Hi
It is not surprising to me that there are a lot of comments and emotions coming upon this article.
First of all it was not my goal to see which system does a better job! Both systems have their qualities and there has been a lot written here which I would not like to add once again. However I have a problem if I hear that digital should be used for commercial jobs only and analogue for personal/art work. The reason for art should not be how it was made but how it looks and what it tells you.
In our workshops I quite often get the feeling that people do not know how to manage their digital files because they have too many possibilities. Interestingly the image is already there - in the contrary to a scan from a negative - but this seems to be more embarrassing for "seeing" the final image in your mind as if everything is still open.
As we all know, people tend to get over sharpen and over saturate digital images - possibly because they can get a crispness now they did not have with film. However the contrary is possible: you can get the same smoothness as you have had with film when working on digital files - but he process is delicate. I am sure you agree that it is easier to loose detail than getting details out of nothing...
If you prepare and print your own images, you have a huge amount of possibilities. If you print your images on uncoated or self coated rag paper there is a lot of smoothness you can bring in. Or try printing with carbon pigment inks on glossy or rag paper - and you will get stunning results if the files are good. However out of the box digital has a clean look - and black and white is even more difficult.
I do not want to enter in these topics much deeper but just want to mention that we will rescan the negatives and see if there is more to be seen within them - and the results will be made public again.
I reply to this post because there are some issues/open questions I would like to make clear. Anyhow: first I wanted to publish an article on my experience with IQ180 but Michael asked me to include a comparison with 8x10"...
Focussing:
I have stopped using AF with wide angles and long tele lenses since it is never as precise as using live view. This is probably due to the fact that you never really know where the focus spot is for the DF camera - or you might want to choose a different one in the foreground. It does not work - as I have experienced tilting down the camera, use AF lock and swing up again for your shot - don't ask my why but for me it does not work. With the 55 mm AF is ok at distances between 3 and 10 m. If you have an image as we took for the comparison or even with a horizon at infinity you can be quite sure that the objects far away will not be in focus. This has been confirmed by a colleague of mine using the 55 mm on the DF camera with the IQ180 in the Swiss alps.
Focussing a tele lens for me is easier because you have less elements in your image. Look through a DF's finder with a 28 or 40 mm and you think that everything is sharp. Click on the AF button and the camera does something. You will see if the image is sharp when you check the image thereafter. I have tried using a 3x magnifier by Brightscreen but it did not help with wideangles. It helps with the 250 mm SA however.
On the Alpa I have shimmed it to infinity for the 28 mm - and use live view now for all lenses since even the new screen is too coarse for checking sharpness precise enough.
As for checking focus on the IQ screen of course you are at pixel level with 100 % - however it is the same as focussing in the viewfinder: less elements in a 110 mm shot with clearer details (e.g. details within leaves).
Sharpness does - unfortunately - not only have to do with focussing only. It also has to do with vibration. And this is a huge handycap with the DF camera. The shutter allows me to use the 250 mm lens at shutter speeds of 1/200 and shorter. Others have seen the same with the 300 mm Mamiya lens or even with the 150 mm Phase/Mamiya lens. Even the 55 mm leafshutter lens suffers vibration at longer exposure time (1/30 and longer). No need to say that I am using mirror up with a delay of 4 secs!
This all becomes visible with higher resolution. There was a big jump from the P45 to the P65+ - and now again to the IQ180.
The reason for using f16 on the 55 mm and the 110 lens was to get the same visible (!) depth of field as we had with f32 on film. We are not talking about numbers here. I did all shots with f-stops from f5.6 to f22 - and chose the "right" ones on my computer. There is of course more absolute sharpness in f8 or f11 - with the 55 mm f14 sometimes is still quite good - bit this f-stop does not exist on the Schneider lens.
As for film resolution: if you would use a technical film with a high resolution lens - there could be quite a lot more information than what we see here - but this is hypothetical for field use. And I am talking about the field/everyday use!
As for the dynamic range, colors and noise - exposure to the right - I am talking about the correct exposure when compared to a DSLR. Good DSLRs RAW files (whatever that is
) taken with a CMOS are IMHO easier to handle when underexposed. Or to say it in other words: I see more troubles opening shadows and recovering colors with the IQ180 or the P65+ than with a 5D Mk II.
However at ISO35 with good exposure the dynamic range of a IQ180 is huge and the noise is virtually not existing. I apply no noise reduction at all in Capture One. Quite often, mainly with fog, it makes sense using the "linear response" since "film gradation" closes shadows too much.
So another 5 cents from me - I am glad if at least some of you appreciate my article
Markus
I have not yet read any of the previous posts as I was busy writing this post. Apologies if some have already addressed the points I make here.
This is a commentary on the recent article by Markus Zuber, published on Luminous Landscape. If you haven’t read it yet : http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/iq180_vs_8x10.shtml
Marks statement “ Knowing well that the AF does not really serve well at least with the 55” has me wondering if his generalization means I’ve missed out on some commonly known wisdom. I happen to own the 55, 80 and 110 Schneiders and they focus spot-on in AF. I have a few friends who have no focus problems with their 55’s in AF mode.
A word of caution about diffraction. MF tech cam lenses of recent design are optimised for use at much larger apertures than conventional wisdom suggests. This is compounded by pixel-level diffraction increasing as pixel sizes get smaller. My 23HR digaron for example, is noticeably softer at f16 than at f8 on my IQ180. The difference was not as obvious on my P65+ which has slightly larger pixels. However, this lens is so good, I am happy shooting at f5.6, provided I can focus accurately.
“The film could easily reveal more details, if they would be projected to it’s surface”.
“Film could easily reveal more details”.
“As we have seen with all Phase One backs, it is very important to get as much to the right as possible (I assume Markus means on the histogram). Underexposed images suffer from noise and bad colours”.
I fail to understand how the screen in the IQ displays an image from a 110mm lens any differently from a 28mm. It’s displaying the same proportion of both images at whatever percentage of magnification you’ve chosen. It’s value as a focus checking device seems to me to be identical whatever lens I attach.
A big thank you to Markus for taking the time not only to run these tests, but also for taking the time to document and share it with us all.
With respect,
