Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 35mm film vs medium format vs D80  (Read 23583 times)
RomanJohnston
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 72


« Reply #20 on: May 31, 2007, 07:46:35 PM »
ReplyReply

As a supporting supliment....here are some ideas of how large you can print with your current gear.







I have to admit the D70 shot starts to loose just the smallest part of detail up close....but with the Tulip shot...you can count every empty branch in the trees....and you can see each indivdual piece of moss clinging to the canyon walls in the waterfall shot.

Roman
Logged

Deep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #21 on: June 01, 2007, 02:20:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As a supporting supliment....here are some ideas of how large you can print with your current gear.

I have to admit the D70 shot starts to loose just the smallest part of detail up close....but with the Tulip shot...you can count every empty branch in the trees....and you can see each indivdual piece of moss clinging to the canyon walls in the waterfall shot.

Roman
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120537\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What wonderful photographs!

In case anyone is interested, I have scanned the 35mm slides I mentioned in my earlier post and done the "pixel peeping" comparison with the equivalent 8Mp digital photographs.  A most interesting exercise!  It is actually not a joke to say it is like comparing chalk and cheese.  The digital files (shot RAW and carefully processed in Lightroom) are very smooth and cheese-like, the scans much grainier and chalk-like (partly because I used Kodak EBX, rather than a very fine film).

As expected, the slide scans do hold more detail.  No surprises there.  For example, very fine writing shows up as writing with slide film but a general hint of MAYBE writing with the digital.  However, in any shadowy area, the digital files bring up much more detail (such as tyre tread on a toy car).  It's like watching a boxing fight, moving from one to the other.  In one area, digital is better, in another the film is better.  The clean digital pics are definitely more pleasing on the eye in most cases, yet they can be annoying where they do not differentiate fine detail.  Despite my best efforts, there are tiny differences in focus which account for many of these differences anyway.  It has been pleasing to see the Olympus ZD zoom lenses lose little to the Canon FD primes.  How often can you say that?

The whole process of scanning and correcting the slides still drives me nuts.  Really, with the differences being so small, it would be rare for me to bother with 35mm film without good reason.

Seeing the two formats are so similar, it is logical to expect a big improvement from the Rollei.  Previous scans suggest this is the case.  So, going back to the original post in this topic,  I see little point taking the Minolta.  The decision between the digital and the Rollei will be the trade off of convenience versus those "potential" cracker photos.  I think I'd take the digital.  Which is what I will do when I go to Australia in September.

Don.
Logged

Don
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 01, 2007, 07:49:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Don't forget that with digital it is easier to shoot multiple frames from a tripod and blend them together into a single seamless image that will be better than anything the Rollei can hope to accomplish.
Logged

Deep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #23 on: June 01, 2007, 02:15:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Don't forget that with digital it is easier to shoot multiple frames from a tripod and blend them together into a single seamless image that will be better than anything the Rollei can hope to accomplish.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120598\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, easier, yes.  But you could apply the same theory to the Rollei, if you had the time and space.  If it has the Planar lens, rather than the Tessar, it would be likely that shots would line up more perfectly than with the digital zoom too!  Tongue in cheek though - I would never bother myself.

Don.
Logged

Don
NashvilleMike
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173


« Reply #24 on: June 01, 2007, 04:15:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What wonderful photographs!

In case anyone is interested, I have scanned the 35mm slides I mentioned in my earlier post and done the "pixel peeping" comparison with the equivalent 8Mp digital photographs.  A most interesting exercise!  It is actually not a joke to say it is like comparing chalk and cheese.  The digital files (shot RAW and carefully processed in Lightroom) are very smooth and cheese-like, the scans much grainier and chalk-like (partly because I used Kodak EBX, rather than a very fine film).

As expected, the slide scans do hold more detail.

Not trying to start nor add to a "digital vs film" argument here by any means, but I tend to agree with what you're saying to some point. I'll expound:

I shoot mostly two things: primarily people, secondarily landscape, with the former being far more often than the latter.

