Change to Rebel XSI DSLR or Medium format?

I have had my XSi for about 3 weeks now, coming from a P7S Kodak before that, and a Pentax K1000 film before that. I didn't have hardly any experience withPhotoshop(still don't) and have excellent results with the camera. I love it and sure you would too! Here are a few examples [IMG]http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l267/motox424/Framed711.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l267/motox424/FramedBraidyHouhgton.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l267/motox424/IMG_0476-1.jpg[/IMG]

Sorry --forgot to change to HTML format for the pics [IMG]http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l267/motox424/Framed711.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l267/motox424/FramedBraidyHouhgton.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l267/motox424/IMG_0476-1.jpg[/IMG]

I've printed 16x20's from my older digital rebel (300d) which is only 6mp. I'm sure the XSI will do just fine at 16x20.

The Digital SLR cameras produce a much less noisy picture than a p&s so they can be enlarged a lot more than the equivalent megapixel p&s camera.

ok here we go-- I got it figured out now LOL

Richard, bite the bullet a get a good second-hand 5D. You won't regret it.

Tom: why the 5D...better metering? I'm not after umpteen frames per second. Everyone: thanks for the advice and effort so far!

The 5D is a full frame sensor camera. Coming from film, it may be a much easy transition for you and your past with your lenses. You field of view will remain basically the same with the 5D.

Derrick

Richard, your question has deeper implications beyond digital vs film. The way you work with a behemoth like an RZ-67 is quite different than any 35mm camera. The MF sytem is heavy and slow to work with. Not great for fast action or light travel. The 35mm camera has a greater range of optics and accessories available. For the fine art approach, where large prints are desired with a slower, more considered way of working, the RZ67 produces stellar images for a reasonable investment. Negs can be printed optically or scanned to provide for a high quality hybrid workflow. Either way it's useful to become aware of current imaging tools and processes.

Richard, yes what Derrick said. The Rebel 1.6x crop will drive you nuts. If you appreciate medium format quality you will love 5D RAW files. I know you will have to learn all this stuff, but it's worth it in my opinion. Yes there will be a 5D replacement *soon* (whatever that means), but it will cost twice what a second-hand 5D will, and the 5D is no slouch.

The 5D is only 3 fps, the slowest in the canon line up. A bit slower than the XSi in-fact. The 5D will give you closet experience to your 35mm. The XSi would have no trouble giving you plenty good quality for 16x20 prints. This assumes you have good glass and learn the proper methods of handling digital files. It is a bit of a learning curve but at the root of all the photographic disciplines and principles still apply.

The only real challenges that you will encounter with the XSi compared to the 5D is the smaller view finder and the reduced field of view of your lens. Also the 5D is considered to have better tonal range and smoother gradations. Also lower noise at higher ISO. For the type of work you described high ISO would not be an issue. I also think that with proper file handling you will be fine with the XSi. I have not used it but I used the 300D, XT, 30D and 40D. I do currently own a 5D and love it.

While money is always an issue and I understand having to stay on a budget. But think of the money saved when no longer having to buy and process film. I am currently at 5000+ exposures with my 5D. What would that cost in film and processing?

But again to answer your basic question, the XSi would print fine at 16x20 with proper technique used.

Jason

You need the 1Ds MKIII - I mean, if you compare the 'classes' of cameras the XSi is NOT in the same class as the 645 or RZ67. That means also the system itself: custom focusing screens, etc...

If you want to get your feet wet the XSi is great. The NEW 5D (whatever that mysterious camera is going to be called...probably 4D) should be coming out in the next 6 months. That will give you plenty of time to get used to the digital workflow, editing in Photoshop, etc... You can also buy EF (NOT EF-S) lenses which you'll be able to use with ANY EOS camera now, or in the future.

>> shooting usually includes portraits, fine art and found still life...in either color or B/W. I'd like to produce high quality prints up towards the 16x20 range . . . teetering on the fence between utilizing my current lenses and getting Rebel XSI or be an old fashioned purist and get a Mamiya 645 or RZ67 <<

Well it depends on what you consider `` high quality prints``, but for the subjects listed, and the comparisons made, the less expensive solution is a 5D, the comparable digital solution is the 1DSMkIII, (and the correct choice of lenses).

