Backcountry Photography

[Anonymous]

Anatoly Ivanov & BPL Thank You for the outstanding article: Lightweight Backcountry Professional Photography!

[Richard Nelridge]

Yes, I too would like to thank BPL and Anatoly Ivanov for their article on light weight Backcountry Photography.

As a professional outdoor nature photographer I can appreciate Anatoly’s issues with the weight of his equipment and his backpacking equipment.

I agree with Anatoly’s selection of the Gitzo 1228 and its use and have been using this tripod as my backpacking tripod since 1995 or 1996. I also agree with using an Arca Swiss Quick Release system by people like Really Right Stuff, Kirk Enterprises, or Arca Swiss. However, I do not recommend using the center column of the Gitzo 1228 unless it is absolutely necessary and the conditions allow. When using a center column on a tripod it is like extending a monopod on top of a tripod and is subject to wind and movement. Be extremely careful when extending the center column to any degree of height!

For me, I will not leave the front lens caps home it is not enough weight savings. I want to protect the front elements, and filter threads of my very expensive 35mm Leica SLR; Mamiya 7; or my Rodenstock, Schneider, or Nikon large format lenses.

Anatoly states “Digital delivers better quality, faster turnaround, lower production costs”. I agree that digital may produce faster turnaround, lower production costs and accept about 10 stops of light on the digital material. As to the issue of performance of on film versus digitial performance for 35mm format, I have to disagree with Anatoly. At least with using the highest quality of optics even in 35mm format size made by Leica, Nikon, Canon, etc. when photographing on transparency film (slides). For the purpose of very large prints, I find that we get better prints from slides than digital. No there is not nearly as much latitude to accept exposure on the film- only 3 1/2 to 4 stops of light. With slides we get tremendous color saturation.

My observations of the performance of slide material is confirmed by my printer, Bill Nordstrom, one of the best known printers in the United States with over 50 years of experience. When we discussed this just recently, Bill indicated that he still prefers working from slides and that even though there is much more latitude in digital, he can pull more information out of the toe end (shadow end) of the Photoshop tiff files than digital. In fact, Bill indicates that there is nothing left to get in these shadow areas. As a result he indicates that we get better fine art prints from slides.

But, we are working with a Heidelberg Tango drum scanner ($60,000+ when purchased new and kept current with the latest software) and printing with an $80,000 Chromira digital printer for prints up to 30″ x 38″. Beyond that we print on the Cymbolic Sciences Lightjet 5000 a $250,000 digital printer. In either case all the photos are printed on Fuji Glossy Crystal Archive Photo Paper.

Additionally, when we scan my 35mm, 2 1/4″ square, 6 x 7 cm, or 4″x5″ transparencies we make raw files on the order of 225 to 300 mb for Red, Green, and Blue. We work in smaller size files perhaps 50 to 60 mb for the same colors to print 20″ x 30″ or 24″ x 30″ photographs.

Rich Nelridge
http://www.nelridge.com

[Anatoly IVANOV]

Hey guys,

Thanks a lot for the feedback! Any questions welcome, of course.

Let me answer Richard NELRIDGE post, please.

> However, I do not recommend using the center column of the Gitzo 1228 unless
> it is absolutely necessary and the conditions allow. When using a center
> column on a tripod it is like extending a monopod on top of a tripod and is
> subject to wind and movement. Be extremely careful when extending the center
> column to any degree of height!

I absolutely agree. Central column extension is a compromise. Some photographers even go for the huge tripods and remove the central column for best stability.

I stop breathing near the camera when I shoot with central column extended. I am not kidding. Biathlon?

Concerning digital vs haloed…

Richard, I too scanned my slide film on Heidelberg Tango, as well as on Scitex (Creo / Kodak) Eversmart Extreme, Fuji Lanovia, Howtek 4000 / 8000, Screen Cezanne… I printed on anything from news-stock paper to Labda to Pictography to Epson InkJet…

I got into digital with the Canon 1Ds, and upgraded to the Canon 1Ds Mark II early this winter. The 1Ds II files converted from RAW are stunning. Incomparable to 23×36 film.

Incomparable.

Grain is huge on a 100 ISO 35mm slide, it’s like shooting 3200 ISO on a Canon 1Ds II. Optical resolution on the 1Ds is as good or better than medium format film. Better than 6 x 4,5, I am no longer talking 24 x 36.

Please do not trust my words, make a test. A Canon film body, like a 1V, a Canon 1Ds II, a prime or an L zoom, one tripod, one scene. Shoot, scan, develop RAW, compare. I did that with the 1Ds, before the Mark II came.