When I switched to digital (a D100) in 2003, I noticed that with people (where perhaps one is NOT looking for the finest details) that I (and my test model who is a designer and had a very good eye) *vastly* preferred the digital files to the film, which was at the time either Fuji Reala or Fuji Provia 100F (35mm). It was the tonality improvement - the way the whole image just held together as a whole that we noticed, and it was extremely obvious. Within a year or two I had also picked up a D70 and shot both cameras on a trip where I shot a bit of landscape. What I noticed there was that while I preferred the tonality of the digital shots that I also could see, *in certain situations*, that the film could resolve a bit more. My thought at the time was that 6mp digital was equal to or better than 35mm color film for all things except the prototypical "wide angle flowers in the foreground" landscape - that sort of shot just needed a bit more rez than 6mp had to offer.

Fast forward to 2005, when I picked up a D2X. Game over for 35mm film - completely. Even better tonality (that's really the strength of the camera at low ISO, which is where I use it) and the rez improvements were quite noticeable. I've shot many a 11x, 13x, or 16x on film, always with Nikons best lenses, on a tripod, etc, on Velvia, K25, or Provia 100F, and the D2X images at the same sizes look better in every respect - to the point where I compare them with images taken with my TLR's I used several years ago. And this was on finer detail subjects, not just people.

So that got me wondering - where is the point of demarcation where the megapixels are enough to get the resolution we need, and my best (and wild guess) is that it's around 10mp. I've recently picked up a D80 as a backup, and recently shot some landscape with it, and initial thoughts are that 10mp are sufficient for landscape work - maybe not quite as nice as 12 (or more), but at this 'level' of resolution, there simply isn't any real world advantage to film for me, whereas at 6mp, while I generally preferred digital, I could see some shots that Velvia would work better for.

I don't own an 8mp camera but have done some post and retouch work for an Olympus user as well as a Canon 20D user, and in both cases I thought the resolution was obviously a bit better than 6mp, but to my eye, it wasn't quite up to what I have experienced with either the D80 or D2X in terms of what I think is really neccessary to do the higher detail landscape work to a technical level that I prefer. In the Canons case the glass was L glass, not sure of what was on the Olympus.

So at the end this is of course just my opinion - worth little more than spare change, but I do think that every shooter will have their own "personal" line in the sand in terms of how many megapixels is required to "beat" or "meet" film dependent highly on the subject matter they shoot.

And, like the above poster, I hated scanning film - so I'm grateful for the advances in technology and am the happiest I've been at the image quality I get out of a relatively portable camera. No more hauling a 4x5 around with the wind blowing the bellows all over the place....

-m
Logged
Deep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #25 on: June 05, 2007, 03:40:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not trying to start nor add to a "digital vs film" argument here by any means, but I tend to agree with what you're saying to some point. I'll expound:

...When I switched to digital (a D100) in 2003,... also picked up a D70 ... My thought at the time was that 6mp digital was equal to or better than 35mm color film for all things except the prototypical "wide angle flowers in the foreground" landscape - that sort of shot just needed a bit more rez than 6mp had to offer...

...So that got me wondering - where is the point of demarcation where the megapixels are enough to get the resolution we need, and my best (and wild guess) is that it's around 10mp. I've recently picked up a D80 as a backup, and recently shot some landscape with it, and initial thoughts are that 10mp are sufficient for landscape work - maybe not quite as nice as 12 (or more), but at this 'level' of resolution, there simply isn't any real world advantage to film for me, whereas at 6mp, while I generally preferred digital, I could see some shots that Velvia would work better for...

...So at the end this is of course just my opinion - worth little more than spare change, but I do think that every shooter will have their own "personal" line in the sand in terms of how many megapixels is required to "beat" or "meet" film dependent highly on the subject matter they shoot.

And, like the above poster, I hated scanning film - so I'm grateful for the advances in technology and am the happiest I've been at the image quality I get out of a relatively portable camera. No more hauling a 4x5 around with the wind blowing the bellows all over the place....

-m
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120701\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I completely agree.  Somewhere around ten to twelve Megapixels, 35mm film loses its advantage in 99.5 percent of cases (the exception would be where the sun is in the photo but behind clouds, such as sunrise sunsets.  Here, less blowout still favours film).

Since I posted previously, I discovered an interesting thing.  Processing my digital files in Lightroom or ACR, then sharpening in various ways in Photoshop (but most effectively using the high pass filter), I thought I had found the Olympus resolution limit.  Not so.  I played with Capture One LE and found I could get another level of detail, very nearly what I found with film and still no grain!  (Another two Mp and I am sure I'd be there.)  I'm not sure why this programme sharpened these photos so well but recommend any Olympus users try this.  It came free with a Sandisk memory card.