The XSi does not enter into a reasonable comparison, IMO.

I have, and still use Mamiya 645`s, an older 67 and a 5x4: my 5D struggles by comparison in the enlargement stakes.

I do not need to buy the 1DsMkIII, but I have seen the results at 16 x 20 and beyond, with good lighting, good lenses and good finishing: Stunning.

That is not to say the XSi will not give good 16 x 20: but you cannot compare it to MF Film, whereas the `16 x 20 comparisons` begin somewhere between the 5D and IDsMkII, IMO.

WW

In lite of Giampi's response, I never ment to lead you to think the XSi was comparable to medium format film in any way, shape, or form. I was just saying it would print to 16x20. I do not think you need or should wait for the "new" 5D that is coming soon (I sure as heck hope so). If the 5D interest you, the current one would do well. It is also well equiped.

Jason

"I'm teetering on the fence between 2 things: utilizing my current lenses and getting my first DSLR (Rebel XSI) or be an old fashioned purist and get a Mamiya 645 or RZ67."

Here's the thing. If you're happy with 16x20 prints from 35mm film, you'll be happier still with prints from the Xsi at the same size. The XSi will produce a better image file than almost all film emulsions, save say Velvia and 100 TMAX, in 135.

However, a high quality scan (Nikon CS9000 or better) of 6x7 will give a noticeably sharper 16x20 than either small format film or small format digital. Don't bother with 645. It's not sufficiently better to be worth the extra hassle of dealing with 120 film.

Here's what I'd do. Given your budget, pick up a RB-67 kit from KEH for $300. With the left over money, get a XSi, XTi, or XT, either new or used.

Robert,

I am not sure exactly what you mean by ``Don't bother with 645. It's not sufficiently better to be worth the extra hassle of dealing with 120 film.`` and also for clarification of my previous . . . Well my 16 x 20 (and Larger) hand finished enlargements, by a tech who knows what she is doing, and using excellent enlarging lenses working with negs from 160ProS /120 shot on my 645 with good glass are usually always better than my what I can produce with my 5D using good glass and having the files printed, at the same lab.

160ProS / 120 negs from my 6x7 enlarged to 16 x 20 screams in next to my 5D.

Perhaps I haven`t yet got the finer nuances of digital capture; digital post production; and pushing the limits of my 5D? Or maybe I just still have access to a great wet lab, with exceptional gear, and a lab tech who is a genius? In this regard I am curious as to your comparisons.

WW

"My shooting usually includes portraits, fine art and found still lifes.."

It seems that you're not high ISO / action shooter. 6x7 behemoths aren't expensive, film is familiar to you and you can get excellent 16x20 prints (and bigger). Money wise there's very little to lose if you buy a MF set.

But. Digital is much easier to carry around and you get quite clean ISO 800-1600 and very very clean ISO 100-400. 35mm color neg can't compete anymore. Problem is that you really need to learn Photoshop (post edit in general) to get most of your files. It will take some time to learn appropriate levels/curves/color adjustments and masking/layers, not to mention sharpening to different print sizes. Also, good black and white conversion is not always easy and digital's habit of abruptly clipping highlights doesn't help. You can get wonderful digital b&w and there are hundreds of post edit options but it requires different kind of work than with film.

You could buy the MF set *and* something like used 20D for $350 (about?) to practise digital workflow, you already have the lenses and 20D is better than 35mm for color work. I also think you may appreciate 1.6 crop sensor digital for macro. MF is more at home with massive still life / portrait / landscape stuff. (I couldn't believe my eyes when I got my first 20x20 MF print, corner to corner sharp and absolutely no visible grain even in the sky. 16x20 won't be any problem.)

