Test shots to compare the D800E, 6x7 scan, digital 645?

[RobertJ]

Hey Tim,
Was this shot done with 8x10 or 4x5? http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1548/7964/original.jpg

[ErikKaffehr]

This was shot with a Pentax 67 on Provia in 2002:

http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Sextener-Dolomiten/i-XbwTpPm/0/O/20021228-DreiZinnen_2002_a19.jpg

While this was shot with a Sony Alpha 99 SLT (24 MP) 2014:
http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Dolomites2014/i-NWcHL7L/0/O/20130821-_DSC2779.jpg

I have made 70x100 cm prints from both and they are quite similar.

Best regards
Erik

[MarkL]

With film the best option for me was a cheapo flatbed scanner to proof images and then send out for scanning on a imacon.

I’m confused why you separate high end MF backs and 645. Only the really high end backs are 645, most are smaller.

I also don’t understand why you are concerned with losing shadow detail with a D800E. Is has arguably the biggest DR of any digital camera. Having used 6x7 and 4x5 I will say the output from the D800E surpasses 6x7 easily and also 4x5. If you are using exotic b&w copy film, and esoteric developers and an amazing lens I’m sure 4x5 will beat it but only then.

[Petrus]

With DR approaching 14 stops, the limiting factor starts to be lens flare and internal reflections leaking into the shadows , not sensor or film dynamic range.

[Dan Wells]

The DR on "normal" film scanners is nowhere near 14 stops! To my eye (and tests I've seen), it's 7 or 8, about the same as very good digital cameras from the SAME ERA as the scanner (I used the Nikons for years). Remember that those Nikon scanners are > 10 year old designs - released well before DSLRs like the D200 and the ORIGINAL 5D. They haven't been made in 4 or 5 years, and that was after extraordinarily long lives on the market. In addition to their dynamic range, their color also resembles early DSLR color - it needs a lot of correction, in my experience (their resolution is better than DSLRs of that era).
       The A7r (D810 should be very similar or even a bit better) beats any sort of medium format, but NOT a 4x5 drum scan. The new ~50 MP sensors should be darned close to 4x5 if they live up to their promise, because the 36 MP group already beat 6x9 by a noticeable margin. In many ways, I'd say the D3x was already at 6x9 cm film quality, and the 36 MP crowd are halfway between there and 4x5 (which, remember, is ~9x12 cm). If so, a really good ~50 MP sensor should be right at 4x5 resolution. I've only seen a few drum scans, and have never seen full-resolution Imacon output, but my recollection of drum scans from 4x5 is that, with a good piece of film and a good operator, they have 11-12 stops of really usable DR, which is a fair estimate of a modern Sony sensor, too (those sensors are EXCELLENT, but I don't quite believe DxO's 13+ stop number)!
       The highest resolution MF sensors may well be better still, but how large is your PRINTER?!? I routinely make truly excellent 24x36" prints from the A7r on my Epson 7900. I'll buy an A9 if it's anything like the rumors, but more for the build quality and the focusing system than for the resolution - the only time I'll need the resolution is for cropped panoramas (I occasionally print 24x60" panoramas from A7r files, which look great from a normal viewing distance, but begin to fall apart in the finest details if you look really closely). Anything beyond 36 mp will need either a 44" printer or cropping to need the full resolution.
Dan

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My experience is:

Velvia 67 scanned on Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro is a dead ringer for 24 MP on a Sony Alpha 99 when printed at 70x100 cm. But, the Sony image is a pleasure to work with and the scanned image is a PITA.

Ektar 100 is hard to scan on Minolta DSMP, as density range is quite high. Colour shifts may occur.

T-MAX 100/120may outresolve both 24 MP on Sony and 39 MP on Phase One P45+, but is very grainy.

I am testing Adox CMS right now, will report back when I have results.

Best regards
Erik

The DR on "normal" film scanners is nowhere near 14 stops! To my eye (and tests I've seen), it's 7 or 8, about the same as very good digital cameras from the SAME ERA as the scanner (I used the Nikons for years). Remember that those Nikon scanners are > 10 year old designs - released well before DSLRs like the D200 and the ORIGINAL 5D. They haven't been made in 4 or 5 years, and that was after extraordinarily long lives on the market. In addition to their dynamic range, their color also resembles early DSLR color - it needs a lot of correction, in my experience (their resolution is better than DSLRs of that era).
       The A7r (D810 should be very similar or even a bit better) beats any sort of medium format, but NOT a 4x5 drum scan. The new ~50 MP sensors should be darned close to 4x5 if they live up to their promise, because the 36 MP group already beat 6x9 by a noticeable margin. In many ways, I'd say the D3x was already at 6x9 cm film quality, and the 36 MP crowd are halfway between there and 4x5 (which, remember, is ~9x12 cm). If so, a really good ~50 MP sensor should be right at 4x5 resolution. I've only seen a few drum scans, and have never seen full-resolution Imacon output, but my recollection of drum scans from 4x5 is that, with a good piece of film and a good operator, they have 11-12 stops of really usable DR, which is a fair estimate of a modern Sony sensor, too (those sensors are EXCELLENT, but I don't quite believe DxO's 13+ stop number)!
       The highest resolution MF sensors may well be better still, but how large is your PRINTER?!? I routinely make truly excellent 24x36" prints from the A7r on my Epson 7900. I'll buy an A9 if it's anything like the rumors, but more for the build quality and the focusing system than for the resolution - the only time I'll need the resolution is for cropped panoramas (I occasionally print 24x60" panoramas from A7r files, which look great from a normal viewing distance, but begin to fall apart in the finest details if you look really closely). Anything beyond 36 mp will need either a 44" printer or cropping to need the full resolution.
Dan

[MarkL]

Another interesting comparison: https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

With b&w copy film and the very best lenses in the format film can beat out high res digital cameras in raw resolving of test charts but the grain gets particularly obtrustive while the clean digital files upres much much better. Then there is the question of how you get this to print: microscopes and super high res drum scans are fine (at £50 a go and to avoid grain aliasing) are impossible or impractical. Even imacons only scan at low res for larger formats. Personal opinion but large 6x7 prints at exhibition look pretty ugly next to the same sized 24 and 36mp prints.

I'm not sure why you are so hung up on corner sharpness in 135 format when you have zeiss otus lenses and even to some extent Sigma (50 and 35mm lenses). The only real standout lenses for mf film are the Mamiya 7 and very high performing 4x5 options are limited.

[Petrus]

4x5 (which, remember, is ~9x12 cm).

4x5 is 4"x5", and 9x12 is 9cm x 12cm. Two different sizes. US and Europe...