Don.
Logged

Don
:Ollivr
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 06, 2007, 12:55:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi, I use a medium format camera and a DSLR. However I would suggest you take the DSLR alone or both cameras. My MF camera is one of the Fuji Rangefunders and its not really adding much weight.

The MF camera will have a better quality than the Nikon only if your scans are very good. Other than that, you end up with a somewhat soft image (at 100%) but better(this being subjective of course) color than the Nikon.

Do not get a 35mm film camera. While you can get away with 120 film and an ordinary scanner ( to put on the web, make okay A4's etc) the 35mm is too small. You will either need a very good scanner or have them scanned.

O.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #27 on: June 06, 2007, 10:37:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Mostly I agree with earlier suggestions:
- Shelve the 35mm film gear, and try out the Rollei TLR and D80/18-70 options to see what works best for you.
- Consider stitching with the D80.
- Consider selling the 35mm film gear and using the money to buy a good prime for the D80. For example, maybe a Nikon 24/2.8 (about US$300) as a slightly wider than normal could be nice for landscapes, and should also work well with stitching for wider angle scenes.


P.S. For light weight, stitching even seems to work fairly well with a sequence of hand-held shots avoiding the tripod. Purists may hate the idea, but some stitching software can automatically make adjustments for slight rotation of the camera and such between shots.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2007, 10:47:57 AM by BJL » Logged
sevenjohn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #28 on: June 10, 2007, 04:29:17 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a rollei 3.5  and a D 70, and for quite some time I was torn on what to bring out on a hike,  for me it really boiled down to my options afterwards- I don't have a scanner for medium format and no longer have a darkroom.

     I really found that I wasn't working on images I took with the rollei as the workflow was so slow - In this regard I preferred the digital workflow- the image quality was inferior but if you don't see and work the images often then the advantage is negated.
Logged
Deep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #29 on: June 11, 2007, 11:26:06 PM »
ReplyReply

For what it's worth, I finally got the Rollei photos back from the comparison I described earlier.  It took ages to use the 12 exposures - I just can't get into the square format and odd viewfinder.  However, I was really surprised by how the results stacked up.  I used Agfa Optima 200 print film and the detail and colours were much better than I had expected or remembered.  I had forgotten how well print film holds up in the highlights AND shadows.  It left both the digital and slide film for dead in this respect (the digital beat slide film in shadows, the slide film was much better than digital in highlights).  Still visible grain on the prints, more so than the digital, but the bonus is considerably more detail than an 8Mp sensor can record.

The sheer cost and inconvenience of the Rollei mean I will continue to mostly shoot digital.  However, after this comparison, as others have hinted, it will be the 35mm that gets put into storage and not the Rollei, while I keep trying to make the digital reach its potential.

Don.
Logged

Don
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #30 on: June 12, 2007, 07:11:27 AM »
ReplyReply

This sort of discussion can go on and on (to prove it, my ten cents) and it comes to the point that the parameters really do have to be set for anything much to make any kind of definitive sense.

You have to have the best (whatīs that?) kind of lens for each camera, you have to have the best available scanner for the film format; you have to have the best printer for the type of paper and that doesnīt even include the question about which topgun digital machine from whom.

The other day I worked on a 35mm Kodachrome 64 Pro tranny that I shot many years ago in Rhodes courtesy of either an F or F2 Nikon, lens was possibly a 3.5/135, the subject a girlīs headīnīshoulders. The film was scanned on my CanoScan FS4000US and printed out on my recently bought HP B1980. What can I say about this, relative to the discusion? Well, the end result on A3 matt is a print whose quality surpasses what I ever managed from Hasselblad via a Durst and Schneider Componon using glossy, glazed papers in my darkroom days. At this point, I have to state that I am a very experienced printer, so I do have a decent basis for making comparisons.

And the best bit? The print is in black/white thus showing the value of shooting something in colour.