Having used Bronicas heavily in the nineties, an now using an XTi with L lenses, I don't think the issue for me is resolution. It is convenience. I had a darkroom and struggled mightily with MF color printing that I did for almost immediate gifts for my wedding customers. I did a gift enlargement for mailing or presentation the day after the wedding. The extra effort was worth the good will ( and orders) it brought about. Today producing those same prints at 13x19 would require about twenty minutes. Where digital excels for me is in the much greater flexibility, speed and control over such enlargements. There are drawbacks as the software engineers have added, IMO, a lot of unnecessary complexity to the color process. Photo shop is not necessarily user friendly. I speak from experience directing the development of aviation software products that are complex and yet user friendly. I think my color printing is better using digital than it was using RA4 or Ilfochrome not from the staindpoint of pixel count or sharpness but the ability to enhance and control the output. I loved shooting with 645 bodies and the weight never particularly bothered me nor did manual focusing. The other important point with digital is if I am doing a large print I can do a less than a minute proof and make adjustments on the spot. Changing color balance is a matter of moving a slider not changing an enlargement filter and then reprinting the picture to see if you got it right. It's a matter of choice. I sometimes long for all of the MF wedding gear I traded to get into digital in 2002. I could go either way. Each has its frustrations. I think viewing prints from normal distance its hard to tell the difference if your not a pixel counting photographer and the equipment is good.

"Rebel XSI DSLR or Medium format?"

That is not really a requested comparison that one ever expects to have to address. You are talking an entry-level DSLR, on the one hand, compared to a rather sophisticated film system on the other. If you want a meaningful comparison with medium format, you are going to have to go to the full-frame digital cameras, and even there it is going to be a stretch. Can you get the prints that size (16x20) out of the XSi? Keep in mind that sixteen on the "small" side really puts you into good-sized cut paper. If you print that size yourself, you will need a comparatively wide carriage (17") printer. I would not want to try to push the XSi that far. I admit that I have gotten some good prints on 13x19 paper out of my first digital camera, the Olympus E-20, on a 13" carriage printer, and things have come quite a ways since then. I just cannot see trying this with an XSi (and I have one, as well as a 17" carriage printer) if you want real quality. Keep in mind also that you are packing 13 MP onto a cropped sensor, and so you are not going to have the clean pictures that you would get on a full-frame sensor with those kinds of megapixels. The Canon 5D or Nikon D3 (or D700) would haveno trouble with that many pixels, but you are going to get some noise with that many megapixels on a cropped-sensor camera.

--Lannie

As the owner of an XTi (the older XSi) I can say it's a lovely camera, but from your background I would tend to agree with some here and say you should find a used 5D. The XSi will give you great results for the money, but you will probably bump into its limitations too quickly and want to upgrade anyway.

What you should really do is rent a 5D (if you can) and spend a weekend with it. Shoot Raw files and download a demo of Lightroom or Aperture to process them. Once you've seen how quickly and efficiently you can work like this, you might forget about scanning all that MF film.

William,

"I am not sure exactly what you mean by ``Don't bother with 645. It's not sufficiently better to be worth the extra hassle of dealing with 120 film.``"

From the tone of Richard Kriz's post, it seems that budget is an issue. The infrastructure for 135 is still prevalent enough that recurring cost can be held fairly low. With 120, this is only the case for a DIY operation where the enthusiast is willing to take control from exposure to print. There's a beauty in this, and this is why I still do 120 B&W.

The issue though is that costs shoots way up if a commercial lab is interposed anywhere in this workflow. It's possible to get decent scans from 6x7 using consumer level equipment. It's starts to get iffy at the smaller 645 size.

Okay, so say the higher recurring cost of a commercial 120 workflow is acceptable. It makes sense still to choose a format that maximizes all the qualities (tonality, resolution, sharpness) that drove the switch out of 135 to begin with. This comes back again to the desirability of a larger usable film area. This is especially the case when taking the print into account.

6x7 fits the 16x20 target print size exactly, while 645 requires additional crops. The advantages of the typical 645 camera like faster optics and faster operation tend not to be as important in the studio - portrait, fine art, and still life as Richard first mentioned.

