Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Computers & Peripherals => Topic started by: hulsebos on January 13, 2008, 09:06:12 am
-
I photographed the same scene with each camera. The details and results are posted here:
Pentax 67 vs Canon 5D (http://americansouthwestphotos.com/comparison)
Marty Hulsebos
American Southwest Photos (http://www.americansouthwestphotos.com)
Blue Ridge Mountains (http://www.highcountryimages.com)
-
I photographed the same scene with each camera. The details and results are posted here:
Pentax 67 vs Canon 5D (http://americansouthwestphotos.com/comparison)
Marty Hulsebos
American Southwest Photos (http://www.americansouthwestphotos.com)
Blue Ridge Mountains (http://www.highcountryimages.com)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166881\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Although you say wind was not a factor for the camera, was it for the subject? The grasses look as if they are moving - they are different in each shot. You don't mention shutter speed so it's hard for me to tell if there was motion.
Bill
-
Although you say wind was not a factor for the camera, was it for the subject? The grasses look as if they are moving - they are different in each shot. You don't mention shutter speed so it's hard for me to tell if there was motion.
Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166930\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It was a fairly still morning, though I can say for sure that it was absolutely still. There might be some rotation of the camera between the two images. The shutter speed was 1/15.
Marty Hulsebos
-
To me it looks as if the lens on your 5D is out of whack. I did a similar comparison between my Pentax 67 II and a Canon 10D a couple of years agao, and the (crop frame) 10D images were every bit the equal of the Pentax, which I then sold. My 5D now seems vastly better than my old 10D.
Maybe my Pentax lenses were not the greatest, but they sure seemed pretty sharp.
I guess it shows that YMMV.
-
I've been using the 5D for a long time and this test is inconsistent with my experience. That cropped section of the photo is just muck, and it's not that small. It looks out of focus.
-
Hi
Did you see my recent post http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....topic=20970&hl= (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20970&hl=) ?
That was using my Mamiya 7II with Velvia 50 and my Mamiya ZD. Granted they are different tools, but... I cannot say which is better. Each have different strengths. The ZD with 22MP and 48x36mm sensor was not clear winner at least, nor was the 7II.
For sure I would expect any DSLR including 5D and new 1Ds Mk 3 to be complete blown out of the water by 6x7 film, provided good quality film, proper optics, shooting conditions proper and indeed the film is drum scanned or near same scan quality.
Regards
Anders
-
Well, the Pentax even with soft film still looks better. Reala color neg film is NOT the sharpest choice for a comparison and a Nikon scanner is far from the best choice to scan a color neg. Reala scanned on a drum scanner can resolve somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 to 16 microns. Velvia and Provia are down around 4-5 microns and can far outresolve Reala or Portra, let alone T-Max100. I've compared Provia shot with a Mamiya 150mm 3.5 RZ to a 22mp Sinar back and a Rodenstock digital lens, scanning the Provia at 4000 on the Howtek then rezzing the Sinar to match, and aside from a bit of grain, the film was still sharper by a notch. Test like this crack me up.
-
Test like this crack me up.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167021\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I recently scanned several hundred BW negs and colour transparencies from my 6X7. Although the "look" is quite different, IMHO my D200 delivers better 17X22 prints.
Don't get me started on the time it takes to scan and prepare a file for printing from film compared to digital capture. I'd say at least 100:1
-
I recently scanned several hundred BW negs and colour transparencies from my 6X7. Although the "look" is quite different, IMHO my D200 delivers better 17X22 prints.
Don't get me started on the time it takes to scan and prepare a file for printing from film compared to digital capture. I'd say at least 100:1
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167222\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Peter,
No tool is perfect for everyone. I gone from 35 slides -> D200 -> 7II & ZD.
D200 was nothing in image quality compared to Velvia 6x7s from 7II.
Time for scanning depends on # photos. Medium format slows me down to take less number of frames but higher ratio of good ones...
Regards
Anders
-
The reason I gave up on film was the scanning bottleneck.
I have 1600 slides of a trip to China that I still cannot bring myself to sort through and scan, simply as it is such a PITA.
Scanners were just starting to become good and affordable when digital suddenly took off and the market disappeared.
-
The reason I gave up on film was the scanning bottleneck.
I have 1600 slides of a trip to China that I still cannot bring myself to sort through and scan, simply as it is such a PITA.
Wow, 1600 slides from China? Your bound to have some gold in that mountain.
I'd suffer a bit for that...easy for me to say, of course.
As for the 5d vs 6x7, I'm not surprised at the test, but it's still close enough that I'd never go out and buy a film camera now. However, if I already owned a Pentax 6x7...
-
"I recently scanned several hundred BW negs and colour transparencies from my 6X7. Although the "look" is quite different, IMHO my D200 delivers better 17X22 prints.
Don't get me started on the time it takes to scan and prepare a file for printing from film compared to digital capture. I'd say at least 100:1"
Peter,
Don't know what scanner you're using or what camera and lenses and what film, but it all makes a difference. Fluid mounting on a drum eliminates most of the crap you get with an Imacon, Nikon, or any flatbed, plus is adds sharpness and makes the d-min about .05 less than without the fluid, meaning you can actually pull more highlight from trannies and shadow from negs. Of course, your particular skill and efficiency in scanning and using whatever software runs your scanner of choice makes a huge difference, but 100:1 ratio, I don't believe it. They're about the same in my experience. Yeah, the look IS different, especially when you drum scan Kodachrome, and while I love digital for commercial work, I almost always prefer the look of film for my own work. But, hell, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but unless you've been using the best hardware out there, that opinion may be a somewhat limited one.
-
This looks typical for a quick test, but:
If you want to beat the image quality of digital with film, you HAVE to do film the RIGHT way: use velvia/provia, good lens, no camera shake, no mirror vibration, damn near perfect focus, and the best damn scan you can afford.