MF Digital, DSLR and file quality

[teddillard]

A while back I ran a test.  

I had a friend, back in the day, talking about making prints for clients from 4x5 and 120 film.  He had his own in-house lab and was trying to get away from luggin the ol' view camera around.  He made 2 8x10 prints and his comment was the print from the 4x5 just looked better, in almost an indescribable way.  I did the same test with digital camera files.  

I shot with the big Canon, (MKII, I think), a 22MP single-shot and a 22MP Multi-shot, and instead of what I usually do, which was make the most enormous print I could, I just made the best print possible at around 16x20 (figuring "what commercial job goes any bigger than this?).

The difference was really amazing. Think back to your film days and imagine the same photo from a 35mm, 120 and 4x5 printed at 16x20 and that was pretty much the result.  

I'm throwing this out there to see what people think.  I'm sure there are guys out there who shoot both, depending on the job, and I'm also convinced that the "common" DSLR chips and processing are getting even closer.  There's another thread going on about the cost of MDFB, and for my two cents I doubt very much that you're going to see the big chips drop in price much, but what I do think is realistic is to see the DSLR difference becoming closer and closer to the "bottom end" of MFD.  

My predictions, FWIW are that we're going to see the big-chips concentrating on the high-end machines, the "full-frame" 645 and completely integrated systems, rather than continuing to get hammered by DSLRs.  Shooting speed and noise at higher ISO are simply two things that the big chips cannot deal with as well as DSLRs, from a simple physics perspective, and the "35mm" DSLRs just can't compete with the resolution, pixel quality and bit-depth of a "645" chip...  

...but how good a file do we need?  

8x10 is certainly a higher quality piece of film than 4x5, but I don't know any commercial studio that shot 8x10 past the mid-'80s...

[Graham Mitchell]

He made 2 8x10 prints and his comment was the print from the 4x5 just looked better, in almost an indescribable way.

Isn't the test a bit meaningless if you use different lenses for the different formats? It's as much a test of lenses.

...but how good a file do we need? 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220980\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Everyone will have a different answer. For me personally, 30MP would be optimum but I would like them in a full 645 size chip with large pixels.

[revaaron]

the difference is DOF.

[teddillard]

Isn't the test a bit meaningless if you use different lenses for the different formats? It's as much a test of lenses.
Everyone will have a different answer. For me personally, 30MP would be optimum but I would like them in a full 645 size chip with large pixels.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220989\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The lenses didn't have much bearing on it...  That was the interesting thing, actually, they were sharp, and great clarity of color, but it was the "depth" of the data, for lack of a better way to describe it. But for the record, I used the best lenses available, I was working for a photo dealer and could use anything on the shelf.

Yeah, I know, those different answers are what I want to hear.

[teddillard]

the difference is DOF.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220992\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interesting...  so it's more about the platform, the machine, and the physical area of the chip than the file quality?  

This is a completely valid point.  You shoot with the camera that fulfills your vision.  (I got a friend who still shoots the 8x10 because that's how he sees...)

[Lust4Life]

FWIW, I ran the following test:
Given:
Own film processor (PhotoTherm) tweaked
4x5 with Schneider/Rodenstock lenses
Hasselblad 503cw with 100mm CFI T*
Fuji Acros film and Fuji color
My own Howtek Hi-Resolve 8000 line drum scanner

Verse Hasselblad 503cw with 100mm CFI T* AND Phase One P45, before the release of the P45+.

Results:
With the advent of the P45, I was able to equal what I could get from my best scans from film shot on the 4x5 Ebony and beat the 503cw/100mm CFi T*.

On dynamic range, I was actually able to beat the film results from the 4x5!

Then tested against the Canon 1DsMkII with several of the best Canon lenses - Canon failed miserably - I think it was more a case of poor glass rather than a poor sensor, but still it could not compare to the Phase One P45 results.

Thus, I bought the Phase One and sold off all film gear.  Eventually sold 503cw and bought into the H1 then H2 line - glass was not as good in my mind as the older Hassie glass (100mm CFI, etc.)  Recently sold all and now looking for best direction to go.  Will wait for all PhotoKina announcements to come out before picking my new direction.  (Do landscape work primarily.)

However, MFD is a very expensive venture for any chap that does not have a substantial revenue stream from his photo work, which is my case.  Photography is an obsession rather than profession, but the cost of entry compounded with the rapid depreciation is a serious drain on finances!

Jack

[Snook]

FWIW, I ran the following test:
Given:
Own film processor (PhotoTherm) tweaked
4x5 with Schneider/Rodenstock lenses
Hasselblad 503cw with 100mm CFI T*
Fuji Acros film and Fuji color
My own Howtek Hi-Resolve 8000 line drum scanner

Verse Hasselblad 503cw with 100mm CFI T* AND Phase One P45, before the release of the P45+.

Results:
With the advent of the P45, I was able to equal what I could get from my best scans from film shot on the 4x5 Ebony and beat the 503cw/100mm CFi T*.

On dynamic range, I was actually able to beat the film results from the 4x5!

Then tested against the Canon 1DsMkII with several of the best Canon lenses - Canon failed miserably - I think it was more a case of poor glass rather than a poor sensor, but still it could not compare to the Phase One P45 results.

Thus, I bought the Phase One and sold off all film gear.  Eventually sold 503cw and bought into the H1 then H2 line - glass was not as good in my mind as the older Hassie glass (100mm CFI, etc.)  Recently sold all and now looking for best direction to go.  Will wait for all PhotoKina announcements to come out before picking my new direction.  (Do landscape work primarily.)

However, MFD is a very expensive venture for any chap that does not have a substantial revenue stream from his photo work, which is my case.  Photography is an obsession rather than profession, but the cost of entry compounded with the rapid depreciation is a serious drain on finances!

Jack
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220996\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

With more and more of my clients going to web for selling... I might have to jump ship here soon and just shoot with a 5D...:+}
Snook

[Graham Mitchell]

the difference is DOF.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220992\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's impossible to say that without knowing the respective apertures used!

[Lust4Life]

From my tests, the Phase MFDB gives me the best results at f8/f11.
Now stopping down beyond that range does produce a reduced quality image, per my experience, though I'll get more DOF in the absolute sense.

Thus, to my mind the test/comparisons should be done at f8/f11.

Now, I've recently completed test with a Cambo WDS and Schneider 35mm Digitar and confirmed that the DOF was outstanding as promised by a Tech Camera - so close to what I'd get with the 4x5 I used to shoot.  Sure, in some situations I could extract a hair more DOF with a 4x5 by dropping the lens tilt, but so little more that it's a question whether it's worth it.

Now, I'll admit the new Sinar arTec is seductive, but the cost difference between the new Cambo WRS1000 with a Schneider Digitar lens and the arTec with the same is dramatic.  Then plug in the fact that you do not have the 39MP of the Phase back, at least no gaurantees they'll be a mounting plate for the P1 back, it seems hard to me to justify spending the extra for the Sinar.

It's impossible to say that without knowing the respective apertures used!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221007\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[woof75]

It just doesn't matter about DOF and lenses, you can see whats sharpness, whats depth of field and whether it's attributable to lenses, a good eye can see that, I personally shoot f11 with a wide lens always so every-things sharp, still, depth of data is a great way of putting it, the MF files are thicker somehow. It's funny but no amount of pixel peeping will show you this vital thing, you have to make prints and respond to prints rather than putting your nose to a monitor. Saying this, I do still use a canon and a back and I do have my preferences but there is no doubt about it they are different and you do need to choose which one is for you.