Well normaly I would say go for the DSLR because often a person has been using photoshop for a while scanning slides. As you have no photoshop experience you may want to try the medium format route if you have a good film workflow. However medium format film and processing is not cheap at only 10 shots per roll if you shoot 6x7 I would want a fair few keeper per roll if you get what I mean.

The idea of a used 5D is not a bad one image quality is supposed to be very good and you are probably going to want to learn photoshop at some time.

Isn't the 5D a little dated to be recomended so much in this colum ?What about the Nikon 700?

Hi Richad,

I am also a happy 35 mm guy, my suggesions to you if you need fast paced captures like sports, or if you need low noise/ high ISO performance, than swith to DSLR other as your described work profile, you won't like the prints of digitals. Film tonality and exposure latitude is still unbeatable by digitals (as my experience).

Medium format resolution is great, you can print anything at anysize by your proper way of shooting and focus. You can get scaned you MF neagatives by any cheap flatbed scanner like Canon 8800f or Epson V350/500/700, rathen I won't suggest to print from scanned files if you want a very decent and different from digital prints of your very important and ambisious assignment.

This is very hard to switch on DSLRs if any is habiture of films, no matter what format....!

Robert:

``The issue though is that costs shoots way up if a commercial lab is interposed anywhere in this workflow.``

OK I got your point(s). Thanks for taking the time to explain it better.

I didn`t even look at cost.

My brain `read`: . . ``portraits, fine art . . . I'd like to produce high quality prints . . .``

and I believe I then reacted and answered particular to my circumstance: I use 645 to shoot Formal Wedding Portraiture, and the negs are processed at a Pro Lab.

I also note your comments about 645 the crop required to print 16 x 20 (compared to a 67), specific for Richard`s application: a very good point and again I did not consider that.

I guess because I still have both 67 and 645 gear . . . I was NOT looking at it as: `what would I buy now will it be 645 OR 67?`

Also, on a personal note, your comments specifically regarding 120 B&W have given me food for thought for my `hobby photography` and also for applications for my daughter, who is doing a 2 year course, which still has wet work . . . they use 135 format, but perhaps she might want to play with my 645.

The other point I am gleaning strongly is that one`s location (i.e. where we each live) might be a strong dictator of the number of existing quality functioning wet labs.

Thanks again for the explanation . . . good food for my thought.

WW

"Isn't the 5D a little dated to be recomended so much in this colum ?What about the Nikon 700?"

With ~$1000 budget..?

Keeping in mind the 800 - 1000 budget, the xsi will serve you well.. Assuming that you shoot using a tripod the possibilites for len's interchange outside (is) stabilized is awesome...since the rebel line of lenses are interchangeable an avid photographer on a budget can purchase older model lenses at great prices.

". . . they use 135 format, but perhaps she might want to play with my 645..."

Excellent idea. I'm sure the school can provide access to both high quality enlargers and professional quality scanners to make 645 really shine.

For 120, I most often use a pair of RB-67's. I think about buying 645 equipment every once in awhile. The thing that's always stopped me cold is that I can't justify another $2.5k for a Nikon 9000. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense when current DSLR's around this price range has gotten so damn good.

> ``Isn't the 5D a little dated to be [recommended] so much in this [column] ?What about the Nikon 700?`` < (MMcC)

Perhaps this, from the question, is relevant: `I currently have 2 Elan II 35mms . . . I have (all Canon USM) two zooms and a 100mm macro.`

And also this column header, in which the header was placed: Community > Forums > Canon EOS > EOS Digital SLR Bodies.

The D700 seems a good camera, there are many mentions of it here:

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/

:)

WW

Isn't the 5D a little dated to be recomended so much in this colum ?What about the Nikon 700?

So does this mean that the pictures from a 5D will look inferior to a newer camera?

