R3D-D0T Posted August 22, 2016 Share #1 Posted August 22, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello, How does this camera compare to older 120 film cameras like Hasselblad or Mamiya in terms of IQ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 Hi R3D-D0T, Take a look here Leica S vs 120 film?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
John McMaster Posted August 22, 2016 Share #2 Posted August 22, 2016 Probably depends on how good your scanning is ;-) It will not look 100% like film, but superior in every (?) other way IMO. I was scanning some Hasselblad negs a few years back (FP4+, tripod and Minolta scan pro) and the sharpness was not that great compared to my M9, but the tonality was superior. The monochrom changed that and the S range is better again... Despite its current low costs and the number of years I owned Hasselblad I still feel no urge to return there ;-) john 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LorenzoLandini Posted August 22, 2016 Share #3 Posted August 22, 2016 While I haven't compared it to 120 film, I shoot 4x5 and I compared scanned 4x5 with the S006 images and to my eyes the S is not far behind a 4x5, so I assume it's superior to the 120. In my opinion the 4x5 still has an edge in term of resolution and it obviously has a film look. There are a lot of variables at play here: quality of the scanner, the film used, the response of the film file in post processing (which doesn't give you the same latitude than the S files), etc. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted August 23, 2016 Share #4 Posted August 23, 2016 (edited) For me it mainly depends on print size. Up to its native resolution, I really like digital given its better acuity compared to film. But for massive prints, I find film holds itself together in a significantly more natural way (it doesn't collapse into something as unnatural looking as digital does when it's resampled massively). The scan makes a huge difference. A properly done drum scan is the only way to do it, and even then some drum operators are better than others. I had a 750mb drum scan done off 4x5 that I took with a very sharp B&W film (acros 100), and the print is sized at a massive 70" wide. It is a print of staggering beauty in terms of resolution, but also tonality, 3D'ness, rendering of highlights and simply looking really "natural" compared to what I get from digital. I have casually played with 80 and 100mp digital medium format cameras, and I personally much prefer the more "natural look" and deep tonality of 4x5 at that massive print size, something that is more apparent when one prints 2 images out (one 4x5, one digital) and pins them next to each other. In terms of 120 film, I have drum scans done to 350mb for prints to 50" wide. Grain is much more apparent than off the 4x5, but it's impressive how much info was recorded on the 120 film. Again, for massive print sizes, I prefer the tonality, highlights rendering and aesthetic of film at these sizes. Given I like digital up to its native resolution, clearly one solution for me would be to not print up to 70" wide(!), or to stitch digital images together to keep individual frames closer to that native resolution. The best advice I've had in the past is "think about what your print size is going to be - then decide the tool". If it's just web images, I'm personally happy with an iPhone ....if I print to 30" wide, I use a digital camera.....if it's massive prints, as above, I angle towards film and the bigger the better. Edited August 23, 2016 by Jon Warwick 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vieri Posted August 24, 2016 Share #5 Posted August 24, 2016 R3D-D0T, I used 120 film for many years, scanning it with an Hasselblad X5 scanner; not drum scan, but as close as you can get with a non-drum scanner. Resolution is a tricky measure; you can scan film at as high a resolution as you want, but you will still get only as much detail as those present in the original image's (in fact, a little less than that); oversampling it will not do anything except increasing file size. More, as it is obvious, film grain, lens acuity, etc influence matters very much. What I mean is, with modern scanners you can get huge files, but if you zoom in, you'll not see extra details after a certain zoom level if those details weren't there to begin with. I used digital backs up to 80 Mp, I used the Pentax 645D and 645z (40 and 50 Mp) and am now using the Leica S (Typ 007). To me, digital MF at around 40 Mp is about equivalent as far as detail to a general 120 scan; using very sharp, low ISO B&W films shot with high acutance lenses, perfectly exposed and developed, improves things, while using bad lenses or messing with the exposure / development makes things much worse. Since the variables are too many to give general numbers that would make sense, it is difficult to give you a precise Mp equivalence. Last, but certainly not least, you'll have to consider that old MF lenses aren't as performing as the modern (and fantastic) S lenses, designed for digital, and this makes a huge difference IMO: no matter how large your scans are in terms of Mp, the old "garbage in, garbage out" say applies. Where film, to me, still makes a difference is in the roll-out of highlights, in tonal separation (or colour separation), in the quality of the grain, in short in the "look" of it, which for lack of words I'd define more "organic" than digital. Personally, I consider film and digital two different mediums when it comes to look, I use them as such and I don't try to make the one look like the other, because I don't find it to make much sense... I stopped using MF film a couple of years ago, while I still use 135 B&W film because I like the look of it; perhaps my 135 digital cameras produce "better" files in terms of cleanness and resolution, but I like the look of film for what i use it for (street, people), while I use digital for my landscape work. Just my 0.2. Best regards, Vieri 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted August 24, 2016 Share #6 Posted August 24, 2016 Take a look at my Leica S 006 flickr album, it gives you a sense of real world use look in the files. Judge yourself how you think it compares to film, the one thing I'd choose film over digital is highlights, thats all. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jipvankuijk/albums/72157658117667346 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted August 29, 2016 Share #7 Posted August 29, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) ... you can scan film at as high a resolution as you want, but you will still get only as much detail as those present in the original image's ... ... Where film, to me, still makes a difference is in the roll-out of highlights, in tonal separation (or colour separation), in the quality of the grain, in short in the "look" of it, which for lack of words I'd define more "organic" than digital... Your thoughtful response pretty much about sums up the film experience. A Leica S print will have a much different look than a darkroom print from 120 film. A print made from a S file will be sharper and more detailed with crisper tonal transitions. On the other hand darkroom print can be strikingly beautiful with graceful tonal transitions and a presence that feels natural — organic. But making analog wet darkroom prints requires a skill set that few have the patience to acquire. Scanning 120 film and making a digital print on an Epson or Canon printer reduces the difference between the two with results that I find are far less successful. This is a personal opinion and others will disagree. However, I like the analog look equally as much as the full digital look but find the scanned film/digital look less appealing. To answer the original question, you will get a different type of IQ with 120 film. And you can buy an old blad with 3 lenses for far less than a single S lens. But if you go that route, please invest in an enlarger and a few safelights. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3D-D0T Posted August 30, 2016 Author Share #8 Posted August 30, 2016 Your thoughtful response pretty much about sums up the film experience. A Leica S print will have a much different look than a darkroom print from 120 film. A print made from a S file will be sharper and more detailed with crisper tonal transitions. On the other hand darkroom print can be strikingly beautiful with graceful tonal transitions and a presence that feels natural — organic. But making analog wet darkroom prints requires a skill set that few have the patience to acquire. Scanning 120 film and making a digital print on an Epson or Canon printer reduces the difference between the two with results that I find are far less successful. This is a personal opinion and others will disagree. However, I like the analog look equally as much as the full digital look but find the scanned film/digital look less appealing. To answer the original question, you will get a different type of IQ with 120 film. And you can buy an old blad with 3 lenses for far less than a single S lens. But if you go that route, please invest in an enlarger and a few safelights. Appropriate username Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted August 30, 2016 Share #9 Posted August 30, 2016 Appropriate username Thanks. I owned two businesses named "The Printmaker" in Santa Fe, New Mexico (1979-1991) and "Printmaker" in Lihue, Hawaii (1997-2015). Both specialized in art reproduction, for artists, galleries and museums. I guess my blood is a mixture of hypo and ink. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.