X1 vs. Medium Format film

[Grego]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am curious how pictures from the X1 would compare against a medium format film camera (e.g. Mamiya 7II) shooting Fuji slide film and having the transparency hi-res scanned.

 

Appreciate the input.

Greg

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[andybarton]

Absolutely no comparison.

[phancj]

IMHO even the top of the line digital vs a decent film camera/lens I take the look of film over digital any day. Its just that digital is so convenient...

[Driver8]

I am curious how pictures from the X1 would compare against a medium format film camera (e.g. Mamiya 7II) shooting Fuji slide film and having the transparency hi-res scanned.

 

Mamiya 7II negative is 56mm x 69mm = 3864mm.

 

X1 sensor is 15.7mm x 23.6 = 370.52mm.

 

The Mamiya is over 10 times larger. Drum scan the transparency and it will look even better.

 

No comparison.

[cpclee]

I think it really depends on what kind of look you're after. I just did a 12x18 of an X1 image that trumps any 35mm or 6x4.5 print I have ever had.

 

In terms of tonality film is still superior. But in terms of resolution and apparent sharpness I find the X1 to readily surpass 35mm and 6x4.5 at these print sizes. Each has a distinctive look.

[Rolo]

I am curious how pictures from the X1 would compare against a medium format film camera (e.g. Mamiya 7II) shooting Fuji slide film and having the transparency hi-res scanned.Greg

 

I've recently tutored an X1 user on Lightroom and his Africa images were outstanding and capable of producing exceptional large prints. However, directly comparing these to the output of well exposed, well developed and well scanned images from a Mamiya 7 is not a fair fight and the advice above is valid. Consider the work of Nick Brandt with a Pentax 6x7 to any 35mm form and you'll see a big difference. Do you want that difference ? Do you want to invest the effort to get that difference ?

 

My own curiosity about B&W output from my M9 led me to test what I might achieve with a few rolls of 120 BW film. We all read/know that digital B&W conversions don't match B&W film capture yet more often than not I convert my personal shots to B&W, because it's convenient. I take the soft option, yet ponder on quality all the time. So, I thought I'd remind myself.

The results are different and they're here:

Rolo's 3 Rolls with a Rollei - a set on Flickr

 

Maybe, you should try the same for only you can provide the final answer.

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's nothing to do with resolution or sharpness.

 

It's to do with the completely different way that larger format lenses draw the image on the film or sensor, when compared to smaller format cameras.

 

There is no comparison. The larger format cameras will always record a completely different (and to my eye, vastly superior) photograph than a small format one. It's bokeh. It's definition. It's everything.

 

It's why my next digital camera won't be an M9 and 50 'lux, but will be a Hasselblad.

[phancj]

It's nothing to do with resolution or sharpness.

 

It's to do with the completely different way that larger format lenses draw the image on the film or sensor, when compared to smaller format cameras.

 

There is no comparison. The larger format cameras will always record a completely different (and to my eye, vastly superior) photograph than a small format one. It's bokeh. It's definition. It's everything.

 

It's why my next digital camera won't be an M9 and 50 'lux, but will be a Hasselblad.

 

Agreed 100%. Sensor size seems to be key, which is why I didnt look at buying M4/3 coz of smaller sensor.

 

But I personally feel the look of film vs digital is more pronounced than comparison between 2 digital cams. The look of film is vastly superior to digital to me, even if resolution/sharpness is poorer sometimes. There is a softness and tonality quite missing in digital photos, no matter the resolution or image quality.

[AlanJW]

I don,'t think any such comparison would be fair and it would be naive to think otherwise. However, when making price comparisons, the X1 doesn't look so bad, and the same goes for size. I have a hard enough time carrying around an M9 and lenses and will sometimes grab the X1 just to have something with me (the best camera is the one you have when the opportunity presents itself).

 

For studio work, bigger is better. As long as big funds are not an issue. I think if my funds were unkimited I'd think about an S2. But not tobrun a comparison with a X1.

[jerryharwood]

I received a message via E mail the other day from the processor I have used for some time; I regularly send him both 35mm and medium format films- leica and hasselblad. The context of his message was this; It was a complete pleasure to see both your 35mm and hasselblad trannies today; properly exposed and composed- as distinct from the usual rubbish I am confronted with in regard to the thousands of digital files which come in daily". regards Mervyn "

[DwF]

Reading this thread and in particular Jerry's account of sending film to his processor, I guess it is a good thing we adapt to what we see, what we eat, hear and so on. Taking the line of thinking from your processor Jerry, who sounds burned out on his job and understandably, I would look at Robert Frank's work as rubbish if while viewing it I was thinking of Ansel Adam's. I realize he was not attacking 35mm but in the early days of internet forums during the film years, this discussion used to focus on 35mm vs Medium and Large Format and where 35mm was the whipping post.

 

For sure the fabric of Adam's work is "finer" than Frank's in this way of thinking but thank goodness there is more to a great photograph. I never give Adam's a thought when entranced by HCB or Robert Frank or many others whose 35mm work I love. And don't get me wrong, when I look at Adam's work I am at least usually spellbound!

