Hi,
Some reflections...
When the 39 MP MFD sensors arrived back in 2006 a lot of 4"x5" shooters switched from film to digital. Michael Reichmann, Charlie Cramer and Bill Atkinson did a comparison between film, up to to 4"x5" at that time. There was some critique that they scanned 4"x5" at 2000 PPI.
My guess is that the 2000 PPI was enough for what they were doing. It is possible to scan higher PPI but file size may increase more than quality.
The great attraction of digital may be that the images can be virtually noise free and may be very tolerant of post processing.
My normal print size is 16"x23" inch. It is the largest print size for desktop printers using cut sheet paper and works very nice with 50x70 cm frames ( 19" x 29" ). Personally, I have found that 12 MP are quiet enough for prints at that size, but that is based on my perception and eye sight. That said, I was perplexed how small difference there was between 12 MP APS-C and 24 MP full frame at 16"x23" print size.
Since than I have moved up to 39 MP on MFD and 42 MP on 24x36 mm. I would not say I felt there was an advantage of 39 MP MFD compared to 24 MP full frame at my standard print size, viewed with the naked eye. Viewing with a 5X loupe the MFD advantage was very apparent.
Jim Kasson did a lot of evaluation on the Fuji GFX, comparing it to his other system that is a Sony A7rII. The GFX was much better in measurable image quality, but he found that measurable advantage was not visible in prints 15" high.
Going 30" height, there was a significant difference:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/gfx-vs-a7rii-visibility-of-improved-iq/Jim has indicated that he has analysed those images looking very closely.
Once I got to 42 MP on my A7rII, I have not done a lot of comparisons between the A7rII and the P45+. What I have seen is that the A7rII can match and surpass the 10 year old P45+ with Hasselblad V-series lenses.
But, I have also found that a decent viewing distance can negate resolution advantages. The Hasselblad Distagons I have are not so great of axis. For instance, my Distagon 40/4 CF on the P45+ is no match for the Canon 16-35/4L zoom on the A7rII. If I make a 33"x47" print with both systems the A7rII just smokes the P45+/Distagon combo. But, increase viewing distance to three feet and the weakness of the Distagon disappears.
I would also say that it is very hard to make best use of the high resolution of today's sensors. We need a dead on precise focus and a flat subject. Going outside the optimum other factors like 'CoC' and diffraction will play a significant role.
So, my best suggestion would be to get the best sensor and the best lenses you can afford. To make best use of them you need to do everything absolutely right.
A steady tripod, mirror lock up and accurate focusing at 1:1 magnification in live view may be a decent starting point…
Best regards
Erik
I know its crazy. I've shot 8x10 and XP100 Phase One, a lot. I own an 8x10 and I want to buy a digital to be able to travel without carrying all that stuff with me, to avoid x-ray scanning, to avoid all risks of travelling with film.
I've tried the GFX50S and X1D, I am not sure, can someone help me on telling me where they differs from a 645Z as image quality? Is it the very same sensor? I had a better feeling with Fuji, "faster" than Hassy.
Will they represent a real substitute of film? Will a human eye tell the difference on a 16x20' print and lower size, between the film and digital?
If we pick a 100 of us, with 2 print, left print 16x20 from GFX50S and right print from 4x5, will a lot of us get what is what exactly?
Its very hard for me to jump to digital, not sure why, changes fast, years ago people were amazed by P21, now we almost have in our phone, and still I can recall pros telling me that P21 file were so much more detailed than a 4x5 drum scan, now we will laugh about such a sentence.
Now some says that a drum scan of a 35mm film will need a Phase One 150MP (coming up soon with an X1D/like camera?).
So where is the truth?
What should I buy in order not to spend 2000$ on each shoot with film and still have a comparable image quality to a human eye?
I know it goes personal, for instance in my case I found a drum scan of a medium format film negative to be more pleasing than a XP100MP file.
But anything digital that is comparable to a 645 film or 67 film and that won't cost 50k and maybe around 20k?
Is a IQ180 a good solution?
thank you for your help!