I was very skeptical. The result: a 100 Mb RGB drum scan looked ridiculous compared to a 30 Mb RGB digital file. I never looked back.

Plus, with digital, you get Instant Eternal Polaroid, Infinite Film, and Almost Live Histogram. And, you leave the film in the fridge. In the backcountry, that equals better coefficient of useful action and better peace of mind.

Yes, color, out of the box, is bizarre. I guess it’s catered to the “largest tonal range / most neutral color” aesthetic, which is not mine. But that’s ok. I change the default parameters when I convert from RAW.

ANATOLY IVANOV PHOTOGRAPHY / DESIGN

[Richard Nelridge]

Anatoly,

I never indicated that slide film would have no grain structure. As a rule, I use Fujichrome Velvia 50 (rated at ISO of 40), Fujichrome Velvia 100, and Fujichrome Provia 100 in all format sizes. Let me say that there is some grain to these images at 20″ x 30″ from my 35mm Leica SLRs (but much more minor as the film size increases and is less noticable when printing to large prints from the larger formats). But, it is anything but objectionable from 35mm. I do not normally print 35mm larger than this. The 24″ x 30″ prints from my 4″ x 5″ camera are very fine grained, but perhaps not as fine grained as your digital files from your digital media.

Additionally, Leica has the 10 megapixel digital back that will fit my Leica R8 or a Leica R9 (and allow the same camera body to take film or digital media, uses the same shutter, and all of the same lenses; however it does have a focal length extension factor of 1.37x).

I doubt that a well exposed 35mm transparency drum scan from a Heidelberg Tango (particularly with the latest software) would look ridiculous or be incomporable to a digital original from 35mm printed on a Chromira or a Cymbolic Sciences Lightjet 5000 (which at least until recently was sharper than a Durst Lambda). Slides would also normally need to be about 1/2 to 2/3 stop lighter for printing than those that would be projected. You have your preferances as do I regarding the final output and the color rendering that one gets from transparencies versus print or digital material. I personally like to use the complete range of latitude of transparencies much of the time recording deep color saturation and deep blacks. Like many landscape and nature photographers, I select my slide film for my preferred color pallet. Additionally, slides and prints from slides generally have a different look than prints from negatives or digital material.

I very much doubt that your digital files would be sharper from your 35mm Canon digital media than from a 2 1/4″ square or a 6 x 7 cm transpansparency. Though, I may be incorrect. I would very much doubt that the digital media files from the Canon digital cameras will equal 4″ x 5″ and larger transparencies.

In fact, at this point, digital prints from my 4″ x 5″ transparencies in many cases look like they were taken on 8″ x 10″ film.

Additionally, though Canon makes outstanding lenses and I used Canons for years over 20 years ago before switching to my Leicas, they only make 3 tilt and shift lenses which are very useful in the field. On the other hand there are the 2 Hasselblad medium format systems that have bellow systems that allow these movements as do some older medium format cameras including Linhof Technika 6 x 9cm cameras. Those old and current Linhof medium format cameras and technical, field, and studio Large Format Cameras including my Linhof Technikardan S 45 allow for tilt, swing, rise, fall, and left and right shift and which can prove very valuable including maintaining sharpness along a plane with a tremendous number of lenses.

Then there is the question of the heavy batteries, battery life (need to carry heavy backups) of the large 35mm SLR digital cameras (and their medium and large format bretheran). But there is the perishability of the film for film cameras, versus the dust and dirt issues more for the digital than the film based cameras.

And yes there are the medium format digital cameras and digital backs for medium and large format cameras that are available. But, though some of the medium format and all the large format cameras can utilize the aforementioned camera movements they are extremely costly on the order of $10,000 to $30,000. Then there are the lenses needed for the new digital medium format cameras which are another huge outlay. Additionally, some of the larger digital equipment, particularly the large format systems I believe still require the use of a laptop computer in the field.

In the field I use a spot meter for exposure particularly with the medium and large format cameras. Because of my knowledge of light and the transparency latitude, I am finding that I seldom carry a polaroid back or take polaroid test prints.

Rich
http://www.nelridge.com

[Anatoly IVANOV]

Richard,

First of all, if film fits your photography better, that’s perfectly fine. In my opinion, results count more than technology. That’s exactly the reason I switched from Nikon to Canon and then from film to digital. If you think your workflow works best for you and yields a bigger quantity of beautiful pictures, than that’s definitely the way to go for you. Totally Machiavelli.