 

The original question of this thread had to do with "how pictures from the X1 would compare against a medium format film camera" and I took that to be a discussion of what I would see as comparing the "fabric" on which the image is stored. For me there is some compromise. I know the X1 will never replace my long gone Rollei. So I come to digital reluctantly and out of convenience.

 

I also imagine that some young photographers who may never know film will use digital technology to create a look and hopefully some "photographic art" that could not originate from someone who was of the "old school" (forgive my using that term but I include myself ).

 

Finally, I sent a friend some images I made in low light recently and he was supportive but also commented they were too clean (sterile, although he didn't use that word), missing the look of the Neopan! I understand and agree, but at the same time I am happy and thankful to have the X1 and M8 too.

 

David

[Guest badbob]

I might have missed something here, but I see the film -vs- digital posts a lot, and they're always digital -vs- half-digital (i.e. never purely analog with film and enlarger).

 

Is it possible that opinions would change if some of those MF transparencies were printed with an enlarger?

[Nei1]

its definately not as good as film but its FREE and I dont think it screws up the environment as much, although not a 100% sure on that.

[gjames9142]

IF you look at the work of Richard Benson, an extraordinary craftstman, inventor and printer, as well as photographer, you will see colour photographs like nothing you have seen before. He throws away the printer program, builds a registration system and then uses masks and layers to create colours that go far beyond the rather crude C=type system that is still the basis for digital colour printing. He uses a Canon 5DMark II, and non Canon primes. He had a show at MOMA a couple of years ago which was a historical look at printing processes, with a wonderful example of his own work. If I were a young photographer, I would go and work with him for free for a year. It makes all this "which is best" arguments a bit silly. The thing about Richard is that he has no fear of new technology -- it is something to be taken apart and explored for what it can do. There are a couple of videos of him, one with Jay Maisel, who is not the most brilliant interlocutor. Don't have the link but there is always the wonderful world of Google and YouTube.

 

http://www.pacemacgill.com/richardbenson-37-7.html

[h00ligan]

At a small size, that shot looks like hdr to me... Maybe there's more to it, but I can't tell so small.

[johM8]

I had Mamiya 7II. I really liked that camera, but soo expensive to shoot...

few random pictures here

Mamiya7 matkakuvia

 

I looked my old mamiya Mamiya slide films vs. X1 (I have one and I love my X1)

You can shoot me but there is not a big difference, if I just look Mam vs X1 sharpness / resolution what is reasonable MB you can get of film without scaning film grain... (s*** my english, hard to explain... ) I have scanned my mamiya shots with imagon flex tight.

 

if I want more megapixels of my X1, it's very easy to do stitch/panoramas.

Here few quickly done x1panos, from 2 to 12 images,60 to 300MB/8bit, all hand held...

 

TOSCANA

 

TOSCANA

 

http://cameratuning.fi/duomo.jpg

 

TOSCANA

 

TOSCANA

 

TOSCANA

 

TOSCANA

 

TOSCANA

 

TOSCANA

 

TOSCANA

 

TOSCANA

 

TOSCANA

 

TOSCANA

[phancj]

Thanks for sharing, your stitching of shots are great, but sounds difficult and time consuming?

 

You take nice shots with the X1, hope you join the next X1 photo challenge!

 

CJ

[johM8]

Thanks for sharing, your stitching of shots are great, but sounds difficult and time consuming?

CJ

 

with x1 stitching is quite easy because it's small and easy to avoid parallax mistake... only problem is that its a litle bit slow to use. I hope that new firmware would make it bit faster.

 

And PS via bridge is very fast for doing panoramas.

 

Time... hmm... for examble this image, it took about minute to shoot, then prosessing in LR and PS calculate about 2 minutes and just crop it and that is. MacBook pro display is not very precise, I try to adjust/fix those someday with my desktop I have done many panoramas with X1.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[atournas]

A thread that started like a film vs. digital variant turned into a very refreshing discussion.

 

I almost exclusively shoot film--MF as well--although I own every digital compact Leica produced, including X1. I believe that, for a dedicated film shooter today, the question is not about megapixels, resolution, or enlargement. Rather, it is about a very different approach of taking or, better, making photographs. Sometimes I feel, after capturing a scene with a manual camera, that my goal has been fulfilled. The entire procedure took so long and required so much thinking and planning that left me deeply contented--print is not a necessity at that magic moment.

 

I do not fall into the trap of despising digital, declaring the superiority of film and all that nonsense. Today, a scanned transparency from a 6x7 camera may appear more appealing than a 12 MB digital shot--so what? It is a matter of technology and time: in a few years, it will be the other way round.

 

It is the art and craft of photography that count.

 

Paul

[Anhminh1234]

Would you buy a used M8 for about $2000 or a new X1?

 

I curently have a D3 and a d lux 5

I am not sure how well i will do with a manual focus....

I am inclined to the x1 ...hopefully the new firmware will help with the autofocus

 

The M8 is tempting....

 

Any advice....