8x10/MFDB Comparison

[archivue]

To the OP:

The best 8x10 lens will generate maybe 30 LP/mm at the corners -- if you're lucky -- and closer to 50 in the center.  

apo sironar S 240 and up, are better than that !

[JonathanBenoit]

I sure learned my lesson on this one.
I apologize to the OP for the direction that the topic was taken.

[Dick Roadnight]

Another issue is the quality of scans... 8x10 drum scans are extremely expensive (and slow).

I think that to be fair to film, we should be thinking of comparing analog wet prints from 10 * 8" sheet film to digital prints from MF digital cameras... but not many people wet print now, do they?   

[Doug Peterson]

we're supposed to ignore DXOMark, despite the fact they they publish their methodology?

I wouldn't ignore DXOMark one bit. They have a specific methodology that gives you some useful information.

However, their approach also leaves out several critical components of the process a real-world photographer uses in the course of making a real-world image. A great example would be the impact of using raw processing software which was developed in-house by the same company that makes the hardware and firmware and the central goal of which is to squeeze every bit of data out of the raw file and present it in the most photographically pleasing way possible.

The best method continues to be (for those who are both interested and financially able to consider MF) to go shoot pictures with each system in a variety of situations that you would actually shoot for your work/pleasure and then see what you're able to get out of the files. Learning enough about each system to get the most out each (where to place exposure, what software to convert the files with which settings etc) is a not-small part of this and a dealer can help in this regard.

Here's a hint though: I've never once heard one of our customers complain the files they got from the digital back were less pliable/flexible than the files from their dSLR. Never.

[font="Arial"]Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work
[/font]

[feppe]

I wouldn't ignore DXOMark one bit. They have a specific methodology that gives you some useful information.

However, their approach also leaves out several critical components of the process a real-world photographer uses in the course of making a real-world image. A great example would be the impact of using raw processing software which was developed in-house by the same company that makes the hardware and firmware and the central goal of which is to squeeze every bit of data out of the raw file and present it in the most photographically pleasing way possible.

The best method continues to be (for those who are both interested and financially able to consider MF) to go shoot pictures with each system in a variety of situations that you would actually shoot for your work/pleasure and then see what you're able to get out of the files. Learning enough about each system to get the most out each (where to place exposure, what software to convert the files with which settings etc) is a not-small part of this and a dealer can help in this regard.

Here's a hint though: I've never once heard one of our customers complain the files they got from the digital back were less pliable/flexible than the files from their dSLR. Never.

[font="Arial"]Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)

Good and valid points which have been put forward by you and others many times over. The problem I and many others have is that nobody seems to have well-documented and verifiable data to support claims of significantly higher DR of MFDBs, let alone the ill-defined and subjective areas of IQ MFDBs supposedly excel at, such as micro-contrast, tonality and tolerance to extreme post-processing. Having these same unsupported claims pop up on technical threads is not helpful.

Even then I am sure that MFDBs are better in almost all areas of IQ - the question is how much, and what is the ROI on MFDB vs. high-end DSLR. And I believe that was the point of the OP.

In the end I've always been fond of your approach: let the prospective buyer convince themselves. If someone can get significantly better IQ from a camera they're not used to (MFDB) compared to a DSLR system they've been working with for years, it's a testament to the IQ of MFDBs, no matter what the numbers say.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I had some very careful look at a couple of images from a Leica S2 and a Nikon D3X taken by Lloyd Chambers. Those images were taken with considerable care. My main interest was Aliasing and Moiré with the S3 lacking OLP filter (AA-filter) while the Nikon having one. I also checked into dynamic range, by "lifting" shadow detail.

The Leica S2 image obviously has better resolution, due to larger sensor and probably a better lens. The Nikon images require more sharpening.

My findings are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/38-observations-on-leica-s2-raw-images

There were a couple of discussions based on that article:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=44978.0

But also this one: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=45038.msg377924

Regarding the deconvolution issue it was started by Bart van der Wolf (I hope it's right?). Lloyd Chambers added a discussion of deconvolution initiated by Bart's recommendations. We than discovered that LR3/ACR 6.2 also has deconvolution. It works, but your mileage may vary.

We also had some reasoning about possible reasons for the perceived difference in MFDBs and DSLRs and Bart came up with the idea that MF having higher MTF may be a part of the explanation. MF will have higher MTF for a given feature size if all other factors are kept constant. Another factor we discussed was that lens/system flare is an area where MF may have an advantage. Some of this discussion may relate to Mark Dubovoy's comment on MFDB's having significantly more DR than DSLR "with full texture".

Fine texture is much affected by MTF at feature size. As MFDBs would have a larger feature size they would have a significant advantage regarding MTF. Also, some of the lenses available are very good.

Both of those discussion were good and civilized.

Best regards
Erik

[Jack Flesher]

apo sironar S 240 and up, are better than that !

Show me a verified test target (like USAF or similar) captured on 8x10 film (any kind) with an APO Sironar S of your choice that confirms corner to corner better than 30 lp's and a center better than 50 on all axis and all color channels, and I will gladly concede the point.  The best 8x10 lens I ever owned was a 450 APO Ronar and it basically met those specs.    