35mm film grain was not that objectionable for me either until I saw digital files from the Canon 1Ds. I even shot high grain 1600 ISO Fuji for magazines, and the grain looked groovy.

DPreview calls 1Ds files “silky smooth”. Of course, 4×5 inch slide is awesome. Difficult to beat. 4×5 inch has so much more crispness and air in it.

10 MP Leica. 16 MP Canon. That’s a 6 MP difference. Not so long ago a Canon 10D was 6 MP. Leica, unfortunately, is out of the game and I doubt they will ever stand up again. I’d love to shoot with a 20 MP M6, even with prehistoric focusing and exposure control.

Tilt and shift is great, but, as I said in my article, I do not use a ” tremendous number of lenses”. If you do need that much glass, of course that might make sense. A lot of my best picture were shot with trivial, even banal lenses.

Battery life is no longer a problem with digital. I just take the 1Ds II with a fresh battery: lasts forever, even with image-stabilization lens. Two weeks of landscapes?

I liken sensor dust to drum scan air-bubbles and occasional operator hair. Not much of a change, still work to do.

I never carried Polaroid when I worked with film. I now do have that functionality with digital, and I like it. I occasionally use the TTL Canon spotmeter: it’s built-in, so why carry 300 grams (10 oz) of Seconic over that mountain pass?

On the other hand, Richard, I would be delighted to hear from you something like: “Anatoly, two days ago I did the scanned “Canon + film” vs “Canon 1Ds Mark II + RAW” side-by-side comparison and I did not find the digital files any sharper and smoother.” Or the contrary.

ANATOLY IVANOV PHOTOGRAPHY / DESIGN

[Andy Lewicky]

The film versus digital debate? How can I resist…

Gentlemen, I don’t think there’s any question that digital will (someday soon) offer better resolution than film. Like many photographers, however, I’m interested in image quality, which is a far more slippery subject.

In particular, do today’s 8-11 megapixel cameras offer better image quality than 35mm film?

I think the answer is no. The key, in comparing film and digital, is to remember that you are degrading film’s image quality whenever you scan it. If you compare a scan of film to a digital original, you are not comparing film versus digital…you’re comparing a film scan versus digital, and that film scan is only as good as the scanner.

Certainly, digital has gotten very competitive. But I find digital images suffer from two primary problems:

1) lattitude. Digital’s lattidue is narrower than transparency film and much narrower than negatives. This rears its head whenever you’re trying to shoot a sunny scene with snow it it. Digital doesn’t clip the way film does, resulting in potentially hideously burned-out highlights.

2) interpolation. The overwhelming majority of digital cams don’t use true RGB imaging for each pixel. They use algorithms to “guess” the colors of neighboring pixels. I see the limits of this technique whenever I’m shooting green foliage. The sharpness crashes, resulting in a smeared look.

Soon enough, digital will overcome both these liabilites. It’s already good enough that I shoot it almost exclusively. But it’s not better than film…not yet. Or so I believe. :-)

[Rick Dreher]

First, I want to echo the complements to Anatoly for your wonderful article and accompanying photographs, as well as your multi-kilo reduction in kit weight (choke)!

I’m in the curmudgeon camp on film/digital, less from the results side than from the design and execution side–almost all digicams I’ve handled are an insult to the user and definitely get in the way of the creative process. Digicam designers need to be reassigned back to cellphones and PDAs from where they evidently came.

There, I feel better! :-)

We all see where photography is headed and only need to be informed when the digital train has arrived at the station. I’m one who feels there’s quite a way to go; others feel we’ve arrived already. Both are probably partially right but there are those who have gone back to film:

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

Often lost in discussions about the “best” tool for the task is the reality that photography is 90% who’s behind the camera and to be generous, 10% gear. So long as your camera system doesn’t fail you in the field it’s up to you to deliver the goods. I long ago stopped lugging several pounds of gear and film backpacking, although I still do when I’m going out specifically to shoot. But I’m a hobbiest and not a pro so my situation differs considerably.

Until an interchangeable lens digicam system based on a rangefinder rather than an SLR design hits the market my wallet’s closed (a digital M would be nice; more likely we’ll see a digital body for the new Zeiss Ikon system). I long for a digital system as nice to use as my Contax G gear, with equivalent lens designs (relatively tiny) and image quality. The Panasonic-Leica gear is the closet so far, if still hampered by a fixed lens.

