Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 16   Go Down

Author Topic: MF vs 1Ds3  (Read 142416 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #100 on: April 20, 2008, 05:38:06 pm »

Hi,

You may also consider the quality of the pixels...

3600 PPI may be a bit beyond what film can resolve, a bit depending of the definition of resolution. Scans from film allow much less sharpening then digital, because of the grain.

BTW, medium format film, 6x7, scanned at 3200 PPI, properly post processed is quite nice!

Best regards
Erik

Quote
Not really, though.  When you consider the resolution lost compared to MF film.

MF film scanned at 3600 DPI would be more realistic. (65MP)  Since good labs scan 35mm film at 3600DPI, why not apply the same standard to MF?

65MP is basically where real digital backs should be considered medium format.  Yes, It's an enormous amount of extra data, but hold 35mm film and 6X6 side by side. It's an incredible difference in physical size, and so, therefore, it should also be for digital.

17MP is effectively a film replacement for 35mm.  (equivalent to 3600DPI film scan almost exactly) 0.94 inches*1.42 inches. 3384*5112.    Stretching this a little bit isn't close to MF.  What it is, really, is 35mm film that's enlarged to 1.42X1.42, or about 5112*5112(25MP).

A 20MP DB is actually *slightly* better than 35mm film, which leads to silly comparisons like this article.  It's a pseudo medium format that we've been tricked/marketed into believing is a replacement for 6X6 film, because technology hasn't caught up yet.

P.S. I used 3600 DPI because that's where most pros seem to agree that resolution gains in scanning film are dubious at best.  2400DPI, which is too low, though, still nets a 30MP DB - and that should be a rock-bottom minimum.(and about 7MP for a DSLR)

~40MP that we have now is getting closer, though, and I expect to see 65MP true MF backs in about three years.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190820\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10332
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #101 on: April 20, 2008, 06:34:36 pm »

Quote
of-course this is the most useful comparison i have seen here in LL. Thank you so much Ray for working and posting so hard for us marketing blinded fools.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190742\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That quite all right, Rainer   , but the main point of my comparison is that it's all in the lenses at the apertures used. The TSE 90 has an image circle big enough for a DB. It's a lens of comparable quality to the Canon 50/1.4 (and no doubt many MF lenses) but actually better at F2.8 than the 50/1.4 at F1.4.

For work with shallow DoF, MFDB has the advantage because the lenses used at wide apertures are either as good as (or better than) 35mm lenses at their equivalent, but wider apertures. MFDB also has the advantage because the 4:3 aspect ratio seems to generally suit studio work better than 35mm.

With landscape work where the 4:3 aspect ratio might be cropped to the 35mm aspect ratio or wider, and small apertures (f8-f22) are used used for extensive DoF, I would predict there is little advantage to the DB of similar pixel count to FF 35mm.
Logged

paul_jones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
    • http://www.paulrossjones.com
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #102 on: April 20, 2008, 08:37:21 pm »

Quote
It's not all about resolution..............

and as for your stock shots not being able to be sold alongside digital, that's just bollocks. Every month i look at my stock sales and every month the stuff shot on film far outsells my digital stuff. The thing is that all stock is starting to look the same with every man and his dog shooting with a Canon, or maybe a DB but not so much. This year i will be shooting much more with my Pentax 67 and less with my 1DS3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190835\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


sorry, i didnt mean my older film images werent selling because they are film. they are, and mainly because i havnt shot much stock lately, and most of my getty stuff is film.
i was meaning that i feel guilty putting film forward to stock as i really think its not up to scratch. im meaning 35mm though, not 6x7 or 5x4 which is obviously very good.

i like film, and ive been shooting with my sinar 5x4 lately, but i think 35mm is a medium you use when you want grain as an effect, not resolution.
i picked up an older national geographic the other day and was amazed how grainy and low res it a lot of it was. the grain was nice, but grain is a limitation of the medium.

paul
Logged
check my new website
[url=http://www.pau

Gary Yeowell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 189
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #103 on: April 20, 2008, 08:55:00 pm »

Quote
sorry, i didnt mean my older film images werent selling because they are film. they are, and mainly because i havnt shot much stock lately, and most of my getty stuff is film.
i was meaning that i feel guilty putting film forward to stock as i really think its not up to scratch. im meaning 35mm though, not 6x7 or 5x4 which is obviously very good.

i like film, and ive been shooting with my sinar 5x4 lately, but i think 35mm is a medium you use when you want grain as an effect, not resolution.
i picked up an older national geographic the other day and was amazed how grainy and low res it a lot of it was. the grain was nice, but grain is a limitation of the medium.

paul
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190868\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Fair comment Paul, i agree that 35mm film has its limitations, and as we both agree 6x7 & 5x4 film still have a place.

