it's not much more and I guarantee that a lot of that is sheer profit markup because it has no competition.

But one can look at the crops for himself: it's indisputable that the DSLR beat the film. That's not interpretation.

Here's another look, which includes the 5D, at 100% crops:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>62059
Maybe not an *immediate* dead end, but it's still a valid point..
>> Anonymous
>>62063
But we got almost opposite of the prediction - a bunch of new amateur, semi-pro and high-speed pro cameras with cropped sensors, and a ton of new lenses intended only for these sensors. The manufacturers seem to be more concerned with noise, image stabilizers and various gimmicks than with making large sensors affordable.
There is a good possibility that DX/APS-C/4/3 sensors will continue to dominate the market until the next major change in technology, kinda like 35mm cameras once made large- and medium-format cameras niche products despite their obvious advantages in resolution.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>62068
The way I look at it is that sensor sizes are sort of equivalent to the next higher film size. E.g.:
full frame digital ~= medium format
APS-C/DX 1.[56]x crop ~= 35mm film
4/3 ~= APS (I.e., a moderate drop in quality, but without enough of an advantage to justify that drop in quality)
Point & shoot sensors ~= 110

The nice thing about the digitals built on the 35mm SLR format is that you have a built-in upgrade path. In film, if you wanted better than 35mm, you'd pretty much have to resign yourself to buying a whole new system. But with digital, if you want better than an APS-C sensor can give you, you can upgrade to a camera with a full-frame sensor (with Canon right now, and theoretically one day with Nikon if rumors of the D3 bear fruit).

So yeah, APS-C is probably going to be the most prevalent format for the forseeable future, but it's nice to have somewhere to grow if you want to upgrade.
>> Anonymous
>>62076
>full frame digital ~= medium format
>APS-C/DX 1.[56]x crop ~= 35mm film
Yes. And that's why full-frame cameras will be a niche product for pros and photo enthusiasts, like the medium format has been for the last 70 or so years, unless full-frame sensors become only marginally cheaper than cropped ones. (And that doesn't seem too likely to me for the next decade at least, if there's no breakthrough in technology)

>4/3 ~= APS (I.e., a moderate drop in quality
Not really. The size difference between 4/3 and APS-C is not as big as it seems; the shitty quality of earlier 4/3 sensors had to do mostly with inferior technology and priority given to Live View ability instead of high ISO performance. Sensors in the latest offerings from Olympus are on par with similar Nikon and Pentax ones (although Olympus kinda failed with the default NR and sharpening levels)

>But with digital, if you want better than an APS-C sensor can give you, you can upgrade to a camera with a full-frame sensor
You'll still have to replace much of the lenses in this case unless you specifically go for full-frame compatible ones from the very beginning (and this tends to be very expensive, as with several focal lengths there's no choice but to buy L lenses)
>> Anonymous
>You'll still have to replace much of the lenses in this case unless you specifically go for full-frame compatible ones from the very beginning (and this tends to be very expensive, as with several focal lengths there's no choice but to buy L lenses)

Well, if one bought all digital lenses this would be the case. And that's probably the best idea.

But it is true that buying the right full-frame lenses could give one an easily interchangeable platform.

A 20mm prime for full-frame becomes 30mm for an APS-C sensor. A little bit more than 28mm, but it's important to remember that all the old typical focal lengths were arrived at by convention. Someone starting out today isn't mentally wedded to 28/35/50/75/90/etc. like someone used to 35mm film is.

A 24mm prime becomes a 36mm prime on an APS-C sensor.

A 28mm prime for full-frame is becomes a normal prime for an APS-C sensor. It's a little bit wider than the old 50mm "normal," but it's actually closer to the human eye's normal field of view.

Or, a 35mm prime on a full-frame sensor becomes a 52.5mm prime on an APS-C crop sensor. Another choice for a normal lens, particuarly for those used to 50mm.

A 50mm prime becomes a 75mm prime. Just right.

