The only real question you should ask yourself...

...if you feel the photographic fire burning inside you : do I spend 3000$ upgrading my gear to full frame SLR and XMAS, or do I spend that money on the real stuff, medium format film gear?

Ok I should have said "the only real question in case you are about to buy a full frame camera and feel the photographic fire burning inside you", but that'd be less catchy.
If you don't have a DSLR at all, get one. It's so convenient, gives you room to practice etc. It's not sufficient to fully explore the scope of your photographic potential, but it's a must have.

Back to Ze Biblical Question of our times: full frame or medium format film?

That is pretty clear to me:
  • If you shoot sports, wildlife, porn or anything that moves, get a full frame DSLR. 
  • If you shoot portraits, landscapes, and a lot of black and white get a medium format film camera.
Remember, a full frame SLR sensor is 36x24 mm, medium format film is used up to 60x90mm. When we know how crucial sensor / film size is, it makes you think twice about going 35mm. Also keep in mind photography was originally large format, and 35mm was only invented for portability. It's like CD and MP3, no one listens to CDs anymore, but quality remains on the CD side.

Good luck getting those results with a digital camera, and it sucks you can't see the large prints, the tones, dynamic range, definition.




 Courtesy of Pierre Herbert, Rest in Peace.

Now remember, I made the assumption you are a photography junky, you love the cause, you'd sell your PS3 to replace a lens. If you don't have that level of dedication, forget about film. You'll always be a 30% photographer then :p, covering 30% of the potential. Mwaaahahaha! I'm mean...and stupid because if you all shoot just digital, I'll be the only pulling amazing portraits. The fact is the real thing is medium and large format film.


What what? but my friends have a 5D MKII and I'm enviouuuus! With the biiig lenses they look soooo seriouuuus and proooo !

Ah...well, sorry you have to compensate for something, but this is about the images, not the how the gear looks on you. Anyway, you look way cooler with a vintage piece of gear than with a 5D.

On the left corner, weighting 3000 to 4000$:
  • A great full frame DSLR, the Nikon D700 or soon to come out D800. A D700 now costs 2500$. 
  • Prime lenses that matches your expectations of greatness would be the 35mm f2 and the 85mm f1.4 . That costs from 400$ to 900$.
  • Or a zoom lens for full frame, matching the D700 quality standards like the 24-70 F2.8, 1500$, for a result that is quite questionable regarding the money.


On the right corner, weighting 3000$:
  • Let's go for the top, to mach the other corner, a Pentax 67II, used in mint condition from Adorama or B&H for 1200$
  • 2 lenses, a portrait lens, a landscape lens, used from the same shops, 500$ each. Those will DESTROY the best SLR Nikon lenses. I mean destroy even the prime lenses. The zoom lenses, ah ah please, be serious for a sec, it beats even the best Leica M lenses. My Mamiya 200$ lenses already outperform all of that.
  • A negative scanner. Yes you'll need that, the Epson Perfection V700 does a great job for 550$.
  • Film. A roll developed costs about 8$ if the shop doesn't rip you off. You get 10 shots on it.
You can also read my more complete post on what you need to start shooting film.

So here it is. The second choice is the one that is not guided by marketing or the safe feeling of buying the same as everyone else. It's the choice of passion. I won't even write a rational, just Google sample images.
Yes, you'll have to wait to see your picture, and learn how to expose properly, and the characteristics of each film, and focus manually, but it'll pay off. The shutter sound of a MF camera...oh yeah. You'll be thinking every shot, framing carefully, turn into a perfectionist machine to maximize your ratio of good shots. You'll find the pleasure of crafting, then be impatient to see the film developed. Instead of bombarding a village to hit one man, you'll be the sniper that needs one bullet to hit his target.
The truth is, if you go medium format film for portraits, you won't be able to go back to digital, this I can promise you.


What desktop configuration do you need to edit pictures & video?

You might have bought one of those fancy DSLR that shoots HD video, not to mention that sensors beyond 16MP are now quite common.
Last but not least, if you scan negatives, especially medium or large format, you easily produce 3x4 meters photos weighting up to hundred of megs. Edit that...
I once tried to rotate 90 degrees a 1.1GB picture from a 6400 dpi scan. (ok useless, just for fun), it took my Core 2 6750 pushed to 3.4Ghz + 2G or ram memory 4.5 hours...then it crashed.

Now I'm sure even my 3 years old desktop still beats some of your even older stuff, so I can hardly imagine how much you struggle with editing. My Macbook pro does a good job, but SSD + mobile i5 processor and all the Apple marketing (RIP Steve Jobs) cost an arm. If I am to spend 2700$, I'd rather it be in film and lenses, or plane tickets! Thank God the Macbook I didn't pay :)



What would be an ideal computer for a reasonable budget to edit photos and videos?

First of all, let's break the neck of a well spread yet totally incorrect idea: your graphic card has NOTHING to do with it. I know it seems like photos and videos are "graphics", but a graphic card is to calculate 3D images in real time. That is to say, create a dynamic 3D environment as you perform an action, such as, and 99% of the time, in a video game. Photos and videos are 2D files, and rather simple data in comparison.

You will need 3 things in particular:

  • A good processor. Intel core I5 or Intel Core i7  preferred, according to your budget. O/C fanatics can enjoy those, they have potential. AMD Phenom II X4 also do a pretty good job for cheaper. Count 185$ for a Intel i5, 250$ for an i7. Don't be cheap on that processor, especially for video editing.
  • RAM memory. The non geek among you might be confused by the difference between that and the hard drive. When the processor needs to work on data, he can't do it directly from the hard drive, which is simply where all your data is stocked. It needs to pull it from the hard drive and put it a working memory, the RAM. From there he can work the data. So see for yourself, if you only have 1G of RAM memory, and you are processing 10G of data...processor gets lost transferring data like crazy. See it like this: the hard drive is the closet where you store your food, the RAM is the kitchen work space where you prepare the dinner: if too small, you keep having to clean, put stuff back in the closet etc. It is simple: the more you get the better, 6 to 8G is a good idea. Keep in mind that if you still run window vista 32bit, it can only run up to 3.6G of RAM. Having super fast RAM is for show off, it won't impact your comfort considerably. 8G of really good RAM by Corsair costs about 55$, it's cheap, get plenty.
  • Hard drives. First of all, digital cameras produce tons of data, so get plenty of disk space. I fill up about 100G every month. SSD are very fast, but the storage space / $ ratio is not so good. Get a Western Digital Velociraptor 600 GB at 10000 RPM if possible (200$). If not Samsung does good 7200 RPM hard drives. 7200 RPM is a minimum, forget about the 5400. A good 7200 1T (1000G) disk costs about 65$.
How much all together?
With a decent mother board (no need for a fancy over-clocking device here), PC case and the rest, you can get yourself a great machine for about 900$. We're far from the Apple price tag. Screen not included of course. That is without a fancy graphic card, but if you want to play, that's on a different blog that you need to go to :)

However if your PC has a decent configuration, such as a Core 2 and 4G of RAM memory, and you still struggle to edit a 10MP photo, you just need to reformat and reinstall Windows !