What about the Leica S2 with the 30x45mm sensor? Looks promising, but I think the price tag is prohibitive, meaning you can buy tons of film and man hours if you decide to continue shooting film.

I agree. There is no inherent conflict between an interest in the technical issues of photography and making art. Some people do get highly involved in technical matters and wind up never making any art, good or bad. Others base their approach in one way or the other on technical considerations. Photography is, after all, a medium that is technologically based.

Digital versus film is a very complex issue and ultimately it comes down to what it is, specifically, that one is trying to achieve in their image making. There are things that film clearly does better, things that digital does better, and a wide overlap where both are capable of getting the job done, depending on final print size. And the economics of this matters to most people.

Anyone who has ever since a drum scan of a 6X7 cm Mamiya 7 negative or a 6X9 cm negative made with a Fuji GSW 690II would quickly understand that there is no way that a 22-40mp DSLR can even begin to compare in terms of absolut detail. But, if the final print size is not very large a print from a digital file can have the same image quality as one from a high resolution film scan.

For very large prints, say in the 36X45" range, the DSLR simply will not hold up to 6X7cm or 6X9cm MF film. My scans of Mamiya 7 negatives at 5000 spi give a file that will print at about 360 dpi at final size of 36X44", and if the negative is a fine grain B&W or color negative, they can be rezzed up even higher.

As a matter of fact, if you do the math you will see that not even a $45K P-45 is capable of as much detail as a drum scan of a 6X7 or 6X9 film, though many argue that it is capable of better overall image quality.

Sandy King



FWIW I don't see the posts here as being obsessing about the technical in lieu of actual picture taking.

At some point some of us need to know when to buy -- be it the ever diminishing price of film equipment of the ever increasing quality of digital. I own a DSLR, but I'm not in love with it and I don't shoot targets with my DSLR or my film cameras. I do know what my requirements are for image
making. Soon digital will reach the point where I can use it w/o paying a premium for the level of quality I desire. I see that point represented by the new sony and I expect that Nikon is about 12-18 months away from producing something in kind. It is not a fetish for me simply the reality I live with. I love film for all that film offers. I like digital capture well enough and need it for professional work and to a lesser degree art and snap shots.

...For very large prints, say in the 36X45" range, the DSLR simply will not hold up to 6X7cm or 6X9cm MF film. My scans of Mamiya 7 negatives at 5000 spi give a file that will print at about 360 dpi at final size of 36X44", and if the negative is a fine grain B&W or color negative, they can be rezzed up even higher.

As a matter of fact, if you do the math you will see that not even a $45K P-45 is capable of as much detail as a drum scan of a 6X7 or 6X9 film, though many argue that it is capable of better overall image quality...

Dear Sandy,

[Curiosity] The calculations I made tells me that you need to resolve something like 117 l/mm (lines per mm ~= 58 lp/mm) on film to be able to print a sharp image at size. Can you really resolve that much with your Mamiya lenses? I'm not talking about the center here; what about the borders and corners? BTW, calculations assumed that you're viewing the print from 57" distance. (= Diagonal size of the print.)

[Actual / important point] Another calculation says that you have to use aperture values not smaller than F11 or else you'll become diffraction limited (to reach the resolution figure above). That is not an aperture value with lots of DoF considering the film format and most importantly the CoC figure implied above. (= 1 / 117 = 0.0085mm)

What I'm saying here is that I feel that you have to use a more realistic (or more relaxed, if you like) criteria to be able to make a realistic comparison -> I mean I just don't see how 36x45" is possible (sharp = sharp) from 6x7; that's 15x enlargement!??? To me, more than 10x enlargement (especially when considering a full analogue workflow) is a sign for the fact that you need to switch to a larger format. Choosing a more appropiate / realistic criteria and comparing film / digital photography based on that would be better / more productive IMHO...

What are your thoughts?

