I take a Bronica SQ and want to go digital for studio work Portriats. What should I watch? I'm 99% black and white.
Digital Cameras
Recent Comments
- dryan2 on Tips on Buying a Digital SLR Camera
- Stuie801 on Tips on Buying a Digital SLR Camera
- dryan2 on Tips on Buying a Digital SLR Camera
- Stuie801 on Tips on Buying a Digital SLR Camera
- astro1218 on Tips on Buying a Digital SLR Camera
November 4th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Well, I was gonna say NOTHING will compare to a medium format, but in B&W, I think you might get by with one of the better Nikon or Canon cameras. The full-format Canon’s, such as the 5D, might work well. The Canon EOS-1D2 Mark II has 16.6 MP for $7,000.
Of course, there are digital backs for Hasselblad. The Hasselblad H3D-39 has 39 MP for $32,000. I’ve seen side-by-side comparisons of this camera with film images and, personally, I liked the digital camera better. I DO recognize that I had no control over the viewing conditions, I didn’t do or adjust the scan of the film, etc., and the retailer may have done “whatever” to make the film not look as good as it could, but I was impressed with the digital image nonetheless.
There is not as much data in a black and white image, though, and you seriously might not have to spend $30-40,000 to get a satisfactory result. You might consider renting a high-line Nikon or Canon for a week or two before you spend huge amounts of money on a digital medium format.
Here’s an article of interest to you, although you are probably already aware of this…http://www.photo-i.co.uk/News/Oct%2004/B…
November 4th, 2009 at 11:17 am
The answer to the question as you put it is “none.” You can’t compare them that way. They’re different with different strengths and weaknesses.
The real question, as ever, is “Why do you want to do this?” Theoretically the best “35mm equivalent” digital cameras will give a _resolution_ comparable to slow medium format film. But remember that digital “cheats”– the cameras apply sharpening to the image digitally, while film is untreated.
Furthermore remember that if you use a “35mm equivalent” camera, then you will have to use much shorter lenses; this may affect the way your pictures look a lot. And when it comes to enlarged prints, there is simply no substitute for size.
If your pics are to be digitised then there is a strong argument for digital capture, though with MF this is still less convincing than it is with 35mm, where digital wins outright, no question, and has done for years.
.
However if you go straight to print the case for digital is much less strong, particularly in monochrome, and in the larger formats, 5×4 and up.
MF is in the middle, so the question can only be answered by analysing why you want to go digi, and if your main output is mono prints, then the likely answer is “stick with film.”
Btw I am a pro and I use a 12Mpix digital camera for most commercial work in colour; I wouldn’t even consider using it for monochrome however– film is just plain old better.
If you do go digi and move down to the “35mm equivalent” check out the Fuji Finepix S5 before you make your decision– the Fuji sensor is still the best at handling skin tones IMO. Otherwise perhaps a Phase One back…But take a deep breath first….
November 4th, 2009 at 11:24 am
There isn’t a digital camera that I have ever seen that can reproduce the look of B&W MF film with regard to tonal range and microcontrast.
In addition, film grain, being the result of the action of light upon 3-dimensional objects, is impossible to reproduce digitally.
So I would say, “none”.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Mega-Vision makes a digital camera back that SHOULD fit your camera. Its $13,000 and I have no idea if it would work well or not.
Frankly film is more affordable.