I have found digital colour (D200 - only digital camera I have had) to be much more pleasing to my eye than Velvia for scenic stuff; I have yet to shoot people on digital so canīt offer any first-hand opinion on that, other than to say that in the situations where people have been included as secondary subject matter, they seem to have skin tones more like Ektachrome than Kodachrome.

Ideal? Cost no object, I think Iīd go back to Hasselblad and a dedicated roll-film scanner for people. As scenics are a less pressing thing for me, perhaps Iīd stay with film for that too or get myself a digital back. I did say this was a no-limits scenario!

Cheers - Rob C
Logged

KAP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 168


WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 12, 2007, 02:57:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have both a medium format system ( pentax 6x7 ) and a digital camera ( canon 20d ). My medium format is with me anytime I'm out doing landscape photography. Resolution and dynamic range in the medium format out performs the digital every time. I scan my slide / negatives using a Nikon 8000.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118640\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I second that and I'm using a 1DsmkII, even forgetting resolution and grain/noise comparisons, I can't get the colours with the Canon on very bright days I get with film. And that's scanned on a Nikon 8000.
Having said all that the digital will give more variety. Quality MF wins hands down.

Kevin.
Logged
RomanJohnston
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 72


« Reply #32 on: June 12, 2007, 03:48:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I second that and I'm using a 1DsmkII, even forgetting resolution and grain/noise comparisons, I can't get the colours with the Canon on very bright days I get with film. And that's scanned on a Nikon 8000.
Having said all that the digital will give more variety. Quality MF wins hands down.

Kevin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122466\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry for the elementary question...but arent colors up to you as you dont have a lab or film type any more and you are essentially the lab now?

Only takes about 10-15 min editing curves in CMYK, LAB, and RGB to get most of my stuff in alignment with my desires.

Roman
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7744



WWW
« Reply #33 on: June 12, 2007, 07:02:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sorry for the elementary question...but arent colors up to you as you dont have a lab or film type any more and you are essentially the lab now?

Only takes about 10-15 min editing curves in CMYK, LAB, and RGB to get most of my stuff in alignment with my desires.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122482\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Time to spice up this thread a bit...

That's thanks to the fact that you shoot Nikon Roman, don't forget that some guys aren't as lucky and still stuck with inferior Canon color technology.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: June 12, 2007, 07:05:35 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7744



WWW
« Reply #34 on: June 12, 2007, 07:06:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Roman,

By the way, if I may ask, what printer did you output those prints with?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
NashvilleMike
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173


« Reply #35 on: June 12, 2007, 10:10:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sorry for the elementary question...but arent colors up to you as you dont have a lab or film type any more and you are essentially the lab now?

Only takes about 10-15 min editing curves in CMYK, LAB, and RGB to get most of my stuff in alignment with my desires.

Roman
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122482\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think this brings up the great unknown in the equation... the skill of the post processing. I agree with you (Roman) on the color aspects and have been able to get far more pleasing color with digital than with film scans, or, for that matter, with chromes just as chromes.  I don't think it's really a brand thing either (heck, let's face it, us Nikon shooters are a definite minority over here in these forums, lol) - I think it's just whether someone is comfortable with post to an advanced level or not - some folks are, some aren't, some are in between - it's a wide scale of differing talent levels. I don't say that as an insult to someone who feels film is their preferred choice, but rather as an observation that just by the nature of things with people having differing talents that there is going to be that wide variation in skill levels. And thus it's really hard to judge some of this argument - if there were some "magical god of post processing" who did everyones post work and it were thus rendered as best as it could be rendered for each photographer and their view of things, would some of the opinions in the film vs digital discussions change? I think some of the opinions might. It's tough to seperate out the craft from the underlying technology sometimes.

As an aside, that's actually depressing in some ways, when we talk of digital photography - that the skill of the post has a very direct impact on the final result, and for someone who is not or does not want to become comfortable with advanced post work, that leaves them out of the digital loop a little bit. I'm not sure that's a good thing. Yes, "we" are now the lab, and for some of us, that's awesome (I love being the lab), but for others, that's not where they want to spend the time.

And to make things more complicated - fact of the matter is, everyone has different levels of color perception - get 10 photogs in a room to take the Munsell color test sometime and the results will surprise you (there will be a lot more variance in color perception ability than you'd think... bigtime).
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7744



WWW
« Reply #36 on: June 13, 2007, 02:24:37 AM »
ReplyReply

My brand comment was obviously tongue in cheek, and I don't know if Nikon is better than Canon or the opposite, but I disagree with the concept that color is not a relevant aspect of digital camera selection, although it is one that is often overlooked by all reviewers.