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would suggest that properly scanned film is sharper that what is possible by the wet process. Mostly because we can apply sharpening at different stages in the process.

There may be cases where the wet process can outperform scanned film, like using the very best 135 lenses (like Leica) on the very sharpest film.

Best regards
Erik

[Dick Roadnight]

Show me a verified test target (like USAF or similar) captured on 8x10 film (any kind) with an APO Sironar S of your choice that confirms corner to corner better than 30 lp's and a center better than 50 on all axis and all color channels, and I will gladly concede the point.  The best 8x10 lens I ever owned was a 450 APO Ronar and it basically met those specs.    

¿Have you investigated the Schneider Fine Art Gold lenses? ...are they only good for ULF?

[Jack Flesher]

¿Have you investigated the Schneider Fine Art Gold lenses? ...are they only good for ULF?

If by investigated you mean tested personally, no.  Firstly, they are really expensive, like $6000.  Second, they are designed for one thing and that's coverage with their massive, nearly 1 meter IC's.  Most folks that buy them are going to use them for ULF capture, and most folks that shoot ULF use their negatives to make contact prints.  And a lens does not need to have particularly high resolution if its primary use is contact prints; something that rendered on the order of only 15 LP/mm across the frame would make an insanely detailed contact print even if viewed under a loupe.  

[Dick Roadnight]

If by investigated you mean tested personally, no.  Firstly, they are really expensive, like $6000.  Second, they are designed for one thing and that's coverage with their massive, nearly 1 meter IC's.  Most folks that buy them are going to use them for ULF capture, and most folks that shoot ULF use their negatives to make contact prints.  And a lens does not need to have particularly high resolution if its primary use is contact prints; something that rendered on the order of only 15 LP/mm across the frame would make an insanely detailed contact print even if viewed under a loupe.  

Thanks...
The only thing I miss from 25mm is long lenses... 640mm (with a 2* teleconverter when needed), giving about a 1 degree field of view.

¿Does anyone do a 10 micron CoC, 1 degree FOV lens for 645 MFD that I can use on my Sinar P2/3? (I do not have anything longer than 900mm, and that is a WW2 aero reccy lens (pre-digital).

[ondebanks]

Thanks...
The only thing I miss from 25mm is long lenses... 640mm (with a 2* teleconverter when needed), giving about a 1 degree field of view.

¿Does anyone do a 10 micron CoC, 1 degree FOV lens for 645 MFD that I can use on my Sinar P2/3? (I do not have anything longer than 900mm, and that is a WW2 aero reccy lens (pre-digital).

I'd recommend a flatfield APO refracting telescope in the roughly 1200mm fl range (6 inch f/8, 5inch f/10, or 4-5 inch f5-6 with a 2X teleconverter). Or at least, the objective lens cell of one, if you want to put it on a Sinar lensboard. But I have to ask, what motivates you to use this sort of lens on a view camera? Considering wind, vibration, and maintaining optical alignment, I think you'd be far better off with the rigidity of a full-bodied lens/telescope.

[Dick Roadnight]

I'd recommend a flatfield APO refracting telescope in the roughly 1200mm fl range (6 inch f/8, 5inch f/10, or 4-5 inch f5-6 with a 2X teleconverter). Or at least, the objective lens cell of one, if you want to put it on a Sinar lensboard. But I have to ask, what motivates you to use this sort of lens on a view camera? Considering wind, vibration, and maintaining optical alignment, I think you'd be far better off with the rigidity of a full-bodied lens/telescope.

I would not want optical alignment, as I would want to use movements for landscapes, house shots etc. Wildlife would be another application.

My 24" focal length f6 aero recy lens is about 6 inches across the front element... I suppose there is nothing to prevent me using a tele-convertor with that, but I do not think it would out-resolve a 6 micron sensor.

I would like a 5 * 4 inch 10 micron sensor... it would be great for WA, but not much advantage for narrow FOV.

[ondebanks]

I would not want optical alignment, as I would want to use movements for landscapes, house shots etc. Wildlife would be another application.

Maybe I'm just not imaginative enough, or picky enough, but I cannot really see the need for movements with a field of view of only 1 degree. If you shoot a house with such a lens/telescope, won't you be so far away from it that the verticals will be vertical anyway? Maybe there's a little dof to be gained with Scheimpflug tilt, though, even with that acute angle of view.

[Kirk Gittings]

Harlem shooter. You are in New York! Rent the equipment and try it yourself.

[DanielStone]

here's a guy still printing optically(not sure how much however), and still shooting 4x5 and 8X10 FILM.

albeit drum scanning and outputting digitally primarily from what I've heard. And recently experimenting with a P65+ and stitching.

but it seems that he is still creating most of his originals on film, slide film nonetheless. Seems to work for him.

but then again he probably doesn't care about how many LPmm his lenses can resolve, he just uses the ones that work for him.

I've never met him, but his work seems to speak for itself


http://www.rodneyloughjr.com/

-Dan

[Dick Roadnight]

here's a guy still printing optically(not sure how much however), and still shooting 4x5 and 8X10 FILM.

http://www.rodneyloughjr.com/

-Dan

Nice to see someone "doing it properly" and using tilt on a view camera to get the foreground in focus... but ¿does any get $3,500 for a print?