So why medium format digital? Its a 2 part story really. One is more cerebral and one more technical. For me the journey begins back when I used to wave around a 35mm SLR (Canon AE-1was the first) and shoot way too much stuff with less purpose. After college at Drexel University (1991, BS Architectural Engineering) and with a strong interest in photography, I finally found the tool that made it all gel in my head- the large format camera. My first was a Toyo 4×5. The whole process of photography slowed way down with this camera. It must be used on a tripod, and the image is viewed and focused on a ground glass under a dark cloth (picture Ansel Adams). The process becomes much more deliberate and since the materials are expensive, you hope to come away with something special each time. This is the cerebral side of the story.
There are strong technical benefits to these cameras as well. Primarily for me was the in-camera perspective control. The lens can be raised and lowered with respect to the film while maintaining the camera body parallel to the building. This eliminates the ‘keystone’ effect of tilting the camera upward in order to see higher up the building. Further, the back of the camera can be shifted left and right with respect to the lens allowing you to ‘see’ more to one side or the other while leaving the lens pointed where you want it. Speaking of lenses, view camera lenses are quite free from distortion (barrel or pin-cushion) because they typically are of a ‘symmetrical’ design, meaning that a 90mm lens is roughly 90mm from the film plane when focused to infinity. By keeping the design simple and by not having a viewfinder mirror (the Reflex in SLR), these lenses produce very clean images. Combine the lenses with perspective control and put the image on a large sheet of film and you have a superior image capture system for architectural photography. This had been the system of choice for many, many years. Some even working in 8×10 film. One further point, since it was often difficult to communicate an intended crop of the final image, photographers often tried to never crop an image. Aside from cutting the film you couldn’t be sure your crop would carry through the process and be published as you intended. Studying the edges of the frame is where we spent a great deal of time under the dark cloth (since even Polaroid film used for proofing was not entirely full-frame to the 4×5 camera).

Panfield 4x5 Film Camera
Fast forward to the introduction of digital cameras and now we are faced with a dilemma of how to make the transition from film. I was not interested in moving in to a DSLR solution at all. For one I do not like the 2:3 proportion for most of my work and as stated above, I really enjoyed the process of working with a larger, slower, camera.
I began an 18 month process of looking into medium format digital backs and camera systems. At the time, around 2003/2004, there was not any one good solution. You need to get into a digital back and then figure out a camera system to fit it to. Even then, there were not good lenses available in the wide angle range, and stitching became the method used for capturing wide images. As much as I like slow and deliberate, I was not interested in capturing 4 images and having to combine them together in post. The search continued. Finally I got into a system with a Phase One P25 digital back (22MP) on an Arc Swiss F-Metric 6×9 camera with some Schneider Digitar lenses, including the 24mmXL mounted in a special electronic shutter with external controller. This system proved very tough to focus with the ground glass system, even when checking on the computer. I then moved into a new type of digital system initially developed for film shooting. These are medium-format cameras (film, 6×6-6×9) but with no bellows. All of the focusing is done with a helical lens mount similar to focusing an SLR lens. Focus became very predicable and fast. After a time with that system I then found a superior design in a similar system offered by Alpa of Switzerland which is my current system. I use the Alpa 12 MAX, the 12 SWA, with the viewfinder, and lenses, Rodenstock 23mmHR, Schneider Digitars, 36mm (Alpa Switar version), 47XL, 72L, and 120N shooting to a Phase One P45+ (39MP) back. The back has been in service for 3 years with flawless performance and over 52,000 captures.

ALPA 12 MAX Camera

ALPA SWA Camera with 36mm Switar and Viewfinder
How does the method of shooting 4×5 film compare to shooting MF Digital? The camera set-up and study of the image is very similar. I still want to get as much correct in the field as possible. Had I been working with a DSLR and having at times to correct perspective in post I know a lot of time would have been wasted in rough processing images in order to make those corrections in the field to study the edges. What I have learned about myself is that I cannot even take an image seriously if it is not properly perspective controlled. I need to see the composition and feel the proportions of the image.
Moving back to the technical side for a while, I still am working with lenses that are of a symmetrical design, all but the 23HR, which needs distortion correction in post. People asking me about why they should move to MFD, would be asked the following question: Do you want to do more or less post production work? MFD offer less work since there is no perspective correction, no distortion correction (except for the 23), and no color fringing corrections either. You get a more pure, ready to use image right out of the camera. Combine that with a large sensor, with large pixel wells, (less noise, and more dynamic range), and you have a superior capture system for architectural photography.
While great strides have been made in 35mm DSLRs particularly with Canon’s new 17mm & 24mm TSE (tlit/shift) lenses, I still prefer the medium format photography. I own a Canon system as a back-up and a second system for use at dusk when I may need a second camera set-up, but my heart still loves working with the Alpas.