135 film vs 10 MP digital

[valtof]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As a follow up to the thread called "why film feels better??", I'd like to submit a simple comparison between film and digital.

It is not intended to illustrate the superiority of film by advance because it's not scientific at all. It's a bit biased because I didn't take pictures for this purpose, trying to shoot the same way the same scene with the same focal, the same ISO and so on...

 

In fact, the idea came, working in Lightroom (where both my M6 and M8 pictures are put together), when classifying my recent shots of Venice, I put side by side some M6 and M8 shots of more or less the same subjects. When you compare the full frames side by side at the same size and then you suddenly zoom at respective max resolution which are obviously different (3x4Kpix for M8 files and 5x7Kpix for the M6 scans) the visual effect is really stunning.

On one side the same area is of course bigger on the scanned film, but a 5000x7000 resolution isn't over sized at all, it's really what's on the film and this res could even be bigger even if it's no use in my opinion.

On the other side the M8 file is about 3000x4000 and cannot be bigger : that's what you get with the 10MP sensor and basta.

Apart from the difference in size, what's more important is the difference in details and micro contrasts that shows clearly the superiority of film, in this particular example, of course.

 

So here is the comparison of two shots taken from the Piazetta with San Giorgio in the background, which is the detail I want to focus on :

 

Picture 1 : M8 with 2/28 at 640 ISO, DNG developed in LR, NO accentuation ;

Picture 2 : M6 with lux50, Ilford Delta 100, V700 DNG scan dev. in LR, NO accentuation.

 

So of course, and I repeat, this is a little biased : not the same lens and effective FOV (35 vs 50mm), not the same focus and depth of field, the same sensibility, the same exact scene, the same moment therefor not the same lighting situation... but let's see the crop area :

 

Picture 3 : M8 crop area super sized to match the M6 scan ;

Picture 4 : M6 crop area at max res. that would be the detail of an approximately 160 x 240 cm print !! (assuming your screen is 72 dpi)

 

Voilà voilà...

Christophe

 

.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Gerald Lowle]

Christophe...I am totally biased towards film and these images and your results have made me smile with satisfaction. The fact that there were slight differences technically matters not to me. If film was edible I would feast on it!.....Gerald

[Advertisement]

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

[Photoskeptic]

Dynamic range and D-max say it all. Film rules!

[Photoskeptic]

In a follow-up on the preceding: This is really not a valid comparison since you used ISO 640 on the M8 and shot ISO 100 film. Even though I favor film regardless, you should have shot the M8 @ 160 for a better comparison.

[Rolo]

Christophe,

 

your argument is so convincing. I predict there will not be a challenge.

 

The two images clearly favour the film version, in spite of the advantages you allow for the M8.

 

Joking apart, real world comparisons - I want to stand on THIS spot and record a photograph of THAT view and secure maximum detail ........ are few and far between. So thank you for taking the trouble to continue the debate that can have no conclusion.

 

Very few digital tests compare 10 mpix with Kodak Technical Pan, or even Velvia, and therefore never push the boundaries.

 

Very few comparisons accept that to capture the view with a crop sensor you have to stand further back, or use a wider lens and few consider the implications on perspective.

 

In truth, I am quite in awe of what the M8 can do and look forward to its continued development.

Rolo

[Concorde-SST]

sorry to cross your parade, but when you use different lenses you can´t expect a good result for comparing...yes, I love film too but in this case I guess you´re wrong. Even using different ISO speeds - too much uneven factors.

 

Try next time even ISO + same lenses. Then you´ll be able

to see the differences - but I guess you already know that.

 

Beautiful shots anyway!

 

best,

 

Andreas.

[Rolo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In a follow-up on the preceding: This is really not a valid comparison since you used ISO 640 on the M8 and shot ISO 100 film. Even though I favor film regardless, you should have shot the M8 @ 160 for a better comparison.

 

... or perhaps, the M8 at its best iso and film at its best iso - 25 iso.

 

If you wanted a poster of that scene you'd shoot it on Velvia 50, or Agfa APX25.

 

Rolo

 

edit - Andreas, that approach can only dilute the comparison. I understand it's like for like, but you will only discover what the micro looks like. If you stand in a room and shoot, one image will have walls, the other not. Your like-for-like comparison can only be made with a FF sensor IMO. When did anyone ever do a lens test with 640 iso film ?? Answer - never.

[adan]

Sorry - phony science.

 

Equivalent to comparing an M6 to a 645 camera while forcing the M6 to use pushed Tri-X and a 28 and allowing the 645 to use Delta 100 and an 80mm lens.

