Help save me from a D2X

[raucousimages]

I think I need to give my toyo 810G a hug.

 

[Graeme Hird]

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.

 

[Troy Ammons]

My name is Frank and I'm a digiholic.

I am going to try a Nikon D2X this afternoon. With a zoom lens. I know this is depraved, but I keep getting tempted. I like my little D70 but now I want a bigger "high".

I am going to compare my 4x5 scans from my lowly flatbed to a raw 12mp file. I know I could spend $75 getting Tango scans that would be better, but I know myself too well, and that I'm too cheap to drum scan everything. So I'm kind of thinking that when it comes to making an 11x14 print, the 4x5 flatbed scans (as good as they are, I'm not a total idiot) and the D2X are going to be pretty competitive.

I also know that shooting a 4x5 with an Aero-Ektar handheld is a great way to spend a lot of money on out of focus film.

I may stash my Technika and a few lenses out back just in case, but I kind of like the idea of "getting the shot" no matter what the conditions, which is what a D2X with fast lenses and high ASA can promise.

Heck, I may even swap my old Dynalites for i-TTL battery powered shoe mount flashes on stand adaptors...

I know talking digi-trash is a no-no but I need some counselling.

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.

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.

http://largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

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.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/enough-already.shtml

Good luck

 

[eclarke]

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

 

[Tom Stanworth]

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.

Tom

 

[alien]

go for it

Just go for it. Enjoy it, and your other equipment, too. If it works for you, great. If it does not - well, you still have your other equipment.

 

[removed account4]

frank -

you are pretty funny <g>
oh, yeah, what don said ... <smirk>

enjoy your toys

-john

 

[Frank Petronio]

I went ahead and got a D2X. It is pretty darn nice, a world of difference from the D70 (which isn't bad at all). I also ordered a 28/1.4 lens, which works out to a 42/1.4 equivilant. It should allow me to control depth of field sufficiently enough to fool most of you guys. I guess I should get a Lensbaby too, just in case I want to be real arty ;-)

Until the big 28/1.4 comes, I am using a little 35/2 which is nice. I also have an 18-70 kit lens for when I need a darn stupid zoom for work photos (I hate zooms), but for the most part I like to use one lens/one camera and keep it simple.

The Technika and D70 are looking mighty scared tonight. If only I could dispose of my wife's cat as unsentimentially as my cameras.

 

[wildbill]

That's nice. What's Apug stand for?

 

[Jorge]

That's nice. What's Apug stand for?

Yeah, and what hell does this have to do with Large Format?

 

[chiller]

Jorge I was wondering the same thing.

There have been a few digital threads here lately and really -- why?

As for your D -- whatever it is -- buy it but please -- tell a digi blaster forum not this one.

Really you have a 4x5 and it is nervous about digital ...

 

[modafoto]

Yeah, and what hell does this have to do with Large Format?

Digital is the new Large Format.

 

[Ole]

Hmmm....

Should I move this thread to the Gray Area, or the Soapbox?

 

[jjstafford]

Ole, I'd move it to the Talking to Myself area. Does anyone really believe the OP is going to spend $5,000 on a digital camera? It's gotta be bait.

 

[Frank Petronio]

Hey, I figured the thread would be killed off the same hour I posted it.

Just cause you guys couldn't persuade me there is no reason for sour grapes... ;-0

 

[jjstafford]

Hey, I figured the thread would be killed off the same hour I posted it.

Just cause you guys couldn't persuade me there is no reason for sour grapes... ;-0

Why would it be sour grapes? Regardless, after reading of your thrifty ways concerning analog cameras, I truly doubt you seriously considered the camera in question on a lark. It was just bait, wasn't it? And we struck like a bunch of dumb carp.