Film users of course can easily digitize if they want to jump from the photographic print realm. I’ve got a cheap Minolta film scanner that gives surprisingly good results or in my area I can get a commercial 48-bit 6,300 dpi scan yielding a 275 meg(!) file. I’ll match those results with any 35mm or smaller digital format extant, and at considerably less gear weight and bulk in the field (e.g., compare size and weight of a full-frame digital SLR with a 21mm lens to a G2 with a 21mm Biogon). To press the point further my T3 at 8 ounces will also compete head to head with any equivalent.

What I can’t hope to match is digital immediacy and the benefits of in-field review. The final coffin nail is represented by rapidly disappearing labs. I’m afraid it will soon be impossible to live my Kodachrome dreams and I only hope that good digital gear awaits before that awful day arrives.

[Richard Nelridge]

Rick,

I amongst others Pros have been asking Mamiya for a digital back for the Mamiya 7 II Rangefinder (6×7 cm) so that we can use the outstanding lenses designed for this rangefinder camera (ideal format and basically same proportions as 4″ x 5″ or 8″ x 10″). As of last year no go. I will check with Mamiya again next month at Photoplus East (biggest photo show in North America) at the Javitts Center in NYC.

The Mamiya 7 and 7 II are somewhat like a Leica M Series camera on Steroids. If we can get a digital back for this system it will be remarkable. The camera is about the size of a Pro sized 35mm camera and records a film size of 2 1/4″ x 2 3/4″ (56mm x 69.5mm) (the lenses are extraordinarily sharp [some of the sharpest ever designed in medium format], contrasty, with exellent color). My Mamiya 7 II with a Really Right Stuff Quick Release plate and Padded Strap weighs 37.2 oz and my 65 mm Mamiya Lens (equivalent to 32mm in 35mm) weighs 16.2 oz (including lens cap, lens back, and B+W UV Filter).

Perhaps an after market maker will design a back for the camera. However, whoever makes a back for this camera, it is going to be expensive.

Rich

[Anatoly IVANOV]

Dear all,

Honestly, I am surprised by this debate. I think the whole question of digital vs film is just not relevant anymore. It was two years ago, but is no longer.

Clients want digital. Even the oldest conservatives, like National Geographic.

All my friend photographers… World Press Photo winners, studio still life guys, advertising folks, fine art conceptualists… Almost all went digital, and most before I did. I have a hard time remembering a photographer I know personally who’s still on film. And those few plan to switch soon.

Photo gear shops in Paris stopped stocking professional cameras. Labs convert to photo retouching and Lamda and ink-jet printing… or close down.

Pro photo forums speak digital. It’s just everywhere. Now.

The theme of film vs digital reminds me of the discussion we used to have about the Internet five years ago. “Is Internet important? Will it ever grow? Will it sell stuff?” No one is asking those questions anymore. It’s so obvious now.

I was of course wondering if digital was good enough before I switched, but that was when Canon 1D was announced in September 2001. It sure was not enough for me. But when the 1Ds came out the next year, in 2002, it just became as obvious as the Internet.

How about cash flow? Do you like paying for pro film, processing at a pro lab and drum scanning? Let’s say, Paris prices: 10 EUR a roll, 7 EUR E6 processing of each roll, 45 EUR each scan. I suppose you do shoot more than one roll per month. Those are costs you could bill as usage rights! And what about projects you will sell only afterwards? Do you like paying way in advance, before the money comes back a year later?

Again, I speak about the pro digital cameras. Full frame, 16 MP… Or Phase One backs, if you like medium format. Of course, digicams suck, big time. I have tried the Canon PowerShot Pro 1, the Minolta A2… the superlight solutions. 650 grams! Wow! They are so noisy they are barely useable.

Please tell me. I am perfectly fine with each one’s choice if I know it’s a totally educated and completely informed choice. Have you tried the latest Canon 1Ds Mark II, or Phase One back? Have you seen your own digital images from those cameras on the screen and in print?

ANATOLY IVANOV PHOTOGRAPHY / DESIGN

[kevin davidson]

For commercial work -Mr. Ivanov’s point,that digital is dominant, is correct.
However, In the Art (capital “A”) World ( granted a very tiny but ultra prestigious market) — film wins. Silver gelatin prints win. Digital work is looked upon with great suspicion if not outright disdain by serious galleries and collectors due to the ease of flooding the market with virtually identical final digital output. It’s just too easy to replicate to near infinity. You just can’t do that with finely handcrafted silver gelatin art prints with all the unique little nuances that can never quite come out the same. That, like traditional art media, show the hand of the artist–that betray “hand work”–craft.