Merry Christmas to all BTW!!! :)

Loris,

I said that with a scan of 5000 spi I could get a image that would print at 36X44" at 360 spi. A more realistic figure would have bee 300 dpi because I assume that my lenses will resolves 80 lines per mm or more, not 100 lines per mm or more. So it is true that the 155mp pixel count that you get from a scan of a 6X7 cm scan at 5000 is not all true resolution, but I am sure that about 4000 spi of it is. But I could ask the same question about the 24 mp Sony. How much of the 24 mp is true resolution?

That figure is quite realistic for Mamiya 7 lenses and a fine grain B&W film like Acros or Tmax-100, assuming use the camera on a tripod and an aperture that is not diffraction limited. In fact, from actual resolution tests I know that all of my lenses, except possible one, will resolve more than 80 lines per mm in the center. Certainly I expect less at the corners, but that is true of all formats so I think it best to stick to center resolution when comparing formats, otherwise the issue becomes a lens issue rather than format issue.

Obviously I am describing output in terms of size that is at the extreme end of what is possible with 6X7 cm format, but it nevertheless quite realistic with top technique in exposing, developing, scanning, post-processing and printing. I was at an exhibition about a year ago of 30X40" color prints made from Imacon scans of 6X7 cm Mamiya 7 negatives, mostly of architetural subjects that had a lot of fine detail. One of the guys looking at the prints was a professional printer at a high end studio. He remarked, "8X10" format?

I would agree that for magnifications of over 10X one is generally better off to switch to a larger format. But that trade-off, which is advantageous in terms of pure image quality, has limitations in terms of choice of subject as well as other logistical problems.

In any event the point I am making is that it is quite possible to get to print size of 36X44" with a 6X7 cm negative from Mamiya 7 and still have real resolution (i.e. no rezzing up) equal to or beyond the threshold of human resolution of 5 lines per mm. This assumes that you start with 80 lines per mm in the original negative, which is not only feasible, but likely, with good technique,and that you get a high quality scan drum or dedicated film scanner.

With a 24mp camera you reach the 5 lines per mm threshold at 14X22", if my calculations are right. Noise level will be low so you can rez up a lot with the digital file, but one can also enhance a high resolution file from a film scan quite a bit as well.

And of course, your comments about diffraction limitations apply to all formats, maybe more so to digital than film because of the very small sensor points. With APS sensors diffraction limitation can easily be at f/8 or less. With 6X7 cm MF I tend to use mostly wide angle lenses (50mm and 65mm) that give great depth of field at f/11, which by my calculations is diffraction limited at over 100 lines per mm.

That said, I won't argue with the premise that a 24mp digital camera would meet nearly all of my needs since 14X22" is about as large as I normally print, and a DSLR is of course much more versatile than a MF film camera.

Happy Holidays,

And BTW, Santa Wife left me as my Christmas present a 15 mp Canon 50D, instead of the Sony A-900 or the new 21mp Canon 5d which I listed as other choices. Maybe you know the song, "you don't always get what you want, but sometimes if you try enough you get what you need!"

Sandy






Dear Sandy,

[Curiosity] The calculations I made tells me that you need to resolve something like 117 l/mm (lines per mm ~= 58 lp/mm) on film to be able to print a sharp image at size. Can you really resolve that much with your Mamiya lenses? I'm not talking about the center here; what about the borders and corners? BTW, calculations assumed that you're viewing the print from 57" distance. (= Diagonal size of the print.)

[Actual / important point] Another calculation says that you have to use aperture values not smaller than F11 or else you'll become diffraction limited (to reach the resolution figure above). That is not an aperture value with lots of DoF considering the film format and most importantly the CoC figure implied above. (= 1 / 117 = 0.0085mm)

What I'm saying here is that I feel that you have to use a more realistic (or more relaxed, if you like) criteria to be able to make a realistic comparison -> I mean I just don't see how 36x45" is possible (sharp = sharp) from 6x7; that's 15x enlargement!??? To me, more than 10x enlargement (especially when considering a full analogue workflow) is a sign for the fact that you need to switch to a larger format. Choosing a more appropiate / realistic criteria and comparing film / digital photography based on that would be better / more productive IMHO...

What are your thoughts?