I'm going to have to go with a 6x7 camera for this one. Considering you enjoy b/w and like big enlargements, i think it's the natural choice. Plus, should you decide you would occasionally like to go larger than 16x20, it will not require a new camera, and you will still have stunning enlargements. You could also shoot slides, and scan them into photoshop to get the hang of digital, should you later decide to buy a dslr. Braden

I had 4 photos printed to 16"x16" to be placed in a gallery. Three were from a Hasselblad and Zeiss lens, tripod mounted mirror lock up and all that.. One was from a Canon xTi, and all were printed at a pro lab. Remember the xti is just 10MP and the photo had to be cropped to match the square of the medium format.

The photo from the digital camera compared favorably to the 6x6, especially hanging on the wall.

Well I have a XSi and really like it. It produces excellent 13x19s.

But we shoot different things. How many shots do you usually take in an outing or at a portrait shoot?

My thought would be to go for a used large format outfit if it fits your style. A 4x5 and one lens would be a good starter. Some 4x5s are lighter than some medium format cameras.

You have a large enough negative to check for sharpness and composition. You have the perfect format for enlarging to 16x20. You have movements.

Hi there! Richard Kriz again. Thank you so much to all who have taken the time for input. I believe my choices now will be between the Canon 5D (because of my current lenses) and a 6x7 MF. I'm leaning very hard towards the MF due to the things I shoot. I'm about to take a refresher darkroom class (my B/W darkroom experience is 25 years ago), so I'll run my own B/W negs...be it 35mm or 6x7. There is a great pro photo lab in the next city to help with all else. Again, thanks so much for pointing me towards two great choices!

Hi Richard . . .

Do not forget to take a trip upstairs to that other room, with lots of goodies . . .

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00PqMr

:)

WW

Richard, I would get the RZ. It is a great camera! The revolving back is great. And, you could get several film backs. Has a built in bellows for closeups, too.

Just my 02, Have you a good lab nearby that d&p MF?. Where I live closest is 120k away. But I have always done my own and both colour and B&W is simple to process. If you have a good scanner, images can be sent to a pro lab via internet and posted back no probs. I use Hasselblad in 6x6 and 645 but recently on a job, shot a 20d alongside for a commercial client, annoyingly they chose 20x30 from the digital because it was a quicker turnaround. If you want to spend time and don`t mind the slow ways fine, I rarely touch film now and agree with some the 5D (or similar) will win in the end:)

Richard, you say that you are not too confident in the resolution of 35 mm film. Have you actually tried printed that size ? What emulsions are you using ? It may matter very much. I shoot mostly Velvia 100F (35 mm) scan it at 4000 dpi and regularly print 12x18 at 300 dpi (about 20 MPx). Printing with the same amount of data at lower dpi (bit less than 240) after upscaling to 16x24 does not result in a significant deterioration (at least with this film). Bear in mind that the viewing distance is a bit longer for larger prints. To come back to your question, if you do want to produce highest quality 16x24 prints at 300 dpi without interpolation, you need 4800x7200 resolution (35 Mpx). If you scan your 6x7 slides at 4000 dpi, you get about 100 MPx. Of course, this is a theoretical figure, but the actual resolution with a good film and lenses shall be superior to what a 5D would provide you with. On the other hand, a 5D would enable you to use your old lenses and give you extra flexibility. You have to know what matters more for you. Best wishes. Peter

Richard,

I'm very happy with my Canon XSI and it has exceeded my expectations even with the 18-55mm IS kit lens. It is my first dSLR camera and I come from 35mm, 6x6, and 4x5 photography. I can't say it is better than a high-quality 6x6 scan, but it sure is convenient and the results are better than I expected.

--Mike

>>>Isn't the 5D a little dated to be recomended so much in this colum ?What about the Nikon 700?<<<

Not dated, if by datyed you mean bad. My main camera is a 1D3, but as a backup I bought a 5D last month - my third 5D in a row, and I don't think it is dated yet at all. Sure, there will be a MkII or whatever they call it, but that does not in any way dimish the 5D, which is still great.