If I were still doing commercial photography, I most definately would be shooting digital. Oh, the pain and expense of setting up for certain shoots with the only instant output provided (imperfectly) by test shooting in polaroid–Oye!

I also think that for the amateur and serious amateur– digital would be less painful and more rewarding in general and perhaps for backcountry photography in particular. I myself take a small digicam on my journeys for documentary purposes
and appreciate digital’s advantages for this purpose. And with modest size output and web sharing–this suffices.

All commercial work, including photojournalism, animal photography,sports—Digital absolutely has (or will have) taken over. Both for hard copy images and (of course) web mediated work.

But from the perspective of a collector of fine art prints—digital inkjet prints?
Bad investment—at this point in time. I might as well buy a poster.
I would suggest that the serious Digital artist scan their photoshop edited image back onto film and print with conventional silver halide technology (with all the serendipity and chemicals that implies).
This could be an excellent marriage of old and new. And who knows, I might collect you, some day.

[Rick Dreher]

Anatoly,

I’m convinced that your observations and experiences parallel those of most working pros, and your results speak volumes.

Speaking strictly as a long-time, fairly serious amateur I don’t have any pressures from clients or the clock. I can afford to take my time :-)

More importantly, I have a large, longterm investment in equipment that I’m simply not willing to walk away from for pennies on the dollar. I combine that with the fact that I’ve got lenses that have no equal in the digital marketplace, such as a 16mm Hologon, 21mm Biogon, 45mm Planar, 85mm/1.4 Planar, 100mm Makro-Sonar… (you get the idea).

I’d considerable hope that Contax-Kyocera were going to become major players in the digital marketplace and bring me along; in fact, they released then withdrew the very first full-frame SLR, the N-Digital, then got out of the business entirely (making too much money selling cellphones, I suppose).

I don’t doubt there’s a digital future for me, but the gear still has a way to go before I take the jump. Most importantly I can still produce photos I’m proud of with my current gear.

Best regards,

Rick

[Ryan Jordan]

Anatoly,

The 1Ds is a beast. I do understand part of the reason why you might use it for outdoor photography – weatherproof seals.

However, at several $k and #lbs, it’s a beast in more ways than one. Light for the job, but heavy for “us in the mainstream”.

Do you have any recommendations on digital SLR’s (or full manual control rangefinders/compacts) that offer weather sealing and are lighter and cheaper than the 1Ds while still offering higher quality photos than the mass market P&S’s?

[Richard Nelridge]

Ryan,

If you still wish to stay with film based cameras and are interested in some of the lightest cameras to offer on film performance equal to (and I would suspect outperform the Canon 1Ds Mark II), consider the manual focus rangefinder Mamiya 6, Mamiya 7 or 7 II. These cameras are much like a Leica rangefinder camera on steroids. They are expensive (nothing like the $7000+ cost of the Canon 1Ds Mark II) but available on the used market and if purchased out of the US for considerably less than the Mamiya of America Corporation (MAC). MAC has indicated that they will not repair cameras distributed through other sources however.

Though these cameras lack the weatherproof seals, they are about the size of a professional 35mm camera. The Mamiya 6 (the smaller of the cameras) is discontinued, uses collapsible lenses for storage and produces a 2 1/4″ x 2 1/4″ negative or transparency. 3 lenses (50mm, 75mm, and 150mm- all rangefinder coupled) are available for this system.

The larger of the Mamiya cameras are the 7 and the 7 II. The 7 has been discontinued and has been replaced by the improved and still available 7 II. Both cameras record a 2 1/4″ x 2 3/4″ negative or transparency. 6 lenses are available for this system, 5 are rangefinder coupled- 43mm (about equivalent to 21mm for 35mm camera), 50mm (about the equivalent to 25mm for 35mm camera), 65mm (about equivalent to 32mm for 35mm camera), 80mm (about equivalent to 39mm for 35mm camera), and 150mm (about equivalent to 71mm for 35mm camera). The last and not rangefinder coupled lens is the 210mm lens (about equivalent to 105mm on 35mm camera).

The 43mm, 50mm, and 210mm lenses for the Mamiya 7 system require supplemental optical rangefinder. A supplemental optical rangefinder is available, but not required for the 150mm lens (fully coupled but does not require the additional finder). Both the 65mm and the 80mm lenses are fully rangefinder coupled lenses and require no supplemental optical rangefinder.

Common to all rangefinder cameras are the limited close-up focusing capability (about 3 feet), parallax problems, and on film recording beyond what is viewed in camera and supplemental optical viewfinder.

