Guest flatfour Posted August 1, 2006 Share #1 Posted August 1, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Having read that 10mp is the maximum needed for an A3 print to achieve the highest quality, does this mean that the quality difference that existed between 35mm and MF has narrowed ? It seems to me that using say ISO400 B&W with a Digilux2 produces poor quality compared with a 400ASA Chromogenic film scanned. Will this difference be made up when having 10mp available on say an M8 ? or am I confusing chalk with cheese. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 Hi Guest flatfour, Take a look here Has Digital reduced the quality gap with MF ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stunsworth Posted August 1, 2006 Share #2 Posted August 1, 2006 Hi Anthony I have a Canon 5D (12.3 mega pixels) and a Nikon Coolscan V (4000 dpi). The digital camera provides better images in terms of fine detail, and lacks the grain that the scanner gives. So in terms of this single parameter the camera gives better results. I'd expect similar from the digital M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telyt Posted August 1, 2006 Share #3 Posted August 1, 2006 If the DMR's output is any indication the M8 should produce better prints at ISO 400 and above than film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevem7 Posted August 1, 2006 Share #4 Posted August 1, 2006 I had a 5D and 85 1.2, 50 1.4 nd 35 1.4 - sold it all for an M7. My 1st film camera ever. I so much prefer the M7 over my 5D due to one thing - size. I NEVER would take my 5D due to its weight and size. I take my M7 everywhere. For quality, I also use a Nikon coolscan V and find my large print from my film scans are much nicer than my large prints from my 5D in B&W. In color, I also prefer the M7 scans in PRINT. The 5D offers many benefits and can = medium format quality in the studio. BUT for day to day shooting, Im getting better quality, color and look with my M7. You can not compare the DIgilux 2 at ISO 400 to any film. That is a small sensor camera, the M8 will be MUCH MUCH better quality than a D2. Hopefully Ill be able to afford an M8 to have as a sidekick for my M7. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted August 1, 2006 Share #5 Posted August 1, 2006 My Hassy still kicks the butt of digital. Greater dynamic range. Of course, a cheapie scanner doesn't work. Drum scanning and you're still light years ahead of digital. In fact, I plan to get a Fuji rf mf camera. Those are awesome and well-built. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted August 1, 2006 Share #6 Posted August 1, 2006 Thanks for your replies. It looks as if it will have to be an M8 - when the bank permits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecalpemos Posted August 3, 2006 Share #7 Posted August 3, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yeah! Go Hassy! my 203 fe is still soundly kicking digital butt too, of course after quality scanning. The price difference between a second hand hassy in good condition (or leica for that matter but the thread is about MF)and a 1ds mk2 will keep you in film and scans for a long time My Hassy still kicks the butt of digital. Greater dynamic range. Of course, a cheapie scanner doesn't work. Drum scanning and you're still light years ahead of digital. In fact, I plan to get a Fuji rf mf camera. Those are awesome and well-built. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted August 3, 2006 Share #8 Posted August 3, 2006 Anthony: Not all pixels are created the same. The Digilux 2, as nice as it is, has tiny pixels on a tiny chip compared to digital SLRs, the M8, the DMR, etc. Roughly speaking D2 pixels have 12 square microns of area where the 10 Mp SLR pixels have 48 square microns of area. Thus each SLR pixel captures 4x the amount of light, and can be 4x as sensitive for the same amount of noise in the pixel. Add to that the fact that the pixels are smaller relative to the total area of the picture (1/ten-millionth vs. 1/five-millionth) and what noise there is is also less visible for any given print size (finer 'grain' noise, in effect). Now, does a nice big piece of film (Hassy, etc.) whomp an APS-sized sensor? Sure. Size has its benefits (although not when I have to carry the camera!). A 4x5 will whomp the Hassy. If you want a real chalk-to-chalk comparison of film to digital - try cutting out a piece of your ISO 400 film that is 1/16th the area of the full frame (same size as the Digilux 2 sensor), enlarge that little piece to 8x10, and then compare THAT to a Digilux at ISO 400 enlarged to 8x10. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinA Posted August 3, 2006 Share #9 Posted August 3, 2006 What gap? Yes I have a drum scanner, I have 6x7 film gear and onetime had a couple of bags of Hassy to, I now shoot a 1DsmkII. I've compared both 6x7 and 1DsmkII side by side, overall the 1Ds wins. Maybe if I was shooting B&W the results would be different. The DR of the digital is better than Provia 100, shooting raw I have a choice afterwards of shadow or highlight bias, if shooting on a tripod multi exposure and photoshop comping of images gives much more DR than any film stock. So shooting interiors and not burning out the exterior is easy with digital. I still like film, if anyone has a 12 on film counter for a Rolleicord I would like to buy it off you, I bought a Rolleicord off ebay and it came only with the 24 on, 35mm counter. It's like a F1 car with tractor tyres. The camera is in great condition but I have no desire to shoot 35mm with it. Sorry for the last off post bit. Kevin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billh Posted August 3, 2006 Share #10 Posted August 3, 2006 This is a very old subject. If you show a digital print and a film print to people, they almost always choose the digital over the film. The digital has a clean (grainless), sharp look that makes it appear superior. An excellent example is this photo posted recently in the photo forum - I believe this is only a 6 MP camera. http://www.leica-camera-user.com/nature-wildlife/2522-liz-5-images.html I think what is going on can be explained by a resolution comparison I once did with film (M7 and Rollei 6008) and a 16.7 MP Canon. Under a 20x loupe you could arguably see a little more resolution in the film - but the delineation between white space and the black bar becomes progressively more unclear as the resolution increases (the black lines and the white spaces between them become smaller/finer) they seem to mend into each other. On the other hand, the digital test chart lines and spaces are strikingly clear - the black bars are separated by white spaces, and the edges of each are sharp and clear. Once scanned (on a Nikon 8000 scanner), the film image degradation is worse. If I look at three similar images from my 6 MP RD-1, 8MP 1D2 and 16.7MP 1Ds2, I can see the difference in information contained in the image. If I see any of them alone, they seem fine and do not typically leave the viewer feeling he would be happier with more detail. Convenience is another huge factor. Obviously film is still a beautiful medium, but the difference between processing (or sending it off to be processed) and scanning vs inserting a digital card into a reader and importing the images into the computer is such that once the digital camera is purchased, the film cameras tend to sit unused on shelves. Also, with a digital camera, you can change ISO settings with the flick of a dial - this can be an incredible convenience. If you want to see a cpmparison between the best film and digital equipment currently available, these guys went to the trouble of testing and making 4GB of images available for a mere $14.00. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml Link to the actual DVD for sale: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/zencart/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=11 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_r_smith Posted August 3, 2006 Share #11 Posted August 3, 2006 I think what Bill is saying here is pretty much on-target. I have been a dedicated MF user for many years, using Rollei, Hasselblad and all sorts of other ancient gear (including my 1925 view camera), and although I have used 35mm extensively for work I have never really enjoyed the smaller format much (sorry, chaps, I am aware this is the Leica Forum). I always thought the quality of MF, particularly in 6x9, was unassailable, but recent experience with digital cameras has altered my view, at least for colour work. The photos Bill posted the link to are a good example. Obviously, they are only at web size, so we can't really judge their ultimate quality, but nonetheless we can see that they are really stunning in terms of punch, saturation and range of tone. And this is from a relatively inexpensive point-and-shoot digicam. I have carefully compared MF aerial photos shot on a Mamiya 645 here at work with digital stuff taken at the same time on a lowly Nikon D70, and the digital looks better in many respects. If we had a Canon 1Ds I should think it would be no contest. I think the one area where film is still clearly better is for B/W photography. Until someone comes out with a digital camera with a pukka dedicated B/W mode I shall stick with my Rollei and Hassy gear and good old FP4. I like the grain I get with film, I like the way I can use coloured filters, and I much prefer the way film handles landscapes in monochrome. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted August 3, 2006 Share #12 Posted August 3, 2006 I'm sorry but the Canon digital bodies are horrible. Plasticey look and unnatural tonal crap even from the full-frame. I hate the sallow look from Canon as much as Maria Sharpova's ads for it. Seriously, the people Canon shots are all bleached looking. I'm afraid that since everything looks so sallow and bleached (preferred style), even Leica + Canon looks somewhat un-Leica-like. In fact, once I get my Oly + Leica outfit up and running, the proof will be in the pudding. Hassy wins here! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinb Posted August 3, 2006 Share #13 Posted August 3, 2006 I really doubt that MF film beats digital MF. I actually think it's the other way around. The best DSLR's beats the best 35mm films. But subjectively I like the look of film and no one can take that away from the film lovers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 3, 2006 Share #14 Posted August 3, 2006 Alfie, this has not been my experience in the slightest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinA Posted August 3, 2006 Share #15 Posted August 3, 2006 I'm sorry but the Canon digital bodies are horrible. Plasticey look and unnatural tonal crap even from the full-frame. I hate the sallow look from Canon as much as Maria Sharpova's ads for it. The thing is with digital you can make it look pretty much as you want, how far you want to take it is up to you. Pale washed out or fairground punchy is upto you, someone somewhere has a proflie that fits. I'm still confused why people think in 30 years time you will not be able to view digital images made today, it simply does not make any sense. It's like saying books in Latin can't be read today. Kevin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted August 3, 2006 Share #16 Posted August 3, 2006 That's true but Canon imagery has an unnatural look to it all. Seriously, you can't fake the funk. The processing is a little too much and the DMR does a good job leaving things alone where it needs to be. I think that apologetics for the C (and perhaps N which I use rarely for the action stuff) marquee are worried about having used up a lot of money for get the full frame digibodies. But I tried to play the Canon images with all sorts of curves and can't get that 3-d element out. Plus the blanched skin tones kinda scare me. The Leica/Contax-Canon combo was much better but the Canon sensor has something in it that keeps on "poisoning" the image with its plasticky look. I wasn't too pleased. I feel like there is a flatness that can't be escaped. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 3, 2006 Share #17 Posted August 3, 2006 That's true but Canon imagery has an unnatural look to it all. Seriously, you can't fake the funk. The processing is a little too much and the DMR does a good job leaving things alone where it needs to be. I think that apologetics for the C (and perhaps N which I use rarely for the action stuff) marquee are worried about having used up a lot of money for get the full frame digibodies. But I tried to play the Canon images with all sorts of curves and can't get that 3-d element out. Plus the blanched skin tones kinda scare me. The Leica/Contax-Canon combo was much better but the Canon sensor has something in it that keeps on "poisoning" the image with its plasticky look. I wasn't too pleased. I feel like there is a flatness that can't be escaped. Alfie, I'n not an appologist by any means, but I find your comments at odds with my findings. Is this R shot really better than what can be achieved with a 5D or similar? 5-23355.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted August 3, 2006 Share #18 Posted August 3, 2006 Poor scanning at a cheap lab won't help R glass . So that's pretty much that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 3, 2006 Share #19 Posted August 3, 2006 You're right, processing is important - with digital or with film. Poor processing = poor results, good processing = good results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted August 4, 2006 Share #20 Posted August 4, 2006 Indeed but even good processing can't remove the plastic out of the Canon shots no matter what. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.