Well Richard, I bet you're really clear on what's the best camera to get now. LOL. One of the problems is if you went to a Nikon, Pentax, Sony etc etc. forum the questions answers would be EXACTLY the same. " My camera is the best and the one you want is an entry level camera. Get this one because it's the best and someone says I have the entry level one and it's great and someone says why don't you get this one and on and on and they begin arguing between themselves. I believe your question was regarding the XSI? Wow talk about getting off track. The questions and arguments like this have been exactly the same for as long as I remember. I remember when the 6 x 7 format hit the market and the people who had the 2 1/4 squares said that the 6 x 7s would never give good results because they cropped too much off the square image. Blah Blah Blah.

Look for some of the really good photographers in this forum and see what they're using for equipment. Anything from good point and shoot cameras on up. You'll be amazed at what the ENTRY LEVEL CAMERAS can do.

It seems like you know enough about cameras to realize that the best camera for you is the one that feels the best in your hands. Small, medium and large format photography are all separate worlds of their own. Just as are the differences between film and digital.

Listen to your own good reasoning and don't let yourself get confused with so many very biased opinions.

Hope your decision is your decision.

J

> I believe your question was regarding the XSI? Wow talk about getting off track. The questions and arguments like this have been exactly the same for as long as I remember. <

Actually I thought the question was about OUTPUTS:

``My shooting usually includes portraits, fine art and found still lifes...in either color or B/W. I'd like to produce high quality prints up towards the 16x20 range``

And thereafter it was a request for comment of the two options under consideration:

``I'm teetering on the fence between 2 things: utilizing my current lenses and getting my first DSLR (Rebel XSI) or be an old fashioned purist and get a Mamiya 645 or RZ67.``

IMO a good forum would actively suggest OTHER options if it believed such were viable. IMO this thread did a reasonable job at achieving that and most of the time was addressing the two points (outlined above) as I read to be THE question.

It seems we read the question differently or have a different purpose for a FORUM, or both?

WW

Ok William since we're quoting,

"my first DSLR (Rebel XSI) or be an old fashioned purist and get a Mamiya 645 or RZ67."

Output? Ok

:)

John, I think you are either missing my point, or having a joke with me by making a pun with my words and quotes, I don`t know which. I am not very good at reading nuances like that without previous interaction.

I`ll play it straight, and assume you are missing my point.

If you are having a joke with me, then the joke is on me, and that is OK.

***

Yes, Richard asked a question and the `outputs` he restricted himself to, (to answer his output needs) were those three cameras you have quoted.

BUT

This is a forum: a place to discuss ideas. It is good that other solutions were suggested, that is all I was saying.

I was disagreeing with you where you said that this thread wandered off into a `get this one because it is the best because I have that model type of gab feast . . . I though that most of the answers either addressed the three cameras mentioned, OR introduced another optionally solution sincerely thought to be a better solution.

I quite agree that many threads go wandering off: I do not think this was one of them.

WW

Ok William if that's what you heard from this thread that's great.

Have a great day.

J

Richard, I agree with Peter, perhaps the problem is the film you are using.

I'm not convinced it's a lack of resolutions but maybe too much grain you are seeing.

For the type of work you are doing, you could use very flow film. For B&W try PanF 50. For color I find you have to stay below ISO 400 for any negative film. Chromes are even better for less grain.

I get acceptable 16x20 and 20x24 prints from 135 doing mural prints with a modified enlarger pointed across my dark room at the wall. I use a minolta 50 1.4 lens from an SRT on the enlarger. What I'm saying is the right film and the right process might make this work for you.

Tell us what films you currently use. When I go to the bronica (which I use for model/ portrait) or the RB (which I use for stills/studio/landscape) I can get much larger mural prints. And I use 4x5 for very large mural, wallpaper and billboard work. I find there's a time and place for all of it.

Also, you can get a very decent scanner for $500 if you don't want to go the wet print rout anymore. I can get a 100mb file from 135 on my microteck which scans all formats I just mentioned.

Lastly, in the end, the XSi will produce fine results for you with probably less effort. You may in fact upgrade that sooner than later, but who cares. It will make a fine backup to keep in your car at all times. Thats' what I do with my XTi now. Just make sure you get an additional super wide lens to go with it. You'll need a Canon or Sigma 10-20/22 to get your wide back.