 Gary.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2008, 09:00:58 pm by Gary Yeowell »
Logged

James R Russell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 992
    • http://www.russellrutherford.com/
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #104 on: April 20, 2008, 11:41:43 pm »

Quote
Fair comment Paul, i agree that 35mm film has its limitations, and as we both agree 6x7 & 5x4 film still have a place.

 Gary.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190872\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Though I primarly work in commerce, I've never felt that a camera should be used primarly because it captured more detail, either film or now in digital.

Some cameras feel and work right for the moment and sometimes that moment has virtually nothing to do what is "right" or wrong.

There is beautiful work by Art Kane, Helmut Newton, Guy Bordin and Phillip Dixon that was primarly shot 35mm though all of those artists would work in different formats.

Consequently many of thier contemporaries shot with 10x8 and 2/14 square cameras.

For all of those artists in those times, it was more of an artistic interpretation of how they wanted to portray the world, rather than if more eye lash detail was available.

Sometimes it just happened to be the only camera they owned, so that was the camera format they used.

When I have time I love to go into the Leica Gallery on Broadway.   There is always a collection of past work, usually photojournalists and it always has a ring of truth to it and a timeless look, though in close examination the focus is usually off, the detail wouldn't rival even a $400 dslr, though their is a charm and a look to those images have that today's uber sharp, maximum detail, perfect color, and highlights under 255 would never portray.

Maybe it's the availability of the web, or maybe it's just our obsession to prove what's right and what's wrong, but honestly to produce a beautiful image either moving or still, the camera matters but not in ways most of us think.

There is this exhaustive thread that rears it's head on all of these forums comparing 35mm to medium format and regardless of the replies, the downloadable raw files, the 100% crop comparisions of proof, the subject pops up again and again, to the point it actually is pointless to read the replies because they are just a mirror image of the same thread 2, 3, 4, 24 weeks prior.

I've held a camera in my hand most of my adult life and I can promise you that the only camera that matters is the one you feel good about.

The rest is just numbers on a chart.

JR
Logged

rethmeier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 795
    • http://www.willemrethmeier.com
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #105 on: April 20, 2008, 11:56:43 pm »

Well said James!
No need for this tread to continue.
Best,
WR.
Logged
Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com

Gary Yeowell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 189
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #106 on: April 21, 2008, 06:17:35 am »

James,

Did you actually read the thread as you seem to have taken my last comment in isolation and then given me a lecture in 'Art'.  That was my whole point, film, Digital, 10x8, APS,Polaroid, what difference does it make. My reply to Paul was based on my non belief that all of a sudden 'stock' shots would not sell cos they had been shot on film, which we all know is ... ??     The reference to 6x7 and 5x4 was 'only' with regard to usability for stock as i shoot colour neg and stock houses will not accept it shot on 35mm.

My point which you seem to have lost judging from your reply, is exactly this,  to discount film as a viable option on the basis of quality,  ie too grainy compared to 'my lovely Phase files', is just nonsense.

I shoot film because of what i feel i achieve with it suits my vision of what i want better than i can achieve with my 1DS3, not anything to do with 'detail'.

Gary.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2008, 07:04:55 am by Gary Yeowell »
Logged

203

  • Guest
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #107 on: April 21, 2008, 07:17:59 am »

« Last Edit: April 21, 2008, 07:22:57 am by 203 »
Logged

Gary Yeowell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 189
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #108 on: April 21, 2008, 07:26:08 am »

Quote
645 scan vs. 1Ds2
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190933\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


And yet another person who doesn't read the thread...

This forum kills me.

If detail is all i was after i would use my 1DS3 or rent a Phase. Please read the thread carefully and then offer something constructive.

Gary.
Logged

203

  • Guest
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #109 on: April 21, 2008, 07:32:15 am »

Quote
And yet another person who doesn't read the thread...

This forum kills me.