And so on. Medium and large format photographers have worked with the same lenses on different size formats for years; 35mm is no different.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>62079
>(And that doesn't seem too likely to me for the next decade at least, if there's no breakthrough in technology)
Never rule out breakthroughs in technology. Five years ago, the best digital SLR out there was 4 megapixels. Technology advances at a double-exponential rate.

>The size difference between 4/3 and APS-C is not as big as it seems;
My point isn't that it's a big size difference, it's that that size difference comes with two costs (no system expandability to larger sensors, small drop in image quality at a given resolution) and gives almost no benefit (they're not really enough smaller than APS-C SLRs to make a difference).

>You'll still have to replace much of the lenses in this case unless you specifically go for full-frame compatible ones from the very beginning (and this tends to be very expensive, as with several focal lengths there's no choice but to buy L lenses)
Just for the wide end, and you've got to take into account the multiplier. I.e., yeah, you can only get a cheap 18mm digital lens, but you can get the 28mm lens that gives the equivalent view on a full-frame sensor for cheap. And that same 28mm makes a really good prime on the digital. My Canon kit's got four lenses and only one is digital-only (the 18-55 kit lens).
>> Anonymous
Why did a thread about a person wanting a Hasselblad turn into a pissing contest about digital cameras?
>> Anonymous
>>62154
because people with little money need to justify their purchases, that's why.

I fit in that category as well, so oh well D:
>> Anonymous
>>62154
Because obviously no one here neither has any experience with Hasselblads, nor has money to buy one, nor actually needs one.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>62154
Because I loooooove having useless arguments with anonymous strangers over the Internet. Seriously, it's what I live for.
>> Anonymous
>>62009
Get a shen-hao 4x5 instead its only 900 + lenses
real men use large format, unlike these digital pussies
>> Anonymous
>>62244
woops scratch that 645.00
1345.00 with a 150mm 5.6
http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=121
you know you want it
>> Anonymous
>>62245
Enjoy your $40 prints.
>> Anonymous
>>62251
which I can sell for thousands of dollars because I can print something larger than an 8x10
>> Anonymous
>>62253
No, you can't. If you could, you wouldn't be on 4chan now.
>> Anonymous
>>62254
awesome comeback there sparky. Tell you what, I'll ignore it and wait for you to come up with a real response.
>> Anonymous
>>62244
This man actually has a point.

>>62208
>nor actually needs one.
Which includes the OP. I'd love to have a Hasselblad, even if for nothing else than for whatever the sick kick it is those strange Leica collectors get when they order some "special editon" and never take it out of the box.

But if the OP is actually going to be using it to take photographs, unless he specifically wants a "film look," a full-frame DSLR will give him better image quality, and even if not initially cheaper, will pay for itself pretty quickly because of film costs. The first is a fact, the second probably is, depending on the amount of shooting the OP will be doing.

>>62244
This man at least has a point. 4x5 film outperforms 35mm digital.

>>62254
And so does this guy. Unless you're a master photographer (in which case pony up a portfolio) or you're a master salesman, no one's going to pay thousands of dollars for your work.

And just to re-emphasize the above: a full-frame DSLR has better image quality than medium format film, and ergo would probably be able to make even larger prints. Unless you plan on getting a digital back, a DSLR is your best choice for image quality.
>> Anonymous
>>62260

OP here. I love you guys so much.

Hasselblad appeals to me mostly because I enjoy shooting film more than I do digital, but I realize the advantages of digital and if need be I can pony up for a digital back further down the line.

But, as it stands right now I'm not ready to abandon film.
>> Anonymous
Absolute maximum resolution for 35mm comes out to about 25 megapixels. Ignore websites written by guys who have to justify the purchase of their obscenely expensive new toy, and take some slides into an imaging shop with a drum scanner. A good 8000ppi scan will make you punch the next guy that says his 8 megapixel piece o' trash is better than a disposable kodak. After that's said and done, get that hasselblad nonsense out of your head too. Don't be a douche, buy a view camera.
>> in after shistorm des
hay guys, some people spend lots of money on things never expecting a return from them, save enjoyment
lol hobbies
>> Anonymous
>>62545

View camera is next on my list.