My Mamiya 7II records outstanding results, and the lenses for this system are some of the best performing and sharpest medium format lenses ever designed.

The information in the following table provides weight information for my Mamiya 7II equipment. The Camera includes a wide strap and a Really Right Stuff Quick Release Plate. This plate is being replaced by a Kirk L bracket (similar to the one that Anatoly uses for his Canon). This should add about 1- 1 1/2 oz to the weight of the Camera body. The lens weights include front lens and back body caps and a B+W Professional MC UV Filter.

Equipment(wt in oz)

Mamyia 7 II w/RRS QR & Strap(37.2 oz)
Mamyia 7 43mm Lens(16.8 oz)
Mamiya 7 50mm Lens(18.2 oz)
Mamiya 7 65mm Lens(16.2 oz)
Mamiya 7 150mm Lens(21.2 oz)
Mamiya 7 43mm Rangefindr/Case(4.4 oz)
Mamiya 7 50mm Rangefindr/Case(4.6 oz)
Mamiya 7 150mm Rngefndr/Case(6 oz)

Rich
http://www.nelridge.com

[Anatoly IVANOV]

Ryan,

Weather sealing, for me at least, is a lot less of an argument. You can somewhat simulate water sealing with black duct tape, shoot with a GoLite umbrella (grin)… and an assistant, buy a dedicated camera rain cover… or just restrain yourself from heavy rain.

I choose the 1Ds Mark II for resolution, image quality, ergonomics and speed. Of course, weather proofing and ruggedness are nice to have, but not crucial. And I would trade those for lighter weight any day.

In the film world, I always preferred an all-plastic, light body, like the Canon EOS-5. Most important thing in film era was the lens, not the body. In the digital world, both are.

Unfortunately, the tool gained in importance with digital. I sometimes photographed with point and shoots on pro slide film and got published. A feat more difficult to accomplish today with digital. So, anything else than the 1Ds will have or lower resolution, or higher weight and bulk, automatically. Canon’s de facto monopoly is impressive, but not great for the photographer.

The majority of really small point and shoots offer noisy images, limited manual controls, and most important, no RAW. However, the new Ricoh GR Digital sounds interesting, with RAW and possibly good quality. However, it has a fixed 28mm lens. To my taste, that’s too wide to shoot all the time. 35mm would be nicer. And even with a 35mm, I would be restrained. My landscape vision goes beyond the wide angle. But some shoot only wide angle, so if it is your case..

Then, we can consider the Bridge category. From what I understand, manufacturers conclude those as a mistake and will phase them out. I tried the Canon PowerShot Pro 1, the Minolta A200 (ex-A2), the Olympus 7070 (ex-8080)… All feature the same very noisy CCD by Sony. Ergonomics are a pain.

Manufacturers want you to buy SLR. Greater margins, better profits. So, in the Canon world, you could go progressively lighter, from the just announced 5D, through the 20D to the 350D. The Canon 5D does look good and in my opinion will become a huge hit for Canon. Available in October.

Finally, I would group together some “exotic” cameras, like the RD1 by Epson and the ZD by Mamya. The RD1 seems to produce mediocre files and archaic ergonomics. The ZD, while lighter than the 1Ds, is still huge, and we’ve been now waiting for more than a year for the final production models to hit the market.

As for myself, I am currently working on an ultralight (compared to my lightweight) kit of less than 1,5 kg! This “micro-minimal” kit will of course compromise on image quality (compared to 1Ds), but will output files looking very good in press and permit sufficient creative freedom.

Stay tuned for a new article at BackpackingLight.com ? ;-)

ANATOLY IVANOV PHOTOGRAPHY / DESIGN

[Rick Dreher]

I’m very curious about this too. I have to confess that I’ve never owned a weather-resistant camera so have always worked around the issue, which sometimes means leaving camera in pack when in foul weather (not a big deal but oh, what about the soft light? :-)

I’ve long thought that the best foul-weather camera might be, somewhat ironically, the Nikonos, although the lens selection is pretty limited.

The (very) new Sony DSC-R1 looks like it has a lot going for it, including an APS-sized chip (hooray!) and an actually useful equivalent zoom range of 24-120mm (the rare true wide angle lens). The high-def electronic viewfinder is what I’d like to see in all compact digicams.

But…it’s big, oddly proportioned for packing purposes and *heavy* at a whopping kilogram. No weatherproofing noted in the literature. I want this functionality in a rangefinder-based layout at a pound or so. (I’d probably have to give up the big chip, so make it a low-noise small chip with a worthwhile RAW mode.)