If detail is all i was after i would use my 1DS3 or rent a Phase. Please read the thread carefully and then offer something constructive.

Gary.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190936\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I read the thread Gary. Since there are posts about film vs. digital, I posted a link. Am I going to be sent to my room?
Logged

Gary Yeowell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 189
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #110 on: April 21, 2008, 07:41:40 am »

Quote
I read the thread Gary. Since there are posts about film vs. digital, I posted a link. Am I going to be sent to my room?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190937\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes go to your room and write 100 times,

'Film vs digital was not the debate,  Gary's comment was 'it's not all about resolution'.

Actually a little unnecessarilly aggressive from me 203, apologies!

Gary.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2008, 07:56:34 am by Gary Yeowell »
Logged

203

  • Guest
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #111 on: April 21, 2008, 07:55:15 am »

Gary, there are many posts in this thread to which I might be replying. Yours was not the one I chose to respond to.
Logged

Gary Yeowell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 189
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #112 on: April 21, 2008, 08:02:12 am »

Quote
Gary, there are many posts in this thread to which I might be replying. Yours was not the one I chose to respond to.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190943\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Fair enough 203, just that the link hierarchy shows as a reply to me, but maybe not just to me, appologies!

Gary.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2008, 08:03:27 am by Gary Yeowell »
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #113 on: April 21, 2008, 08:04:04 am »

Quote
Though I primarly work in commerce, I've never felt that a camera should be used primarly because it captured more detail, either film or now in digital.

Some cameras feel and work right for the moment and sometimes that moment has virtually nothing to do what is "right" or wrong.

There is beautiful work by Art Kane, Helmut Newton, Guy Bordin and Phillip Dixon that was primarly shot 35mm though all of those artists would work in different formats.

Consequently many of thier contemporaries shot with 10x8 and 2/14 square cameras.

For all of those artists in those times, it was more of an artistic interpretation of how they wanted to portray the world, rather than if more eye lash detail was available.

Sometimes it just happened to be the only camera they owned, so that was the camera format they used.

When I have time I love to go into the Leica Gallery on Broadway.   There is always a collection of past work, usually photojournalists and it always has a ring of truth to it and a timeless look, though in close examination the focus is usually off, the detail wouldn't rival even a $400 dslr, though their is a charm and a look to those images have that today's uber sharp, maximum detail, perfect color, and highlights under 255 would never portray.

Maybe it's the availability of the web, or maybe it's just our obsession to prove what's right and what's wrong, but honestly to produce a beautiful image either moving or still, the camera matters but not in ways most of us think.

There is this exhaustive thread that rears it's head on all of these forums comparing 35mm to medium format and regardless of the replies, the downloadable raw files, the 100% crop comparisions of proof, the subject pops up again and again, to the point it actually is pointless to read the replies because they are just a mirror image of the same thread 2, 3, 4, 24 weeks prior.

I've held a camera in my hand most of my adult life and I can promise you that the only camera that matters is the one you feel good about.

The rest is just numbers on a chart.

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190885\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My thoughts exactly.

But there are a lot of people on here [and elsewhere] who love talking numbers far more than they love talking pictures and they will carry on talking numbers as long as they have fingers to count with.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

NBP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 184
    • http://
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #114 on: April 21, 2008, 08:16:52 am »

Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #115 on: April 21, 2008, 08:26:35 am »

Quote
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190950\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A picture well worth a thousand comments

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Plekto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #116 on: April 21, 2008, 07:23:40 pm »

Quote
There are many tests on the net comparing film with digital. So far, every one I have seen shows that 35mm film has approximately the same level of detail as 8-10MP. 17MP is quite an exageration. In fact a 22 MP digital back will beat 645 film and and 39MP back will beat 6x6 and 67.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190829\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quote:
P.S. I used 3600 DPI because that's where most pros seem to agree that resolution gains in scanning film are dubious at best.  2400DPI, which is too low, though, still nets a 30MP DB - and that should be a rock-bottom minimum.(and about 7MP for a DSLR)
*****

So, let's say it's 2400, then.  That still nets you about 7MP(seems low but whatever) for 35mm, which everyone here will agree is about 35mm's actual "quality"(Bayer interpolation and anti-aliasing and color/saturation issues aside for now) I think it's higher, but let's go for 2400dpi.  Slightly over 400DPI Dye sub, actually, so it seems to be a good compromise, given how the best d-labs currently operate.  (they internally scan 35mm film at close to 2400dpi, IIRC)

That still nets ~30MP for MF as a bare minimum.  It's just that much more physical area than 35mm film.  Calling 20MP "MF" isn't really very accurate.  So the cameras look like they are similar at 20MP.  Big surprise...
« Last Edit: April 21, 2008, 07:25:30 pm by Plekto »
Logged

SecondFocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 526
    • SecondFocus
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #117 on: April 21, 2008, 08:56:13 pm »

Exactly!

