Pentax k5 - Argentique Moyen Format

falconeye · 12-19-2010, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by RawheaD

The shot up there was taken with a Pentax 67II. 645 is the absolute minimum size for MF and there's currently only a $30,000 sensor that will take full advantage of that. 6x6 and larger film will have their place for a long time yet.

Thanks for the clarification.

RawheaD · 12-26-2010, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by nanok

rawhead: lens, aperture, mate. you won't get away with it so easily, now that you posted that gorgeous picture. so, 6x7, ?lens?, ?aperture_shot_at? ? cheers

Sorry for the late reply. Pentax 67II + smc Pentax 105mm f2.4, shot wide open :-)

Rupert · 12-26-2010, 12:09 PM

Good conversation here, and meaningful to some more than others. For old Squirrel Shooters like me the K5 is going to open new doors and bring opportunities that have previously been impossible. While MF is great for many situations, it is no good for most Squirrel shooting...while the K5 is loaded with the features needed and the results will certainly satisfy even the most critical Squirrel eye. They are not much interested in Pixels....unless they are edible.
Best Regards!

robgo2 · 12-28-2010, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by RawheaD

Sure, you could approximate it. You could also approximate the beautiful bokeh of any lens; so why buy good fast lenses at all?? Being able to approximate something in digital != wanting to do it. I have nothing against people who do want to do that. I personally find it seriously un-fun to do that, when I can go out with my 67II and take pictures like that with one shutter depression :-)

And I find scanning film to be even more un-fun. Do what suits you.

Rob

Last edited by robgo2; 12-28-2010 at 12:14 PM.

**Clarkey** · 12-31-2010, 07:12 PM

Intriguing thread. I still shoot 645, but find the barrier is now the digitization (I do not have an enlarger).
Apart from the 9000 and flatbeds like the high end epsons and microtek machines, there is not much happening in the way of new scanning tech coming to market. I always wonder if these comparisons (film v digital) are valid.

+1 on scanning film. Not fun, but more like a darkroom than plugging an SD card into a reader and tweaking in LR. I find it to be interesting, especially when scanning slide film. IMHO, the character can change significantly between mediums.

JonPB · 12-31-2010, 08:07 PM

On a perhaps-unrelated note...

I think that it is a given that larger formats will produce shallower DOF. And digital is better for adapting to different white balances and gradients. And that the characters can change dramatically even with identical scenes, not only between film and digital but between different kinds of film. Personally, I enjoy shallow DOFs but mostly I'm interested in detail and dynamic range. (I like shooting city scenes at night. Something about artificial light gets me going. But it also gives my GX10 fits. Huzah for my K-5.) I enjoy pouring over an image, delving into it; I realize that most people look at art and it is their reaction in the first quarter-second that matters, but, if I don't mangle my French, c'est la vie. When that initial reaction is positive, there's a dwelling factor that I want to be able to entertain.

From the images posted here, I'd say that the digital camera outperforms the film in detail. Of course, that's from viewing crops on a monitor. If you have experience with film, do you think that film outperforms in viewing experience with a print?

What I'd love is to have a print from a film image to compare with a print from a digital image. I've seen lots of film prints in galleries, but that's a poor point of comparison. Ideally, the same scene captured with film and, say, a K-5, both printed at the same size, would be great. Does anyone have such files they'd be willing to share with me? I'd be happy to make prints--admittedly, they'd be 4x6 prints, both of the entire shot and equally cropped to look at the details--and send them back to the photographer after making my examination. The images can be rejects, ones that aren't valuable as images...I'm just curious to compare the two, if people think that film still exceeds digital in detail and dynamic range.

Feel free to PM me if you'd be willing to share a scanned image. Thank you!

lithos · 01-01-2011, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by RawheaD

Working with larger format film gives you one advantage that even the top-end medium format digital can't give you: the extreme shallow DoF.

Name me a dozen medium format lenses with apertures of f1.4 or greater.

I'll wait.

Eruditass · 01-02-2011, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by RawheaD

Yeah, but let's see the K-5 (or any APS-C cam for that matter) take a shot like this:

Working with larger format film gives you one advantage that even the top-end medium format digital can't give you: the extreme shallow DoF.