Some of the pro-level Digi SLRs really are comically large, but they might make nice campstools.

[Anatoly IVANOV]

I would like to second Richard NELRIDGE post about the Mamiya 7. It’s so good and light! Wow. But, alas, film based. The only problem I have heard of (but never experienced) is the body to lens connector breaking down.

I doubt Mamiya will come up with a digital 7. They just don’t have the money. Unfortunately.

ANATOLY IVANOV PHOTOGRAPHY / DESIGN

[Rick Dreher]

Okay, that Ricoh is pretty sweet, and the 21mm converter and hotshoe-mount optical viewfinder add considerable flexibility. I see it can take AAA batteries, good to know for extended trips. 6 oz w/o batteries, not bad at all. Could become a digital twin of my T3.

Wonder what it will cost?

Thanks for the link!

[Mark Verber]

> Until an interchangeable lens digicam system based on a rangefinder rather
> than an SLR design hits the market my wallet’s closed (a digital M would be nice;

Others have mentioned it already, but there is such a camera. Your wallets is in trouble: Epson RD1, $2999 :-)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&kw=EPRD1&is=REG&Q=&O=productlist&sku=355952
Too bad this this body is overprices with only so/so image quality :-(

Leica has announced that they will be releasing a Digital-M sometime in 2006. For a transcript of an interview with a company rep, see:
http://www.kbcamera.com/mdigital.htm

There are few options which can match the Leica M series film camera for image quality / wieght… especially if you go with the Leica CL (provided you aren’t needing to focus long lens). The only other camera with multiple focus lengths that might trump the Leica M ‘s image/weight ratio would be one of the fine medium format rangefinders made by Mamya (6 or 7).

On the film -vs- digital question… if you really care about absolute image quality, film still wins. Especially if you are willing to go to medium or large format. Digital sensors these sizes just aren’t practical today for anyone was a fine art professional with deep pockets. Even in 35mm film, digital still doesn’t have the same dynamic range.

For many years I was a Leica M users. I loved it. Alas, when my kit was stolen and I priced out a full replacement I decided to “spread my bets” and went with modern SLR + high quality P&S (Contax T2). Eventually I picked up a used Leica CL because I really missed the Leica feel / operating style. All that was still cheaper than 2 new M bodies + full set of Leica lens.

My favorite backpacking kit for several years was the CL+24mm, 40mm, and 90mm lens, some filters, and a number of rolls of film. My memory is that the total weight was 33oz [6oz heavier than my Canon 20D body without any lens.]

One other film option which is appealing for landscape photographers is the Hasselblad (Fuji) Xpan.

A number of comments in this thread has hinted (or talked directly) to the fact that absolute image quality is not the only factor that drives selection of a photographic system. A huge factor for many people is that workflow in an all digital world is much simpler. Eventually I lured to digital because of simplified workflow and lower operating costs trumped absolute image quality for me.

Last winter I took the emotional hard step of selling my Leica CL because I hadn’t used it for more than a year and couldn’t see myself ever using it again.

These days I use a small digital P&S on trips when I just want snapshots (4oz is 10x lighter the the CL+equiv amount of film than my 1gb card can hold). I haul my Canon 20D + several lens when the trip is more about photography. If I had spare cash to blow, the Canon 5D looks very compelling.

Of course there are at least two technologies which could radically alter the landscape. The first are new / promising materials for lens made by Philips which can change shape. The other technology is multi-pinhole camera. Multi-pinholes has the promise of everything being in focus and the ability to select what Z ranges to have in the picture (or out of the picture). The only “downside” is that you need a super computer to do the processing, and that’s not very practical to carry around today. Of course, Moore’s law indicates it won’t be a big deal in a few years provide computing improves energy efficency / computing unit… we really need someone to build reversal logic.

[James Hemphill]