Quote
Though I primarly work in commerce, I've never felt that a camera should be used primarly because it captured more detail, either film or now in digital.

Some cameras feel and work right for the moment and sometimes that moment has virtually nothing to do what is "right" or wrong.

There is beautiful work by Art Kane, Helmut Newton, Guy Bordin and Phillip Dixon that was primarly shot 35mm though all of those artists would work in different formats.

Consequently many of thier contemporaries shot with 10x8 and 2/14 square cameras.

For all of those artists in those times, it was more of an artistic interpretation of how they wanted to portray the world, rather than if more eye lash detail was available.

Sometimes it just happened to be the only camera they owned, so that was the camera format they used.

When I have time I love to go into the Leica Gallery on Broadway.   There is always a collection of past work, usually photojournalists and it always has a ring of truth to it and a timeless look, though in close examination the focus is usually off, the detail wouldn't rival even a $400 dslr, though their is a charm and a look to those images have that today's uber sharp, maximum detail, perfect color, and highlights under 255 would never portray.

Maybe it's the availability of the web, or maybe it's just our obsession to prove what's right and what's wrong, but honestly to produce a beautiful image either moving or still, the camera matters but not in ways most of us think.

There is this exhaustive thread that rears it's head on all of these forums comparing 35mm to medium format and regardless of the replies, the downloadable raw files, the 100% crop comparisions of proof, the subject pops up again and again, to the point it actually is pointless to read the replies because they are just a mirror image of the same thread 2, 3, 4, 24 weeks prior.

I've held a camera in my hand most of my adult life and I can promise you that the only camera that matters is the one you feel good about.

The rest is just numbers on a chart.

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190885\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Ian L. Sitren
[url=http://SecondFocus.co

sergio

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
    • http://www.sergiobartelsman.com
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #118 on: April 21, 2008, 09:34:32 pm »

I would like to add that the best camera is not only the one you feel comfortable with, but is really the one you have with you when photo opportunities show up.
I have something like a dozen or more cameras, different formats, and I start swearing for the lost image because they all rest at home when the photos ocurr before my eyes.

[attachment=6220:attachment][attachment=6221:attachment][attachment=6222:attachm
ent][attachment=6223:attachment]
« Last Edit: April 21, 2008, 10:02:55 pm by sergio »
Logged

Igor Feldman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
MF vs 1Ds3
« Reply #119 on: April 21, 2008, 11:00:59 pm »

Quote
Quote:
P.S. I used 3600 DPI because that's where most pros seem to agree that resolution gains in scanning film are dubious at best.  2400DPI, which is too low, though, still nets a 30MP DB - and that should be a rock-bottom minimum.(and about 7MP for a DSLR)
*****

So, let's say it's 2400, then.  That still nets you about 7MP(seems low but whatever) for 35mm, which everyone here will agree is about 35mm's actual "quality"(Bayer interpolation and anti-aliasing and color/saturation issues aside for now) I think it's higher, but let's go for 2400dpi.  Slightly over 400DPI Dye sub, actually, so it seems to be a good compromise, given how the best d-labs currently operate.  (they internally scan 35mm film at close to 2400dpi, IIRC)

That still nets ~30MP for MF as a bare minimum.  It's just that much more physical area than 35mm film.  Calling 20MP "MF" isn't really very accurate.  So the cameras look like they are similar at 20MP.  Big surprise...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191085\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just several posts above, somebody posted a comparison between 1DsII (16 Mp + AA) vs. 645 (considered a medium format), where the Canon easily outresolved the MF film.  An 18-22 Mp MF back without AA will be even better.  So, why is it not good enough to be called MF?  (I know that resolution is not everything, I'm just replying to the particular technical point).

Igor.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 16   Go Up