The Brenizer Method Explained With Directions | San Francisco Lifestyle Wedding Photographer | Bay Area Wedding Photography

Yes, it's a pain.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Acquisto pentax negli Stati Uniti e garanzia Internazionale	Mitch	Photographic Technique	3	12-07-2010 03:16 AM
Back focus sur Pentax 50mm f:1.4 SMC FA	loule	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	10-12-2010 08:57 AM
Split-image focussing screen BJ-61 for Pentax 67II	phonoline	Pentax Medium Format	4	09-24-2010 10:00 PM
Iniciacion y ayuda en la fotografia ASAHI PENTAX ESII	matiwonko	Welcomes and Introductions	1	07-15-2010 01:32 AM
Argentique sur pentas numérique	Aarkhan	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	12-24-2009 11:20 AM

12-19-2010, 11:22 AM	#16
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by RawheaD The shot up there was taken with a Pentax 67II. 645 is the absolute minimum size for MF and there's currently only a $30,000 sensor that will take full advantage of that. 6x6 and larger film will have their place for a long time yet. Thanks for the clarification.

12-26-2010, 10:36 AM	#17
RawheaD Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: MA, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 831	Originally posted by nanok rawhead: lens, aperture, mate. you won't get away with it so easily, now that you posted that gorgeous picture. so, 6x7, ?lens?, ?aperture_shot_at? ? cheers Sorry for the late reply. Pentax 67II + smc Pentax 105mm f2.4, shot wide open :-)

12-26-2010, 12:09 PM	#18
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	Good conversation here, and meaningful to some more than others. For old Squirrel Shooters like me the K5 is going to open new doors and bring opportunities that have previously been impossible. While MF is great for many situations, it is no good for most Squirrel shooting...while the K5 is loaded with the features needed and the results will certainly satisfy even the most critical Squirrel eye. They are not much interested in Pixels....unless they are edible. Best Regards!

12-28-2010, 11:58 AM	#19
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by RawheaD Sure, you could approximate it. You could also approximate the beautiful bokeh of any lens; so why buy good fast lenses at all?? Being able to approximate something in digital != wanting to do it. I have nothing against people who do want to do that. I personally find it seriously un-fun to do that, when I can go out with my 67II and take pictures like that with one shutter depression :-) And I find scanning film to be even more un-fun. Do what suits you. Rob Last edited by robgo2; 12-28-2010 at 12:14 PM.

12-31-2010, 07:12 PM	#20
Clarkey Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Brampton, ON, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,456	Intriguing thread. I still shoot 645, but find the barrier is now the digitization (I do not have an enlarger). Apart from the 9000 and flatbeds like the high end epsons and microtek machines, there is not much happening in the way of new scanning tech coming to market. I always wonder if these comparisons (film v digital) are valid. +1 on scanning film. Not fun, but more like a darkroom than plugging an SD card into a reader and tweaking in LR. I find it to be interesting, especially when scanning slide film. IMHO, the character can change significantly between mediums.

12-31-2010, 08:07 PM	#21
JonPB Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Portland, OR, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 430	On a perhaps-unrelated note... I think that it is a given that larger formats will produce shallower DOF. And digital is better for adapting to different white balances and gradients. And that the characters can change dramatically even with identical scenes, not only between film and digital but between different kinds of film. Personally, I enjoy shallow DOFs but mostly I'm interested in detail and dynamic range. (I like shooting city scenes at night. Something about artificial light gets me going. But it also gives my GX10 fits. Huzah for my K-5.) I enjoy pouring over an image, delving into it; I realize that most people look at art and it is their reaction in the first quarter-second that matters, but, if I don't mangle my French, c'est la vie. When that initial reaction is positive, there's a dwelling factor that I want to be able to entertain. From the images posted here, I'd say that the digital camera outperforms the film in detail. Of course, that's from viewing crops on a monitor. If you have experience with film, do you think that film outperforms in viewing experience with a print? What I'd love is to have a print from a film image to compare with a print from a digital image. I've seen lots of film prints in galleries, but that's a poor point of comparison. Ideally, the same scene captured with film and, say, a K-5, both printed at the same size, would be great. Does anyone have such files they'd be willing to share with me? I'd be happy to make prints--admittedly, they'd be 4x6 prints, both of the entire shot and equally cropped to look at the details--and send them back to the photographer after making my examination. The images can be rejects, ones that aren't valuable as images...I'm just curious to compare the two, if people think that film still exceeds digital in detail and dynamic range. Feel free to PM me if you'd be willing to share a scanned image. Thank you!

01-01-2011, 07:54 AM	#22
lithos Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS Posts: 3,261	Originally posted by RawheaD Working with larger format film gives you one advantage that even the top-end medium format digital can't give you: the extreme shallow DoF. Name me a dozen medium format lenses with apertures of f1.4 or greater. I'll wait.

01-02-2011, 10:33 PM	#23
Eruditass Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	Originally posted by RawheaD Yeah, but let's see the K-5 (or any APS-C cam for that matter) take a shot like this: Working with larger format film gives you one advantage that even the top-end medium format digital can't give you: the extreme shallow DoF. The Brenizer Method Explained With Directions \| San Francisco Lifestyle Wedding Photographer \| Bay Area Wedding Photography Yes, it's a pain.