If you want to show your Landscape work in FINE ART galleries and Museums and be taken serouisly then you should stick with Large and medium format film. Thats not to say digital mediums arent excepted in those relms, but when it comes to collectors and museums, digital cant hold up. Film will ALWAYS have a place in the fine art feild!! I’m not saying that digital cant someday match the quality of a 4×5 print, but I am saying that digital will never match the process and craftsmenship that film has. Film will always be around in the larger formats.
I known I will get some crap for this next statement, but here it goes. Anyone can pick up a digital camera and go shoot and get some ok shots. Basically, it’s easy!! You dont need much thought. And if you have a good sense of composition and contrast you can produce some fine digital images.
What has me interested in digital photography is the ability to scan negatives and print them at a larger scale than I could in the dark room. I have seen some scanned 4×5 negatives printed at 40×60 and UP! They looked great! Although it’s not cheap to get prints that size.
Another bounus with Digital would be it’s weight. I carry my Toyo 4x5AII with a 90mm, 150mm and a 210mm and 20 shots for trips up to five days. All that with gear and my pack rarely is under 50 pounds. Anything longer than that(5 days and up) I’ll bring my mamiya 7II with a 80mm AND 50mm. With this set up I’m around 35-40 pounds. I’m taking my Mamiya 7 with me on the John Muir trail this summer, and I hope to get my pack with food down to 35-40 pounds. I know I could get it lighter but I’m young and the weight doesnt bother me(Yet).
For the ametuer photographer I would go digital. With a good digital camera you can get better results than with any 35 mm camera and also get more consistant results because you can see what you got right there on the spot. No waiting until you developed the negatives to find out you had your film speed set to high on you spot meter and you way under exposed or anyother brain fart combination that can happen with film.

[Anatoly IVANOV]

James,

I admit I avoid “FINE ART galleries and Museums” and any other clients that are more interested in the camera I used than in the image I created.

But I sincerely hope you will find a way to manufacture your own 4×5 film. There may be even a niche market.

Have you heard some recent announcements by Nikon, Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, Konica-Minolta? I would recommend Rob GALBRAITH’s excellent site for latest news in professional photography.

Or, maybe, have you read about an InfoTrends study titled “North American Professional Photography Market” that predicts that 90% of all professional photographs will be captures using digital cameras by 2010? How many of these 10% will be using large format cameras? By the way, that’s in 4 years.

Not even 5 years.

Will it be interesting for Kodak or Fuji to make color large format film for a very small group of photographers? Agfa is in statutory insolvency proceedings… Who else still does color film in 2006?

ANATOLY IVANOV PHOTOGRAPHY / DESIGN

[Anonymous]

It seems that even medium and large format photographers are now switching to a completely digital workflow, using the Phase One digital backs that go up to 45 megapixels (with equally large prices).

For example, top medium and large format pros like Charles Cramer are now using digital backs rather than film. When I read about this, I realised that this must really be the starting of the end of even medium and large format film.

You can read about Charles Cramer doing a comparison in this article.

He essentially says that 4×5 film is very slightly better than the Phase One digital backs, but the difference is not worth the extra work and cost in buying film, processing it, and scanning it.

I think the reason why fine art has always been medium and large format film is that 35 mm film simply doesn’t look nice being blown up beyond 16×20 because the grain just looks terrible. But that doesn’t mean that you must use film for fine art, it just means that you need a medium where you can make large prints (> 16 x 20) and still look good.

And I also don’t agree that anyone can pick up a digital camera and get good shots because it’s easy. Photographic gear is just a tool for you to get the pictures, what makes a photo looks good depends on the photographer. You can get technically good shots with any kind of fancy equipment that are uninteresting.

I agree that it’s much easier to learn the technical skills with a digital camera because of the instant feedback and ability to take lots of exposures without bankrupting yourself, but those same skills that you learn transfer to film as well.

[James Hemphill]

I agree with you that most photographer’s, even large format photographers will be going to digital. And the quality will be as good, and it will soon be excepted by most Fine art galleries. there is nothing wrong with advancement in technology that makes the means to a end more effecient
But large format film and maybe medium format film will always be around. These types of film will always have a place.
I’m 27 and dont plan on going digital anytime soon. So the film companies will have at least one customer!

[Mark W Heninger]

Who cares. Choose the tools that will help you create what you’re looking for. If that is a phase one back or an ancient Speed Graphic, more power to you.

Me? My day job is mainly focused on producing some of the most important digital tools out there (I’ll let you guess), but I choose to shoot mostly medium format film for my own work? Why? Because it gives me what I want and I like it. And as I focus on B/W I do so because *I* still find a quantititive/qualitative difference in print ouput/permanence.

I talk to professional photogs all the time as part of said work – the best of the best – and I find that each chooses the tools that best fit his/her situation. More power to them.

The image, man, the image. Leave the gear talk to the goofballs weighing their toothbrushes <grin>

[Tim (Slowhike) Garner]

i`m not sure if i`m suposed to talk about gear for sale here, but if anyone is interrested in knowing about a nice film camera i`m trying to sell (nikon n90 w/ decicated flash & zoom), email me at <http://[email protected]&gt; a good, weather resistant digital p&s would just better serve my needs (& cost for taking/viewing photos) right now. thanks…tim

[Author]

Posts