 

Shoot the M6 at 640, and with an equivalent field of view (35mm lens), or shoot the M8 at 160 with a 35mm - otherwise it has no more intellectual honesty than the "proof" that there were weapons of mass destruction....

 

Don't kid yourselves.

[biglouis]

Christophe

 

All I can say is that you have had better luck comparing film with digital than I.

 

In my thread about a series of photographs I took, no matter what I tried the digital version from my R-D1 was a lot better than the film version from my M6TTL. Indeed, it was the final nail in the coffin for me and film and my M6 is in a new relationship with another owner.

 

The test may have been a lot closer in some ways than yours. The R-D1 was shot at iso200 it's base speed using a lux35 (approx 50mm on the R-D1) and the film was taken with my cron50 at iso160. Now, it could be and I put my hands up for it, that my scanning technique sucks.

 

However, on workflow alone, the R-D1 shot took about 10 minutes to get a reasonable result and the M6 shot about half a day.

 

As Rolo can attest I am now in a loving relationship with an M8.

 

LouisB

 

PS Your second shot is better than the first and I particularly like the whirling seagulls, very effective.

[Shootist]

Sorry - phony science.

 

Equivalent to comparing an M6 to a 645 camera while forcing the M6 to use pushed Tri-X and a 28 and allowing the 645 to use Delta 100 and an 80mm lens.

 

Shoot the M6 at 640, and with an equivalent field of view (35mm lens), or shoot the M8 at 160 with a 35mm - otherwise it has no more intellectual honesty than the "proof" that there were weapons of mass destruction....

 

Don't kid yourselves.

Totally agree but the real test is with the same lens. All the M8 does is crop out part of what is seen in the 35mm film image. That is becasue the M8 sensor is smaller then a piece of 35mm film. Apples to Apples a 50 on film is the same as a 50 on the M8. Just crop the film negative to give you the same size BASE image, 27mm x 18mm. That is easily done in PS.

You used one of Leica's BEST lenses on the M6 and slow film, ISO 100, and used a very good lens on the M8 but not as good as the 50 Lux and a ISO of 640 (really 800).

[imported_peter_m]

Print both images the same size, frame and put on the wall side by side.......

 

Peter

[Rolo]

Now it makes sense.

 

Same lens, same position.......

 

Rolo

( Only joking. )

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Mark Antony]

I have A similar test, this time Canon 20D 50mm F1.4 (F8) at 100ISO vs Nikon F2 80mm F2 (F8) 200ISO Kodachrome

 

 

Both 100% I know they had different lenses and 2 months between captures, but no lens on earth on the 20D is going to get the detail back.

 

Digital is smooth and detail lacking

[adan]

Sorry, again - Canon 20D is 8Mp, not 10, and has an anti-alias blurring filter (which the M8 does not)

 

"Digital" covers a range as wide and varied as K25 to Delta 3200.

 

Anyone who thinks they can generalize about it in a phrase like "Digital is smooth and lacking in detail" is living the the last century...

[lct]

Biased comparisons are one of the best ways to prove the contrary to what is claimed.

[valtof]

Now it makes sense.

Same lens, same position.......

( Only joking. )

 

OK but what is what ?

Let's be precise (or serious, which is not an obligation of course).

[stunsworth]

Were these taken using a tripod?

[hamey]

All very interesting,

 

1....However in my comparisons between the two mediums, I project a Transparancie (Slide) along-side a Computer monitor of the same image, simply no contest.

 

2...Or project it along side a poster taken with a Digital cam, again the slide will outclass the paper print.

 

But I must admit for photos for the album or viewing them on a Monitor, Digital images are excellent.

 

I will always love my Leicas and slide film as I hav'nt come across anything better for my Photografic pleasure.

 

But it's horses for courses.

 

Ken.

[Rolo]

OK but what is what ?

Let's be precise (or serious, which is not an obligation of course).

 

Christophe,

 

"Print both images the same size, frame and put on the wall side by side.......

 

Peter"

 

So I've presented a single image full frame (Top) and to a 1.33 crop (bottom). Hopefully, supporting the argument that comparing a crop with a full frame is not valid, because you can't get the same image with the same lens.

 

When one pulls back to fill the crop frame, image deteriorates and perspective alters. We all know this. However, standing fast has the effect shown, one sacrifices the picture.

 

So, change the lens to widen the crop view and you have a different image.

 

There is no acceptable conclusion for either side, so keep smiling. Otherwise we get too tense over this. Good images can be had from any Leica.

 

Rolo

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[stunsworth]

1....However in my comparisons between the two mediums, I project a Transparancie (Slide) along-side a Computer monitor of the same image, simply no contest

 

But that isn't a fair comparison. A full screen shot on a monitor has a resolution of just 1-2 meg.