It is pretty obvious to me that different sensors have different gammuts, and different abilities to capture differences in colors accross the huge spectrum of conditions encountered in the real world.

Raw converters have an impact on how given RAW files values are translated into RGB values, but the best RAW converter will not be able to compensate for a narrow sensor gammut or a high entropy in the file.

One obvious proof of this is the value of true RGB devices vs Bayer interpolated devices. I have not seen a convincing metrics for this yet, but it is obvious to my eyes that there is more than the lack of moire to the quality of the color in the files captured by true RGB devices (Foveon or scanning backs). This is just one example to show that colors have a quality to them that matters.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
NashvilleMike
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173


« Reply #37 on: June 13, 2007, 10:00:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My brand comment was obviously tongue in cheek, and I don't know if Nikon is better than Canon or the opposite, but I disagree with the concept that color is not a relevant aspect of digital camera selection, although it is one that is often overlooked by all reviewers.

It is pretty obvious to me that different sensors have different gammuts, and different abilities to capture differences in colors accross the huge spectrum of conditions encountered in the real world.

Raw converters have an impact on how given RAW files values are translated into RGB values, but the best RAW converter will not be able to compensate for a narrow sensor gammut or a high entropy in the file.

Overall I agree, but I would likely have a different ordering of the importance of the sensor itself in the entire equation.

When I see the usual "I prefer xxxxx color" discussion, I think it comes down to the following:

1) skill/ability of post processing & color perception ability of user
2) choice of raw converter (linked also to item 'a')
3) sensor differences

I've seen images from most of the DSLR contenders and honestly haven't seen vast color differences (although in all honesty, I've been less impressed with those from the Foveon chip) between them. Tonality differences - yes - that's actually why I use the brand I do, but color differences don't stick out to me as being that obviously noticeable. Disclaimer here: I don't shoot fabrics for retail display or other exact color matching scenarios, where quite obviously accurate representation of color would be very critical, and I don't argue that there are not differences - there are, I just happen to think for *most* things in this particular discussion, sensor color differences are further down the list of importance.

What makes it difficult for reviewers is trying to normalize the raw converter. Honestly - one does not work BEST for all. Yes, the use of ACR might be a normalization option, but in my opinion, it is not always the best for some files, and how can you say the camera produces "worse" color than another when you haven't given it the best possible chance at doing so by using the best converter. And then of course, "best converter" is also somewhat subjective. A very, very difficult task for a reviewer for certain.
Logged
RomanJohnston
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 72


« Reply #38 on: June 13, 2007, 10:50:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Playing on a lot of diffrent forums, I often get permission and play with files from many diffrent brands. I always get the colors I want from each brand.

Camera equipment has become SO good in the DSLR arena, that preferance usually comes down to ergonomics. I just happen to like the button and wheel approach to camera controls over the Menu approach....so Nikon appeals to me.

I can walk beside anyone (and have done so) and borrow their camera...and come home with similar shots from what I would get from my own gear...with only things like Megapixel count showing only the diffrence with what I can do with the output.

Once you have exposure nailed...and WB preset properly.....colors are pretty close between all brands.

The rest.....is PP...and your abilitys as a photographer.

And for the person who asked.....The prints were done on a LightJet by a local printing company (TIS Graphics local to Portland Oregon)

Roman
« Last Edit: June 14, 2007, 08:49:20 AM by RomanJohnston » Logged

Harley
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


WWW
« Reply #39 on: June 27, 2007, 02:41:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Without trying to be snide, take whichever one you want to shoot with the most. If you take what you like the most, you will get the best results.

quote=SlimE,May 16 2007, 02:05 AM]
Hi Guys, this is my first post ever...so here goes
I have three cameras. A Minolta X700 35mm film camera with a 28-70mm lense, a 2.8F Rollieflex medium format and a new D80 with a 18-70mm lense. I am an avid landscape photographer and often hike up mountains to get the best shots. The question is which should I take if I could only take one due to weight constraints.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117836\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad