Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: ErikKaffehr on December 25, 2011, 01:15:44 am
-
Hi,
Here is some great research done by Tim Parkin and enthusiastic colleagues: http://www.landscapegb.com/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
This part of the test may be most informative: http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/large.html
If you want to compare the lesser cameras the slightly downsized image may be of interest: http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html
The test here goes into greater detail than I have seen before, definitively worth reading.
My own observations:
- Tim's tests indicates that Phase One P45 pretty well matches 4x5" Velvia
- The Sony A900 is clearly superior to Mamiya 7 with Portra 400. Pity that they have not tested with Velvia.
- 8x10" beats IQ180 weather Velvia or Portra 400
This is essentially in good agreement with some previous testing that indicated P45 equalling 4x5" and 20 MP DSLRs matching 67 on Velvia.
The bridge on top of ridge is worth checking out visible on Velvia but not really on IQ180, see enclosed images!
Best regards
Erik
-
Excellent test, and interesting results. The advantage in the studio of 8x10 is very clear. In the field in that kind of wind the advantage appears to have been reduced.
-
This is fabulous work that to me clearly demonstrates films capability and goes a long way to debunk the previous testing.
-
Hi,
Here is some great research done by Tim Parkin and enthusiastic colleagues: http://www.landscapegb.com/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
This part of the test may be most informative: http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/large.html
If you want to compare the lesser cameras the slightly downsized image may be of interest: http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html
The test here goes into greater detail than I have seen before, definitively worth reading.
My own observations:
- Tim's tests indicates that Phase One P45 pretty well matches 4x5" Velvia
- The Sony A900 is clearly superior to Mamiya 7 with Portra 400. Pity that they have not tested with Velvia.
- 8x10" beats IQ180 weather Velvia or Portra 400
This is essentially in good agreement with some previous testing that indicated P45 equalling 4x5" and 20 MP DSLRs matching 67 on Velvia.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks Erik, really appreciate the support - the comparisons between the different cameras are subjective but I thought it would help to show a side by side directly between the cameras you mention..
(http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/mamiya7portra160-D3X-5D2.jpg)
(http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/p45-4x5.jpg)
Personally I read the results differently but that's the good thing about a simple side by side. The results can be interpreted by the reader.
Tim
p.s. The reduction in resolution of the 8x10 in the field is, I think, more to do with diffraction than wind - otherwise specular highlights would have been smeared - only conjecture though.
-
Here's a link to the Nikon D3X, Mamiya 7, Canon 5Dmk2 comparison image as the forum resizes images
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/mamiya7portra160-D3X-5D2.jpg (http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/mamiya7portra160-D3X-5D2.jpg)
-
Here's a link to the Nikon D3X, Mamiya 7, Canon 5Dmk2 comparison image as the forum resizes images
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/mamiya7portra160-D3X-5D2.jpg (http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/mamiya7portra160-D3X-5D2.jpg)
In terms of detail, I would say Mamiya 7 >= D3x > 5DII. The mamiya seems more focused on the Hassy, while the D3x seems more focus on the note. I am not sure where the 5DII was focused. It seems similar to the D3x on the Hassy, but much worse on the note.
In terms of how clear the image is/DR, then it is clearly D3x >> Mamiya 7 > 5DII.
I believe that the D3x would probably be better in large prints due to the lack of noise.
For the other images, I would say 4x5 > P45 and also 8x10 >> 4x5 > IQ180.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In terms of how clear the image is/DR, then it is clearly D3x >> Mamiya 7 > 5DII.
I believe that the D3x would probably be better in large prints due to the lack of noise.
For the other images, I would say 4x5 > P45 and 8x10 >> IQ180.
That sounds about right to me. One thing is clear from the print analysis is that extra resolution does not necessarily mean a sharper looking print. The Mamiya is a classic in this in that it outresolves the D3X quite substantially but does not look it at print sizes. I was mightily impressed with the Nikon D3X and the Nikon 24 tilt shift was substantially better than the Canon 24 TSEmk2 tilt shift that we had (which tallies with the copy I used to own but a colleague seems to have a sharp copy which I look forward to testing). I would say that the 4x5 and IQ180 are closely matches with mid res contrast going to the IQ180 but fine detail going to the 4x5. In blind print tests, the film was chosen mostly at small sizes (tonality I think) and people were split between 4x5 and IQ180 at large (40x50) print sizes. Some liking the clean look of the IQ180, others saying that it didn't look as 'real' as the 4x5. All but on of my 8 person sample chose the 8x10 Portra though at this large print size though. The sample was chosen from non-photographer family members so far - boring them to tears on christmas eve :-)
Tim
Tim
-
Tim,
Some more reflections:
The microscope images are very informative. On the IQ-180 then lens clearly has a lot of MTF at Nyquist, so we get aliasing instead of resolution smoothly going away with increasing frequency.
Without doubt, the 8x10" outresolves the rest.
If we compare the 4x5" there are some advantages and disadvantages to 4x5" compared to P45. The P45 obviously has different artifacts, regarding resolution it may sometimes resolve detail the 4x5" does not, check the hose in the right part of the image.
In my view the Alpha 900 holds up well in the enclosed image.
I may need to point out that I have tested my Alpha 900 against both Velvia and Ektar 100 on my Pentax 67. In my test it was quite even, but the A900 image was much easier to work with. For that reason I find it interesting to compare with your test. I also guess that the Mamiya has a much better lens than the one I had on my Pentax a 90/2.8. So I have a significant interest comparing your findings with mine.
My tests are here:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900
Seeing your results, it's fairly obvious that the best films give better and more detail on 4x5" compared to P45 and quite clearly the 8x10" beats IQ180 for quality.
Very obviously, when you compare the smaller sensors (135 FF) to large format the images fall apart. I'd say that your tests also show that there is a lot of difference between different films.
Most of my testing was done using a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro, which I believe is a decent CCD scanner, but my film images may have been handicapped by the scanner. One other point is affordability. With analogue the equipment is quite affordable especially if we can find used equipment. High end digital tends to be very expensive.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks Erik, really appreciate the support - the comparisons between the different cameras are subjective but I thought it would help to show a side by side directly between the cameras you mention..
Personally I read the results differently but that's the good thing about a simple side by side. The results can be interpreted by the reader.
Tim
p.s. The reduction in resolution of the 8x10 in the field is, I think, more to do with diffraction than wind - otherwise specular highlights would have been smeared - only conjecture though.
-
Without multishoot camera (Hasselblad H4d 200ms) or multishoot back (Sinarback eVolution 86H), this test is incomplete.
For this kind of tests, the multishoot backs are generally at the top.
PdF
-
I was wondering about the multishot backs too - I know from my own testing that the 22mp backs (528CF) easily beat the 80mp Aptus with detail and DR. This would be obvious in the studio tests, but of course none of your outside tests would work because of movement so it seems reasonable to leave the multishot backs out. But absolutely no question they do significantly better than the 80mp backs and i'm wondering if they wouldn't give the 8x10's a run for the money in the studio tests.
-
Except that all multishoot backs users are able to use one-shot mode when shooting in which the movement occurs. Better yet, some do not hesitate to "sandwich" a 4 shots image with a 1 shot to enhance the best parts of the image.
The difference would be huge on images of banknotes and prehistoric Hasselblad !!!
PdF
-
Thanks for sharing the results with us. I was particularly curious to see the IQ180 v 5x4 film results. Resolution seemed to be neck and neck, with the digital winning overall with its better colour accuracy and noise.
-
Graham,
I saw the 4x5 as having more detail than the IQ180 - for example in the studio shot of the Nikon lens. In some of the crops of the outdoors shots its less clear. Overall, I note that some of the film is shot at ISO 400 .... I'd hate to see the IQ180 at ISO 400.
Eric
-
I would still take my IQ180 over my 8x10 or 4x5. The choice of my 13 lenses I carry, dynamic range, Color accuracy, ease of processing without using my Scitex scanner and cleaning for 6 hours each piece 8x10 film. Then if you use a fluid gear driven stitching head you can accomplish images that cannot be achieved without any other camera. No contest I used them all and will always take the IQ180 until something is better. The dynamic range is what I like the most. Unfortunately my 65 pound pack has not lightened, but no pain no gain. But interesting results. T
-
Graham,
I saw the 4x5 as having more detail than the IQ180.... and I'd hate to see the IQ180 at ISO 400 which is what the film was.
Eric
Are you sure you were looking at 5x4? Here is a sample of Velvia 5x4 v. IQ180. Btw, Velvia is ISO 50.
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/velvia_iq180.jpg)
-
8x10" vs IQ180 comparison result was predictable.. but still I'm impressed by difference of the studio shots. Tim, thanks for your work!
-
I would still take my IQ180 over my 8x10 or 4x5. The choice of my 13 lenses I carry, dynamic range, Color accuracy, ease of processing without using my Scitex scanner and cleaning for 6 hours each piece 8x10 film. Then if you use a fluid gear driven stitching head you can accomplish images that cannot be achieved without any other camera. No contest I used them all and will always take the IQ180 until something is better. The dynamic range is what I like the most. Unfortunately my 65 pound pack has not lightened, but no pain no gain. But interesting results.
As I said in my conclusions - if you can justifiably afford the IQ180 it is definitely a good choice. However, personally the 'flavour' of film, especially velvia, still gives me something I desire and also the dynamic range of the Portra's and the ability to shoot without grads is something that digital doesn't quite have yet. Saying that, I'll be playing with the IQ180 over the coming months to see just how far you can take it without grads. Don't forget that the scenic image was shot on Velvia without grads - that film has a lot more dynamic range than people give it credit for. Of course - using both would be perfect!
-
Are you sure you were looking at 5x4? Here is a sample of Velvia 5x4 v. IQ180. Btw, Velvia is ISO 50.
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/velvia_iq180.jpg)
The 4x5 velvia shot isn't as sharp as the 4x5 portra shot but obviously it should be - I think wind affected this area. My estimate is that they are closely matched with some fine detail going to the 4x5 and the good contrast at slightly lower resolution going to the IQ180. The IQ180 would inevitably look sharper in prints but given some of the print tests we've tried, some people have said it doesn't look as 'real'. Obviously the comparison is a good way of choosing which rendering you prefer. I preferred the colour from Velvia and Portra but the differences are marginal and the IQ colour was perfectly acceptable. I would not that some of the fine colour handling by 4x5 velvia was better than the IQ180 - in the mosses comparison have a look at the following but look judge how natural each image looks and also how the colour separation is handled.
(http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/mosses-4x58x10iq180.jpg)
It's not simple choosing better or worse as they each have their own idiosyncracies..
Tim
-
The 4x5 velvia shot isn't as sharp as the 4x5 portra shot but obviously it should be - I think wind affected this area.
I just happened to pick that one image but all the samples lead to the same conclusion for me.
-
Don't forget that the scenic image was shot on Velvia without grads - that film has a lot more dynamic range than people give it credit for. Of course - using both would be perfect!
Hi Tim,
Thank for the test. Apart from anti-halo protection layers in film, the obvious remedy with digital sensors would be exposure bracketing (which is much faster, and very much cheaper than with film) and clever tonemapping.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The 4x5 velvia shot isn't as sharp as the 4x5 portra shot but obviously it should be - I think wind affected this area. My estimate is that they are closely matched with some fine detail going to the 4x5 and the good contrast at slightly lower resolution going to the IQ180. The IQ180 would inevitably look sharper in prints but given some of the print tests we've tried, some people have said it doesn't look as 'real'.
There is some strange painterly effect going on with the IQ180, I wonder if that results from the processing applied by the back to the raw files to reduce aliasing?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Bernard,
I don't know. At these enlargements the digital images start to fall apart. Please note that I'm not saying that the comparison is invalid, just that bicubic interpolation does not look very convincing. But you may have a point.
One observation with the digital images is that there is "staircase effects" on everything. If you look at Tim's resolution series it's quite obvious that the IQ180 starts aliasing at Nyquist frequency although the lens seems to have a lot of resolution left. When I see the images I'm asking if the IQ180 would not have been served well by a mild OLP filter. Smaller pixels obviously would help a lot.
If you want to compare "the lesser" cameras the 50% images are preferable in my view.
My own testing indicated clearly that my Sony Alpha 900 performed on par with the Pentax 67 regarding resolution, but coming out on top in most other aspects (including MTF for fine details). That conclusion was based on the technique I had. Tim's work puts this into perspective.
I actually never really believed IQ-180 being superior to 8x10". In the 2006 shootout here on LL the authors found that the P45 performed on par with 4x5". 8x10" is four times the area, so if a 40 MP back matched 4x5" it would take 160MP to match 8x10" all parameters being equivalent. But parameters are not equivalent, so it was nice that Tim has shown how well large format film really could perform.
Best regards
Erik
There is some strange painterly effect going on with the IQ180, I wonder if that results from the processing applied by the back to the raw files to reduce aliasing?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I just happened to pick that one image but all the samples lead to the same conclusion for me.
Try reading the 'hassleblad' and 'carl zeiss' on the hassleblad image. Or perhaps looking at the grid of the number 20's in the bottom right of the 20 pound note example (with Delta 100 in particular) or the 'II' in EIIR on the rhs of the 20 note.
In fact, just look at the rendering of the trumpet chart. The 4x5 does have more resolution. However it has more noise and the IQ180 is very good at post processing it's clean data to reveal small details - up to a point. I think the feature that confuses things is that at the limit of the IQ180 not only does the IQ180 have more contrast, but the raw algorithm is very good at edge detection. On the other hand, when the 4x5 renders the same details it is at a lower contrast. However, the IQ180 stops at that point whereas the 4x5 carries on for a little longer. Hence why it is so difficult to make an absolute choice
Tim
-
I actually never really believed IQ-180 being superior to 8x10". In the 2006 shootout here on LL the authors found that the P45 performed on par with 4x5". 8x10" is four times the area, so if a 40 MP back matched 4x5" it would take 160MP to match 8x10" all parameters being equivalent. But parameters are not equivalent, so it was nice that Tim has shown how well large format film really could perform.
Well, the present test is more about whether the IQ180 is better than 4x5 or not, which makes sense since 4x5 is about 3 times the resolution of 6x7. I personnally never believed the claims that 39mp was as good as 4x5 resolutionwise.
Of course, stitch a few frames with an IQ180 and you go as high as you want resolutionwise so this discussion is very theoretical. In reality I guess many landscape shooters concerned about resolution will not do the economy of not equiping themselves with stitching skills.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There is some strange painterly effect going on with the IQ180, I wonder if that results from the processing applied by the back to the raw files to reduce aliasing?
I believe you are referring to the look generated by their method of up sampling the IQ180 to match the scan resolution of the 8x10. I don't suspect you would note any such effect on the image when viewed at the original 100% pixel size. (I'm not saying I think the method chosen was unfair - there are many ways to approach such a comparison and I think they've selected a perfectly fine one)
In general this test shows what I would expect and have posted many times before: the 8x10 film shows a modest advantage in absolute resolution (on subject matter within it's DR) over a single frame from an IQ180 when enormous care is taken to get the most ouf the 8x10.
In practice 8x10 is extremely difficult to get the most out of every frame, and the only advantage I see in these comparisons is in the extremely fine detail when printed/viewed large enough to view those details. The color, tonality, DR of the IQ180 all strike me as excellent in these comparisons. It should be noted this comparison is of default rendering; the raw files the IQ180 raws could be pushed around fairly significantly (color, contrast, dodge/burn, etc) and still look great.
As Bernard states you could easily overcome the modest resolution advantage of the field shots with as little as one additional IQ180 frame, especially if your desired output is wide-aspect-ratio (e.g. 16:9, 2:1 or other panoramic). A two-frame stitch on a camera like a Cambo Wide RS (static lens - moving the back only) takes less time than it takes to load a single 8x10 sheet of film.
Or give the camera to Bernard and he can take a 16-shot long-lens pan-and-stitch :-). Just be careful to get the camera back afterwards.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
One other point is affordability. With analogue the equipment is quite affordable especially if we can find used equipment. High end digital tends to be very expensive.
No getting around it: an IQ180 is a big hunk of change. An Aptus II 12 / Mamiya DM80 with the same sensor a good bit less so, though still not cheap by any stretch of the imagination.
But of course the price of an 8x10 piece of color film, processing, drum scanning is not inexpensive. No one can predict the future but it's hard to imagine those prices going down and pretty easy to imagine them going significantly higher.
Of course the weight of carrying a dozen 8x10 film holders helps keep a landscape shooter from taking too many frames even aside from the high per-frame cost. ;D
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
Always good to see what you have to say about things like this Doug. Outside of the cost being the big factor of the equipment. If you can afford it, which of course it is very expensive, nothing comes close to shooting with a Phase system. I will have to say having used nearly 8x10, 4x5, 6x7 and now the IQ180. I'm shooting nearly everything I have never been able to shoot before. As I mentioned before the choice of lenses, dynamic range, color accuracy, processing your files and the ability to stitch with precision to gain perspective of the landscape is amazing. I will always stitch, everyone should think of stitching as banquet camera approach. The ability to capture exactly what you see in any ratio of vertical to horizontal scenes is really the way to go. The added resolution is more of bi-product. The added resolution does give you the ability to see very fine detail by choosing a longer focal length lens but you have to be careful not to loose the depth of field.
I would agree the price to scan. I bought a very expensive Scitex scanner that is now retired. Because labs were very expensive. But the weight is about the same because I traded the film holder for carrying more lenses 13 of them. Nothing replaces having the best lens for the scene.
Sure its expensive, but shooting large amounts of 8x10 is also. But great comparison, but I think we are missing some points. Even at 4x5, you could make the prints larger than you can really mount anyway. So really resolution is not as much a factor. The real point is to capture amazing images in fantastic light or capture the Soul of Nature. T
-
I believe you are referring to the look generated by their method of up sampling the IQ180 to match the scan resolution of the 8x10. I don't suspect you would note any such effect on the image when viewed at the original 100% pixel size. (I'm not saying I think the method chosen was unfair - there are many ways to approach such a comparison and I think they've selected a perfectly fine one)
Probably so indeed.
As Bernard states you could easily overcome the modest resolution advantage of the field shots with as little as one additional IQ180 frame, especially if your desired output is wide-aspect-ratio (e.g. 16:9, 2:1 or other panoramic). A two-frame stitch on a camera like a Cambo Wide RS (static lens - moving the back only) takes less time than it takes to load a single 8x10 sheet of film.
Or give the camera to Bernard and he can take a 16-shot long-lens pan-and-stitch :-). Just be careful to get the camera back afterwards.
Yep, very good idea indeed. I have a short trip coming up later this week in the Japanese Northern Alps and will perform the test! As far as the camera not coming back... Mountains can be unpredictable...
Wishing a very happy year end Doug, don't work too much. :-)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have a short trip coming up later this week in the Japanese Northern Alps and will perform the test! As far as the camera not coming back... Mountains can be unpredictable...
Wishing a very happy year end Doug, don't work too much. :-)
Sounds like a great trip! I hope it's productive, safe, and enjoyable. Happy New Year to you too.
Also, I don't think I said it earlier, but thanks to the testers! Seriously. Everyone who reads a well done test like this can imagine the enormous amount of time spent on it - and even so usually underestimate that amount. It also opens you to a hundred variants of "you're test is worthless because of X Y or Z" which, after investing so much effort is hard not to take personally. This strikes me as an especially well done test (based on it's goals) and clearly took enormous effort. Thanks!
-
What I found interesting was just how well the cheap Epson scanner did. On the 8X10 at least, strange how on 4x5 it looks so awful while on the 8x10 it looks almost as good as the drum scan?
-
Hi,
Thank you very much for saying and saying it so well! I have also done some test with 67 against DSLR, and it is a lot of work.
Best regards
Erik
Also, I don't think I said it earlier, but thanks to the testers! Seriously. Everyone who reads a well done test like this can imagine the enormous amount of time spent on it - and even so usually underestimate that amount. It also opens you to a hundred variants of "you're test is worthless because of X Y or Z" which, after investing so much effort is hard not to take personally. This strikes me as an especially well done test (based on it's goals) and clearly took enormous effort. Thanks!
-
Of course, stitch a few frames with an IQ180 and you go as high as you want resolutionwise so this discussion is very theoretical. In reality I guess many landscape shooters concerned about resolution will not do the economy of not equiping themselves with stitching skills.
Absolutely, although I do stitch my 5x4 and 10x8 occasionally ..
Here's a 3 shot rotational stitch on my Ebony 45SU using Schneider 110mm SSXL
(http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/glencoe.jpg)
and a section (downsized to 2000dpi from 4000dpi)
(http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/glencoe-zoom.jpg)
And I recently stitched two 8x10's for a potential 8m x 3m print for on the UK's national parks..
(http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/sutton-larch-pano-nigel.jpg)
larger size (http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/sutton-larch-pano-nigel.jpg)
Expensive, yes. But I bought huge batches of 4x5 at 60p and sheet and 30p to develop. 8x10 has cost me about £6 a sheet plus £1.20 a sheet to develop. Plus I bought my own drum scanner for £500 which brings the cost of top notch scanning right down (you need some space and health care insurance to move it around!)
Tim
-
Absolutely, although I do stitch my 5x4 and 10x8 occasionally ..
Here's a 3 shot rotational stitch on my Ebony 45SU using Schneider 110mm SSXL
Small world, I have that same exact combo! :)
Did you use a center filter for the stitch? I didn't remember the 110 XL being that good in terms of light fall off when shifted that much.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Is it just me or that when you are uprezzing the film images, they seem so much nicer than the digital images uprezzed to the same size? The grain seems to fill in the gaps where you would expect to see more detail but where on digital you seem to hit a brick wall for detail the moment you uprez with too many blank patches of nothing. I'd never fully understood the point of adding grain in Genuine Fractals (Perfect Resize as they're now known) but now I see the point, it gives the impression, albeit false, of more detail than there actually is, but that impression is more pleasing to the eye.
-
Did you use a center filter for the stitch? I didn't remember the 110 XL being that good in terms of light fall off when shifted that much.
No center filter - the stitching software handles this quite well (ptgui) and shooting with neg film means the drop off is not an issue in terms of losing info in shadows (unlike shooting the 110 on my 8x10 camera on which even the center filter doesn't compensate enough (probably about 2.5 stops difference across the frame).
Tim
-
Is it just me or that when you are uprezzing the film images, they seem so much nicer than the digital images uprezzed to the same size? The grain seems to fill in the gaps where you would expect to see more detail but where on digital you seem to hit a brick wall for detail the moment you uprez with too many blank patches of nothing. I'd never fully understood the point of adding grain in Genuine Fractals (Perfect Resize as they're now known) but now I see the point, it gives the impression, albeit false, of more detail than there actually is, but that impression is more pleasing to the eye.
Grain can definitely make digital images look a lot better when you upsize past a certain point. A colleague is going to write an article about this in a future issue. On the Nikon lens picture I added grain to the IQ180 image to see if it makes a difference. It seems to help somewhat.
-
-- redaction --- not on Post ...
-
direct quote: "Based on current sales, KODAK PROFESSIONAL PORTRA 400NC AND 400VC products are expected to be available in the market though December 2010." NOTE the date of update of their webpage (last year)...
One has to wonder how they guessed they would have an award in 2011. :)
Apparently 400NC and 400VC are still widely available, eventhough they have been replaced by the 400.
-
Its a good test. I really appreciate the effort sharing this.
-
Hi,
Here is some great research done by Tim Parkin and enthusiastic colleagues: http://www.landscapegb.com/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
This part of the test may be most informative: http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/large.html
If you want to compare the lesser cameras the slightly downsized image may be of interest: http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html
The test here goes into greater detail than I have seen before, definitively worth reading.
My own observations:
- Tim's tests indicates that Phase One P45 pretty well matches 4x5" Velvia
- The Sony A900 is clearly superior to Mamiya 7 with Portra 400. Pity that they have not tested with Velvia.
- 8x10" beats IQ180 weather Velvia or Portra 400
This is essentially in good agreement with some previous testing that indicated P45 equalling 4x5" and 20 MP DSLRs matching 67 on Velvia.
The bridge on top of ridge is worth checking out visible on Velvia but not really on IQ180, see enclosed images!
Best regards
Erik
Film really should be run through a noise reduction package. Digital does the same thing from RAW.
-
Film really should be run through a noise reduction package. Digital does the same thing from RAW.
Noise reduction is a balancing act. Any more nr here would destroy low contrast details. However, scanning on a drum scanner with a larger aperture will help a lot. I will write an addendum about this over his holiday.
Portra areas overexposed do suffer from noise when scanned at smaller apertures. Time to play some more.
-
First of all - thanks to Tim and all others involved for this test, which - to my knowledge - is by far the most extensive and thorough comparison on the matter done until now.
Reading it (and especially Tim's Editor’s Commentary) made me realize is that, depending on how fast pixel densities will rise, the most serious limiting factor of 'small' formats will probably soon be lens quality. There is most likely no 35mm lens available that is diffraction limited by f/4 up to the corners, especially no wide angle. Situation might be a bit better for MF with lenses achieving maximum quality at f/5.6 existing but to reach up to the realm of 8x10" this would need to improve to at least f/2.8 (35mm) and f/4 (MF).
I remember Michael Reichmann citing Leica people saying their camera systems are currently not lens limited - but this could change soon. Alternatives would be stitching (obviously) and larger than MF solid state sensors (which would be prohibitively expensive). Significantly improving lens resolution OTOH will require developing new design and manufacturing techniques.
-
Hi,
I'm not really sure about lens being the limiting factor. Very clearly, this is not the case on IQ180. Even with 5x8 or 8x10 it seems to me that film may matter a lot.
I'm actually a bit confused:
- Michael Reichmann's testing has clearly showed that Canon 1DsII was superior to Velvia on Pentax 67.
- My own testing has at least indicated that 24 MP Digital (Sony Alpha 900) was competitive to Pentax 67. Digital was mostly better but not always.
- In Tim's test it seems that film on Mamiya 67 is in many aspects ahead of 20+ MP digital.
- Charly Cramer and Joseph Holmes found Phase One P45 (or P65?) to be on par width 4x5" Velvia, but it's not the case in Tim's tests.
This has clearly to do with both equipment and evaluation. Tim scans at higher resolution. Tim's testing is also more demanding, as he sets the ribbon at a very high definition scan from a 8x10". Digital images are very smooth and they are good at resolving some detail, but resolution ends abruptly at the Nyquist limit. Upscaling digital images gives a lot of ugly artifacts. High res scans may scale better due to oversampling.
Best regards
Erik
First of all - thanks to Tim and all others involved for this test, which - to my knowledge - is by far the most extensive and thorough comparison on the matter done until now.
Reading it (and especially Tim's Editor’s Commentary) made me realize is that, depending on how fast pixel densities will rise, the most serious limiting factor of 'small' formats will probably soon be lens quality. There is most likely no 35mm lens available that is diffraction limited by f/4 up to the corners, especially no wide angle. Situation might be a bit better for MF with lenses achieving maximum quality at f/5.6 existing but to reach up to the realm of 8x10" this would need to improve to at least f/2.8 (35mm) and f/4 (MF).
I remember Michael Reichmann citing Leica people saying their camera systems are currently not lens limited - but this could change soon. Alternatives would be stitching (obviously) and larger than MF solid state sensors (which would be prohibitively expensive). Significantly improving lens resolution OTOH will require developing new design and manufacturing techniques.
-
(downsized to 2000dpi from 4000dpi)
Tim are you able to upload a crop of just the house done at 4000dpi please? Thanks!
Thanks again for the fun I had reading all about the superb tests your team presented to the photo community.
-
(downsized to 2000dpi from 4000dpi)
Tim are you able to upload a crop of just the house done at 4000dpi please? Thanks!
Thanks again for the fun I had reading all about the superb tests your team presented to the photo community.
which house, which film? Most of the scans in the 'large' section are shown at 4000dpi for the 8x10. If you look at the '800px' section then all of the 4x5 in here are shown at 4000dpi
-
Sorry I thought the "house" was obvious, the one in your reply no:32
-
The test is great with a lot of useful information. I have cameras that cover the test range and my main question is when to use each type. I print at 20x30 (Costco $8.95) and larger. I know the experts on this forum will have a lot of valuable advice on this subject, so I will start of with a brief summary of how I decide what to shoot with:
1. APS-C digital: This size was not covered in the test but is important with Sony A65, A77 and Nex-7 at 24mp. I use this when I need low size and weight and/or high depth-of-field. I use the Nex with my Contax G lenses.
2. 35mm full frame DSLR: I use A900 24mp when I need versatility with speed, and a high range of focal lengths. For higher resolution I stitch.
3. MF Film: I use Mamiya 6 for shorter lenses (50mm and 75mm) and Mamiya RZ67 for longer lenses. But actually, not using this system much these days.
4. MF Digital: I use Hasselblad H3DII-39 when I want shallow depth of field, e.g. portraits. This system easily gives DOF of 2cm or less in typical head shots. With the wider lenses, this system also works for some landscapes.
5. 4x5 film: This system has the advantage of movements that can sometimes be helpful to get greater depth of field in landscapes and perspective control. But I don't use it much these days.
6. LF film: I don't have an 8x10 view camera, but have a Fuji 6 x17 camera which comes close to LF resolution in the long direction. I use this to get the "Peter Lik" look in panoramas when I want to print large, and cannot use stitching. I have been using Velvia 50 and 100, but based on this article, I am going to experiment more with negative film to exploit dynamic range.
The biggest cost issue for me is not MFDB cost or processing cost, but the cost of framing large prints! Anyway, that's where I am today, and I love the comments in this thread.
==Doug
-
as mentioned to Tim before the "test"... two paths to a digital image....
take your pick, while you can.
-
Thanks for posting this very interesting test.
How about versus 1.8 gigapixels (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16358851)? :P
-
6. LF film: I don't have an 8x10 view camera, but have a Fuji 6 x17 camera which comes close to LF resolution in the long direction. I use this to get the "Peter Lik" look in panoramas when I want to print large, and cannot use stitching. I have been using Velvia 50 and 100, but based on this article, I am going to experiment more with negative film to exploit dynamic range.
Notably Peter Lik now uses a Phase One digital back to get his "Peter Lik" look :-) We sold him his first unit.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
Noise reduction is a balancing act. Any more nr here would destroy low contrast details. However, scanning on a drum scanner with a larger aperture will help a lot. I will write an addendum about this over his holiday.
Portra areas overexposed do suffer from noise when scanned at smaller apertures. Time to play some more.
I use these settings mostly for chroma noise reduction. There is no noticeable reduction in fine detail.
Edit- look at the top left corner to see the "after" difference.
-
on your website you write about scanning 8x10 inch film:
[... This would suggest that if you don’t have access to a drum scanner, you may be better off shooting negative film? The 8×10 Portra 400 scan was hardly degraded at all however; the results showed a similar level of sharpness of that of the drum scan with very little evidence of the colour fringing and halation that flatbed scanners are renowned for (all Epson V750 scans were made at 4800dpi and down sampled to reduce noise). ...]
Did you do this also with b&w film? Did you find there similar results?
Yes we did - the black and white didn't suffer from high contrast edge flare anywhere near as much as the transparency film but it was a little worse than the neg film.
-
The test is great with a lot of useful information. I have cameras that cover the test range and my main question is when to use each type. I print at 20x30 (Costco $8.95) and larger. I know the experts on this forum will have a lot of valuable advice on this subject, so I will start of with a brief summary of how I decide what to shoot with:
1. APS-C digital: This size was not covered in the test but is important with Sony A65, A77 and Nex-7 at 24mp. I use this when I need low size and weight and/or high depth-of-field. I use the Nex with my Contax G lenses.
2. 35mm full frame DSLR: I use A900 24mp when I need versatility with speed, and a high range of focal lengths. For higher resolution I stitch.
3. MF Film: I use Mamiya 6 for shorter lenses (50mm and 75mm) and Mamiya RZ67 for longer lenses. But actually, not using this system much these days.
4. MF Digital: I use Hasselblad H3DII-39 when I want shallow depth of field, e.g. portraits. This system easily gives DOF of 2cm or less in typical head shots. With the wider lenses, this system also works for some landscapes.
5. 4x5 film: This system has the advantage of movements that can sometimes be helpful to get greater depth of field in landscapes and perspective control. But I don't use it much these days.
6. LF film: I don't have an 8x10 view camera, but have a Fuji 6 x17 camera which comes close to LF resolution in the long direction. I use this to get the "Peter Lik" look in panoramas when I want to print large, and cannot use stitching. I have been using Velvia 50 and 100, but based on this article, I am going to experiment more with negative film to exploit dynamic range.
The biggest cost issue for me is not MFDB cost or processing cost, but the cost of framing large prints! Anyway, that's where I am today, and I love the comments in this thread.
==Doug
From my experience running the test, you can blow up a 24Mp DSLR with a good lens to 20x24 and people will accept it although in a side by side with a higher res camera it will show (just). I imagine the Nex7 will be close but possibly 16x20 may be the limit. (I'll be testing this when I get rid of my 5Dmk2)
MF film is happy up to just over 20x24 and will look good up to 30x40 although grain will be showing unless treated and then it could look a bit 'plasticky' depending on NR
MFDB should be OK to 30x40 for landscapes although with Portraits I imagine you could get larger with acceptable results
LF 4x5 should be good for 50x40 or maybe larger if you accept some noise.
8x10 you could get to 60x80 and show no grain..
6x17 is interesting, I've found this produces very sharp 120's that easily exceed 4000dpi (with good technique of course) and you should get a 25x70 print from a 4000dpi scan.
Tim
-
Sorry I thought the "house" was obvious, the one in your reply no:32
There were quite a few 'houses' in the original subject of the thread (in the landscape view). Get what you mean now though - let me have a look for it..
Tim
-
Funny, when you understand the concepts behind viewing distance and human perception, print size has nothing to do with format nor the number of pixels. And when you print large, as I do, you see the underlying theory works really well. (I have made 16x20s from m4/3 cameras, which are beautiful and can go larger.)
-
As I understand the ideal viewing distance is minimum 2.5X the diagonal of the image in question.
-
Viewing distance is equal to the diagonal of the image.
-
Hi,
Viewing distance is the distance the viewer chooses to view the image, IMHO.
Norman Koren discusses the issue here: http://www.imatest.com/docs/sqf/
Best regards
Erik
Viewing distance is equal to the diagonal of the image.
-
Erik, "Standard" viewing distance is a well documented basic concept. Norman also states what he "believes" to be the best viewing distance (in relation to SQF) and your link is to a specific method of determining SQF which is a way to compare image quality for a system, not for simply judging print quality. Naturally, that does not stop folks from putting nose prints on their work. Most prints on a wall are viewed from greater than the standard. Pixel peepers look a viewing distance very much closer than standard. The standard viewing distance gives a good metric of how an image will look like for an average viewer.
But one thing is clear, print size does not change the image. Stating print specs based on personal aversions to grain or noise or whatever is nothing more than stating blue is the best color in the world. All I can say when someone say x cannot be printed larger than yXy, I have not found that to be true--I don't use anything wider than 44" roll paper, but you are going to have to do some serious explaining why an image printed 44" wide will suddenly not work when made bigger than that.
-
Hi,
Just to mention a few cases:
1) In one of the Reichmann and Schewe videos they are looking at landscape from the Antartica, a sole Penguin is an important element in the image. It's nice to walk up to the image and check the Penguin.
2) I have a pano covering perhaps 135 degrees of horizontal view, printed at 100x50 cm. If you look at that image at 1.1 meters it's beautiful, but if you look at it from close you feel like a part of the image, because field of view corresponds to angle of view in the picture.
I didn't refer to Norman's article like to an absolute norm, but he spent much effort in finding correct assumptions for Imatest.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, "Standard" viewing distance is a well documented basic concept. Norman also states what he "believes" to be the best viewing distance (in relation to SQF) and your link is to a specific method of determining SQF which is a way to compare image quality for a system, not for simply judging print quality. Naturally, that does not stop folks from putting nose prints on their work. Most prints on a wall are viewed from greater than the standard. Pixel peepers look a viewing distance very much closer than standard. The standard viewing distance gives a good metric of how an image will look like for an average viewer.
But one thing is clear, print size does not change the image. Stating print specs based on personal aversions to grain or noise or whatever is nothing more than stating blue is the best color in the world. All I can say when someone say x cannot be printed larger than yXy, I have not found that to be true--I don't use anything wider than 44" roll paper, but you are going to have to do some serious explaining why an image printed 44" wide will suddenly not work when made bigger than that.
-
From my experience running the test, you can blow up a 24Mp DSLR with a good lens to 20x24 and people will accept it although in a side by side with a higher res camera it will show (just). I imagine the Nex7 will be close but possibly 16x20 may be the limit. (I'll be testing this when I get rid of my 5Dmk2)
MF film is happy up to just over 20x24 and will look good up to 30x40 although grain will be showing unless treated and then it could look a bit 'plasticky' depending on NR
MFDB should be OK to 30x40 for landscapes although with Portraits I imagine you could get larger with acceptable results
LF 4x5 should be good for 50x40 or maybe larger if you accept some noise.
8x10 you could get to 60x80 and show no grain..
6x17 is interesting, I've found this produces very sharp 120's that easily exceed 4000dpi (with good technique of course) and you should get a 25x70 print from a 4000dpi scan.
Tim
Tim,
Thank you for this useful summary, this supports my experience with a few additional caveats.
1. All 24 Mp cameras so far are 1:1.5 format, so max size would be 20"x30" which nicely matches Costco's excellent service.
2. You're comment about medium format film being slightly better than 24Mp A900 is supported by your resolution target tests but not by the actual scenic tests in your comparator images. Getting good image quality out of MF film with scanning is not easy, and I often think I was doing better years ago with direct enlargement. But at that time 16"x20" was my maximum size. Today I use Nikon 9000ED but flatness is always an issue, and I feel I don't see film grain as well in these scans as we used to see using a grain focussing aid in the old days with direct enlargement. We could stop down the enlarging lens to reduce the issue of flatness. Recently I obtained a glass film holder for the 9000 and this may help.
3. I agree that 24 x 70 is a reasonable size for 6x17 cameras. I recently printed one at 30 x 90 but this was for mounting higher on the wall which precludes nose-pressing. Regarding cost, the cost for printing, mounting, and framing for this was $600 with most of the cost in the framing. At this cost, in hindsight, I realize that drum-scanning would have been a reasonable option.
==Doug
Edit Jan 2: I just did some scanning on Nikon 9000 with my new glass holder. At 4000dpi I can now begin to see the grain pattern in Velvia. Not so visible at 3000dpi, rather more like clumping. It seems like the 9000 can just barely begin to extract the detail from 120 Velvia if everything is pefect. I would guess that the Epson Multipro would be insufficient.
-
Erik, I think we are misunderstanding each other. There is nothing wrong with images that show more and more detail as you get closer. I don't even advocate standing at standard viewing distances if you don't want to--I guess I could put up velvet ropes when I hang stuff to keep people in their proper place, but I enjoy watching them see big prints and they do funny things. I certainly am not against detail as I enjoy it in my work and I always view other photographer's work at different distances. All I am saying is you can print as large as you want and nothing really changes, except framing cost. The idea that there is an absolute scale to print size is wrong--your print size is just one control in the presentation of the image, whether large or small. Unfortunately, this is so deeply planted into the psyche of photographers that is hard to even talk about this. Oh well, their loss. I will just keep making "miracle" prints.
Hi,
Just to mention a few cases:
1) In one of the Reichmann and Schewe videos they are looking at landscape from the Antartica, a sole Penguin is an important element in the image. It's nice to walk up to the image and check the Penguin.
2) I have a pano covering perhaps 135 degrees of horizontal view, printed at 100x50 cm. If you look at that image at 1.1 meters it's beautiful, but if you look at it from close you feel like a part of the image, because field of view corresponds to angle of view in the picture.
I didn't refer to Norman's article like to an absolute norm, but he spent much effort in finding correct assumptions for Imatest.
Best regards
Erik
-
I've printed 24X36" with my 5D2 after doing every trick (that I know) in the book to get the best IQ possible. Printed with a 7880 using Harman FbAl (a very sharp paper). They look really great. I'm sure DMF would render to some extent, superior "everything". But also I'm sure about this: Side to side, the picture with the better image content would win without any doubt.
Eduardo
From my experience running the test, you can blow up a 24Mp DSLR with a good lens to 20x24 and people will accept it although in a side by side with a higher res camera it will show (just). I imagine the Nex7 will be close but possibly 16x20 may be the limit. (I'll be testing this when I get rid of my 5Dmk2)
MF film is happy up to just over 20x24 and will look good up to 30x40 although grain will be showing unless treated and then it could look a bit 'plasticky' depending on NR
MFDB should be OK to 30x40 for landscapes although with Portraits I imagine you could get larger with acceptable results
LF 4x5 should be good for 50x40 or maybe larger if you accept some noise.
8x10 you could get to 60x80 and show no grain..
6x17 is interesting, I've found this produces very sharp 120's that easily exceed 4000dpi (with good technique of course) and you should get a 25x70 print from a 4000dpi scan.
Tim
-
"I've printed 24X36" with my 5D2...."
Yeah, that's it - looks great until you see it next to something better. It's all relative.
-
Hi,
There seems to be some consensus among some photographers that 12 MP is essentially enough. I don't really share this opinion, but mention it for a reason. I made a few comparisons between my APS-C camera with 12MP and full frame at 24. The differences in file were large but very small in print. In one case the prints were impossible to tell apart, although the files themselves were a world apart.
The other issue is that sharpening matters a lot. The image below is from an analysis I tried to do from images from Imaging Review, comparing the than new Pentax 645D with the Nikon D3X. The images are 300 PPI scans from crops corresponding to A0 prints. The images are from left Nikon D3X (landscape sharpening in LR), Nikon D3X (deconvolution sharpening) and Pentax 645D landscape sharpening. In my view the deconvoluted Nikon D3X image was sharpest in print. On the other hand, the Pentax 645D could also be more intensively sharpened. The reason I tested deconvolution on Nikon was to compensate for OLP-filtering.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/Pentax645D/A0_print_center.jpg)
For full size: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/Pentax645D/A0_print_center.jpg
The third point that my experience is that my Pentax 67 doesn't 'beat' my Sony Alpha 900. There are areas where more resolution may be tweeked out from a Velvia or Ektar 100, but in general the image quality I get from the Alpha is superior. That said, it is possible that the Pentax 67 enlarges better, but at this stage it is not very clear to me that so would be the case.
Now, we use different equipment. Tim has tested the Mamiya 7, which has very fine optics while the Pentax 67 90/2.8 is probable more like "adequate" than "excellent". My scans were mostly with a CCD-scanner at 3200 PPI (Minolta Diamge Scan Multi Pro) but I also had two 6000 PPI scans made by Dominique Ventzke (who was most helpful in every way).
A final point is that my experience is that with digital I just set up the camera and "nail" the shot. With analogue I need to do focus bracketing and scan the image to find out which to use. A microscope would help, but a 15X loupe is of little help. To this comes turnaround time from the lab, in my case > one week.
An additional observation is that Bernard actually has a good point on stitching. Many subjects are not well suited to stitching, waterfalls come to mind. On the other hand, todays stitchers are pretty good, and we can buy an automated pano head for less money than what we would pay for a decent lens.
See below:
http://www.kolor.com/buy/photo-hardware/motorized-head/kolor-panogear-motorized-panoramic-head-gigapixel-3.html
The two articles below compare the Pentax 67 with Sony Alpha 900.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900
I'd also like to add that I much appreciate Tim's article, and I don't argue with any of his findings.
Best regards
Erik
From my experience running the test, you can blow up a 24Mp DSLR with a good lens to 20x24 and people will accept it although in a side by side with a higher res camera it will show (just). I imagine the Nex7 will be close but possibly 16x20 may be the limit. (I'll be testing this when I get rid of my 5Dmk2)
MF film is happy up to just over 20x24 and will look good up to 30x40 although grain will be showing unless treated and then it could look a bit 'plasticky' depending on NR
MFDB should be OK to 30x40 for landscapes although with Portraits I imagine you could get larger with acceptable results
LF 4x5 should be good for 50x40 or maybe larger if you accept some noise.
8x10 you could get to 60x80 and show no grain..
6x17 is interesting, I've found this produces very sharp 120's that easily exceed 4000dpi (with good technique of course) and you should get a 25x70 print from a 4000dpi scan.
Tim
-
Hi,
That was exactly what the original poster wrote:
"I've printed 24X36" with my 5D2 after doing every trick (that I know) in the book to get the best IQ possible. Printed with a 7880 using Harman FbAl (a very sharp paper). They look really great. I'm sure DMF would render to some extent, superior "everything". But also I'm sure about this: Side to side, the picture with the better image content would win without any doubt."
I have printed "A2-size" from slightly cropped 6MP APS-C. It's a great image and I had it on exhibition a few times. No one complained that is was not sharp enough, but neither did they say 'Gee, that image is sharp!'. I would be happy if I had a newer camera with me on that trip, but I had not.
It is possible to print large from a small image, but it is stretch, sometimes it works sometimes it does not. One good reason to always use the best equipment we can afford. The best equipment is not always the most expensive one, a fact that Tim's images demonstrate pretty well.
Best regards
Erik
"I've printed 24X36" with my 5D2...."
Yeah, that's it - looks great until you see it next to something better. It's all relative.
-
Erik - correct, I agreed with Eduardo. Last year I made prints from my 5d2 and my p20 on the same day and the prints from the 5d2 looked flat and lifeless compared to the p20 prints. And I'll add that recently I reprinted several large prints I made about 5 years ago with a epson 7600 with my new HP Z3200. Definitely the improvements in printers and papers really shows: The new print from the same file was significantly better. What I'm saying is that even though the printer is the weak link now and masks differences in files from different cameras, you can't count on that being true in the future.
-
Tim,
Your comparison is excellent and must be the most in-depth, truthful and correct evaluation of digital and film ever made. Most others and in forums tend to go blind and exaggerate digital merits.
Per my own experience, if there is something to emphasize it is with digital first with latest 80MP backs from Leaf and Phase One that the colors and fine gradation of colors have reached the levels of quality slide films. When stepping to digital I went through substandard Nikon dslrs and Mamiya ZD, then an excellent 28MP Leaf back but was unable to let go of shooting Velvia 50 side by side due to the color and rendering for landscapes. This kept me shooting 35mm, then 6x7 and some 4x5 and 617. Upgrading to the latest 80MP Leaf back last summer made me drop film completely, including prematurely also 4x5. Similar to your conclusion for the IQ180 it is not first the pixels that impress (although they are appreciated) but the excellent colors, finer gradation of colors, improved shadow response and wide DR. The 80MP Leaf and Phase One backs share same sensor from Dalsa but with differing implementation (Leaf cheaper due no wiz iPhone interface). Selling nearly all of five camera systems more than financed my upgrade and it is interesting what one gather and such can bring. Additionally should be mentioned that Capture One stands out as a high quality RAW converter which functions more photographic like my brain (there is no need for Photoshop).
Important is not only the media, digital or film, but the seeing and visualizing using/for a camera. A viewfinder, groundglass, waist level finder do influence greatly how we see, perceive and work an image. And manual lends to a more planned and thoughtful approach. Else the choice of media digital vs. film is mere individual. Indeed I very much admire Joes and your work. It is fortunate that in UK you can buy large format film and have quality labs, whereas in many places worldwide it is nowadays impossible to keep up.
Lastly, it would have been wishful to have read your comparison around ten years ago since it would have helped towards wiser choices and $$$ savings. Regretful, since the event of digital the industry is in madness exaggeratedly selling us on GEAR including also websites such as Lu-La and all forums that emphasize latest gear rather than photography. The website by Joe Cornish and yourself seem revolutionary since it contrary appear to be about landscape photography and art. I have happily signed up, thank you!
Please keep it up!
Best regards,
Anders
Leaf AFi-II 12 on Hy6 (also Shen-Hao 4x5 without film ;D)
-
The new 36MP D800 might then push MFDB in a very tight corner!
-
Hi,
I don't think so. Canon and Sony had 20+ MP backs for long. 36 MP will not be a great improvement over 24 MP. For Nikon owners the D800 will be great news, as it will be an affordable alternative to present day D3X. The 16 MP APS-C sensors of today exactly correspond to a 36 MP FF sensor. So we can use a 16 MP APS-C sensor to predict the performance of the coming 36 MP sensors. I tried to do this here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/60-what-about-36mp-dslrs . The difference is a quible.
A larger sensor will still have two basic advantages. It is larger and will therefore collect more photons and it will also have higher MTF for a given feature size.
On the other hand, DSLRs today are probably good enough for most needs and that certainly affects the MFDB market.
Finally, MFDBs have the advantage of flexibility, you can use them with technical cameras, optical bench cameras and so on.
Best regards
Erik
The new 36MP D800 might then push MFDB in a very tight corner!
-
36MP lets you print Super B (13"x19") at 360DPI off one shot with a border. That is a significant step.
-
36MP lets you print Super B (13"x19") at 360DPI off one shot with a border. That is a significant step.
360DPI is just a number. Comparing visual end-results (like Erik tries) is more relevant than comparing numbers, I think.
-h
-
36MP lets you print Super B (13"x19") at 360DPI off one shot with a border. That is a significant step.
I can print 16x20 with my 12MP E-P1. I am glad I did not get all those pixels if I have to print smaller. ;)
-
The new 36MP D800 might then push MFDB in a very tight corner!
I can print 16x20 with my 12MP E-P1. I am glad I did not get all those pixels if I have to print smaller. ;)
Early high end backs such as Leaf Volar had 6MP... It is not as if iPhones have overtaken that market, or is it??
Attached is a 4.7MP crop from 80MP Leaf AFi-II 12 file, shot with an 80mm Xenotar lens and processed in Capture One. To get 80MP with same crop would have taken a 330mm lens, which I do not have. The image quality of the crop is better than from my iPhone... From an amateur shoot arranged by Poco.cn in Shanghai. For this frame I simply liked the cropped pose but not remaining pose of the model. For landscapes the pixels see different use by aid of a solid tripod... for more refined detail and/or larger prints.
4.7MP crop for download here http://www.yousendit.com/download/T2djeFlheFhubHg3czlVag
Film would have given a different rendering. In the end what we shoot with is mere a tool.
Best regards,
Anders
-
But wouldn't the D800 without an AA filter be better?
-
But wouldn't the D800 without an AA filter be better?
If you are more happy with it as a tool, buy it when comes out. Choice of tool is individual.
-
Hi,
In short no. It will have artifacts that may be interpreted as better resolution, but you can achieve the same impression of sharpness with some more sharpening using small radius (< 1) and high amount.
The SLT55 I have has a very weak AA filtering and it shows a lot of Moiré in my test shots. In real life much less.
There is a reason they have an AA filter in DSLRs, it's actually quite expensive. The only MFDB having it was the Mamiya ZD and I that costs 2894 USD at B&H right now.
Stopping down beyond f/11 on 6 micron sensors will by large eliminate color Moiré, but that will also reduce sharpness.
Best regards
Erik
But wouldn't the D800 without an AA filter be better?
-
...you can achieve the same impression of sharpness with some more sharpening using small radius (< 1) and high amount.
Also in high-noise conditions?
-h
-
360DPI is just a number. Comparing visual end-results (like Erik tries) is more relevant than comparing numbers, I think.
-h
360dpi (and up) is about the detail density that a person can get very close to an image with it still looking sharp. That gives an impression of quality to the buyer. Most people would not buy a larger blocky image. Even if you are supposed to step back to take it all in, people feel reassured in the quality when detail is there as far as they can see it.
-
36MP lets you print Super B (13"x19") at 360DPI off one shot with a border. That is a significant step.
360DPI is just a number. Comparing visual end-results (like Erik tries) is more relevant than comparing numbers, I think.
360dpi (and up) is about the detail density that a person can get very close to an image with it still looking sharp. That gives an impression of quality to the buyer. Most people would not buy a larger blocky image. Even if you are supposed to step back to take it all in, people feel reassured in the quality when detail is there as far as they can see it.
"360dpi" and "36MP" are still only numbers. Numbers with somewhat vague definitions and implications for subjective impressions. Hands-on inspection beats numbers any time.
Subjective sharpness is (at least) affected by:
-Image size/distance
-Print/display technology
-Scaling
-Postprocessing (esp sharpening)
-Camera anti-aliasing filter
-Camera shake
-Scene