MM and Medium Format

[MOZ]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you want to engage in constructive discussion, try not to rubbish other points of view. Your original point was ambiguous which is why I queried it and gave my own experience.

 

Nick

 

Sorry to have offended you (not my intention), but anyway try so explain to anybody you know (not involved in photography) that your 89 shots cost 5€ at most...

And then explain them that they were taken with a 6500€ camera

You see my point...

 

As for my first answer i was responding to the idea of putting a digital Phase One back to my Hasselblad camera vs using film... A digital back is at least 10k€ (used ones and not even a P45+ !).

Is it worst it ? Those are really good products but i find it easier, funnier and more economical to go the route of film in this case. I'm really enjoying the film way as well as the digital way my MM allows me.

I think both can live together.

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest badbob]

KR is not factual, as he himself admits. For practical purposes, the 11mp Canon 1Ds already matched or exceeded the data in a medium format transparency back in 2003 ... State-of-the-Art 35mm Digital Vs. Medium Format Film

 

The LL post is pure BS, and while KR issues the disclaimer you noted, he is not a liar. The fact is you need the 175 mp to reproduce that slide. Even a child can see that without having to be an expert. I have some MF films, and to think a 11 mp camera from 2003 can match that film is ludicrous. I do recall some comparisons with a 16 mp camera circa 2008 to a 35 mm transparency, where the 16 mp image looked approximately like the film, lacking (as KR noted) certain aspects of depth etc. Anyone who follows KR's technical posts, including pro audio where I have expertise, knows how well informed he is.

[jaapv]

Actually all film vs digital resolution comparisons are complete BS as they compare apples and oranges. Digital resolution is a fixed value by the number of pixels, film resolution is a measurement based on contrast.

[wattsy]

KR is not factual, as he himself admits. For practical purposes, the 11mp Canon 1Ds already matched or exceeded the data in a medium format transparency back in 2003 ...

State-of-the-Art 35mm Digital Vs. Medium Format Film

 

IMO citing those Luminous landscape tests is about as useful as citing Ken Rockwell. Better to use your own eyes and make the comparison yourself (if that's what you want to do).

[wattsy]

Actually all film vs digital resolution comparisons are complete BS as they compare apples and oranges.

 

Interesting that you see digital v. film comparisons in terms of resolution.

[jaapv]

Do I? I seem to read that I call them BS.... It may be that we use a different optician....

[charlesphoto99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And talking about medium format film, don't forget to include the price of a drum scanner - about 30.000 $....

 

Got my Imacon 646 as a refurb for about $7K 12 years ago and it's paid itself off over and over and over. I have 40X60 prints in museums from scans made of 35mm film with this Imacon and they are just as good if not sometimes better than scans I've had made from wet drum scanners.

 

And the difference is not at all about resolution between the MM and MF. It's about the look (the sense of depth really) and the way of working that's most different.

[zlatkob]

The LL post is pure BS, and while KR issues the disclaimer you noted, he is not a liar. The fact is you need the 175 mp to reproduce that slide. Even a child can see that without having to be an expert. I have some MF films, and to think a 11 mp camera from 2003 can match that film is ludicrous. I do recall some comparisons with a 16 mp camera circa 2008 to a 35 mm transparency, where the 16 mp image looked approximately like the film, lacking (as KR noted) certain aspects of depth etc. Anyone who follows KR's technical posts, including pro audio where I have expertise, knows how well informed he is.

 

The beautiful thing about the LL article is that it lets you see with your own eyes. That is a lot better than words from a person who admits that his web site is fiction from his own imagination. For example, KR claims that Nikola Tesla "was also my grandfather". And that his Dad is a "direct descendant of Nikola Tesla". However, it is well known that Nikola Tesla never had any children. So who is full of pure BS? In reading KR's admittedly "fictional" web site, it is up to the reader to waste time and effort guessing what is true, what might be partly true and what is utterly false. So good luck in trusting his technical pronouncements.

 

IMO citing those Luminous landscape tests is about as useful as citing Ken Rockwell. Better to use your own eyes and make the comparison yourself (if that's what you want to do).

 

I don't know what KR offers to the counter the LL article. We've heard that KR "published a technical and factual analysis" and that it is a "fact" that you need 175 mp to reproduce a slide. Photography is a visual medium, so words have little weight without visual proof. The beautiful thing about the LL article is that it lets you see with your own eyes. One just needs to go to the link and see. Of course there might be some trivial details that 175mp could help recording, but for practical purposes the 11pm 1Ds did a fine job of recording as much detail as a medium format transparency — enough to convince some renowned photographers to switch to digital back in 2003. That was a big moment in the history of photo technology.

[Guest badbob]

And the difference is not at all about resolution between the MM and MF. It's about the look (the sense of depth really) and the way of working that's most different.

 

It's that sense of depth (and a few other things) that the other guy refers to as trivial.

 

I find it highly ironic that half of these guys who blast Ken Rockwell as someone who makes things up - still cling to major media and a government steeped in deception and lies (i.e. "propaganda and disinformation"). You would think that if these guys are sophisticated to pull the truth out from between the lines with media and government, not to mention "esteemed" publications like Scientific American and Popular Mechanics (heh heh), they might also be able to read Ken Rockwell, who I find easy to read. A child could tell you which of Ken's posts are made up and which are valid. Hint: Google.

[jaapv]

 

And the difference is not at all about resolution between the MM and MF. It's about the look (the sense of depth really) and the way of working that's most different.

I quite agree- I never said otherwise

[m6CL]

I have not read every post here, but are we ignoring simple physics? Regardless of sensor megapixel coverage (16, 24, 32MP), is it not true that no 35mm sensor on the planet could ever capture the same detail of a medium format film negative or similar sized sensor (Capture One or S2)?

 

A large 6" pancake will always holds more syrup than a 2" pancake, right?

 

I will keep my Fuji 6x9 just in case I ever want medium format quality (and can get the negs scanned).

[jaapv]

Not true - ignoring things like lens resolution, diffraction etc, sensors with the same megapixel count and filter array wil show the same amount of detail regardless of sensor size. The quality of that detail in terms of microcontrast and contrast/colour transitions is another matter.

The comparison to film is another matter again, as resolution on sensors is a mathematical function of the megapixel count and the resolution of film is contrast-dependent.

If you like the way medium format film renders over a digital image you should certainly hang on to your film gear.