Merry Christmas to all BTW!!! :)

BTW, against a lot of pressure of time I managed to get out today and do a fairly good personal comparison of the Canon 5D and 50D. For the comparison I had on hand the Canon 24-1-5 IS L lens and an economy line Canon 28-135 IS, also a Tokina 12-24mm zoom.

Few surprises. In both resolution tests and field tests the results were quite predictable. The 50D gives slightly higher resolution than the 5D, but noise with the 5D is lower. One small surprise was that the results with the economy Canon 28-135 were about on par with the much more expensive 24-105 L lens.

Although I am still in flux on this my thinking at the moment is that for my trip to Mexico in January I will pack the Mamiya 7II and four lenses (50mm, 65mm, 80mm and 150mm) , along with the Canon 50D and two lenes 12-24mm zoom, and 28-135mm zoom). This all fits nicely in a small LowePro backpack that I have been using for a few years. I will shoot fine grain B&W with the Mamiya 7II, and color with the 50D. If I could only take one camera, the Fuji GA645Zi would probably bit the one, but the Mamiya 7II plus the Canon 50D give both more versatility (with the 50D) and greater image quality (with the Mamiay 7II).

Sandy King


Sandy King

One small surprise was that the results with the economy Canon 28-135 were about on par with the much more expensive 24-105 L lens.



Comparisons of some Canon lenses can be done online here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&Lens=404

Don Bryant

Hi Don,

Thanks for the link. That site has some very interesting comparisons.

Sandy



Comparisons of some Canon lenses can be done online here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&Lens=404

Don Bryant

I've seen much the same on the film side. Folks get really caught-up with all their latest gadgets and the technical specifications rather than just having fun and enjoying photography regardless of the tool you are using.
Well, film isn't for free, but it's usually much cheaper than new equipment...

Regards,
Erik Ehrling (Sweden)

Came across this on another site. http://fwd.five.tv/videos/challenge-blow-up-part-3. It depicts an interesting comparison, but raises a question for me about my lack of knowledge about image sensors and their role in final product quality.


So how come whenever you see these digital vs. film comparisons, they always use ASA 400 film?

How about ASA 100?

And nothing was said about how the film was scanned.

So how come whenever you see these digital vs. film comparisons, they always use ASA 400 film?

How about ASA 100?

And nothing was said about how the film was scanned.

This whole comparison was totally asinine IMO. Not because ISO 400 was chosen but as others have pointed out there are just too many unknowns about the image processing work flow especially with the film.

I believe the reason ISO 400 is compared is because I think this is the default ISO for most DSLRs when set in AUTO mode. Of course with some DSLRs AUTO mode changes the ISO as the camera thinks necessary or AUTO-matically.

Don Bryant

with a budget like theirs, i'd assume the film was drum scanned, but the green shadows and use of iso 400 film makes me wonder.

So how come whenever you see these digital vs. film comparisons, they always use ASA 400 film?

How about ASA 100?

And nothing was said about how the film was scanned.

I don't really understand how this is an arument, a digital print is a digital print, are we comparing digital prints from film and digital cameras? A comparison of digital vs film should be against a drum scanned digital against a chemically developed and printed film image.

Hi

if you're thinking of a compact camera, I must say I think that the micro 4/3 format is ideal for me. I get nearly the same size as a hefty point n shoot such as the G9 / 10 / 11 and interchangable lenses.

some latest images from my Panasonic G1

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2726/4253415235_a585705d53.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4002/4240751130_f5288ce0a6.jpg

sure the 'kit' zoom makes it a little bulkier but at a recent conference I was using it to photograph OHP's and the guy beside me was using a G11. We compared cameras (and images) and he really liked how much lighter my G1 was than his canon. Then my OIS came in handy for making my "slide copies" much sharper (and the swivel screen) and my flash was easier to manage (to be off).

Of course what ever camera you get +0-3EV bracket will get great results with a little careful HDR on any contrasty scene

this one is from 2 JPGS, -3 +3
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2487/4241612588_180e826d17.jpg

:rolleyes: Just believe it

Hi

if you're thinking of a compact camera, I must say I think that the micro 4/3 format is ideal for me.




Time to upgrade to the GH1!