CI Photocommunity
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
35mm DSLR vs Medium Format scanned
- Thread starter alan
- Start date
Herc,
That explains it. I am familiar with that web site. It happens to contain VERY biased tests, as well as a LOT of erroneous information. The owner of it apparently has an agenda. He's been erroneously proclaiming that digital is king for many years, providing many simply erroneous tests and has done as much as possible to convince himself, and apparently others, that what he claims is so, when it simply is not.
Though there is a lot of good information on that web site, it is to be taken with a very large grain of salt. I know this sounds mean, and it is not meant to be, it is simply a statement of fact. The owner is a self proclaimed expert in the field (which I am a professional in, he is not), and, as far as I know, he has no other credentials beyond that, and the fact that he has the money to buy all these toys.
Austin
That explains it. I am familiar with that web site. It happens to contain VERY biased tests, as well as a LOT of erroneous information. The owner of it apparently has an agenda. He's been erroneously proclaiming that digital is king for many years, providing many simply erroneous tests and has done as much as possible to convince himself, and apparently others, that what he claims is so, when it simply is not.
Though there is a lot of good information on that web site, it is to be taken with a very large grain of salt. I know this sounds mean, and it is not meant to be, it is simply a statement of fact. The owner is a self proclaimed expert in the field (which I am a professional in, he is not), and, as far as I know, he has no other credentials beyond that, and the fact that he has the money to buy all these toys.
Austin
Following are interesting links that compare scanned film images to digital capture. Ken Rockwell uses both, depending on his needs. So let's not trigger another film vs. digital debate!
Following is a site that has some very nice resolution comparisons from actual images, and not test patterns.
Following is a site that has some very nice resolution comparisons from actual images, and not test patterns.
N
nomed
I was going to mention Ken Rockwell's site in my earlier post, but hesitated because I would be quoting someone else's tests and not my own. Rockwell contends that one would require approx a whopping 25 megapixel camera to match 35mm film's resolution. Personally, I believe the rapacious camera manufacturers (mainly Nikon and Canon) are capable of this technology now, but are deliberately releasing "newer versions" of cheap, plastic digital cameras gradually into the market place so as to force consumers into a situation of inevitable and never-ending upgrades (a phenomenon we are all too familiar with in the computer, DVD, VHS etc. industries). Yet another reason to stick with film. Rob
hercules201
Member
Well,ok. Perhaps the test is biased, perhaps not.
Bjorn, I'm assuming that you directed the comment about not comparing the film to digital, but the scanner to digital towards me ... and you are exactly right, I just didn't take enough care to spell it all out. I only meant that he should get the original MF film to see the detail in it and of course he could get it professionally scanned. That way he would know that it wasn't doctored or biased.
An even less complicated technique is to just ask yourself if you are satisfied with what you've got then don't bother looking. Performance for the sake of performance is a waste. Personally I still use film because I want better control over the DOF and can get film quality in a relatively small (even somewhat pocketable) and rugged camera. But those are just part of my criteria.
Thanks for the links Robert, I've not seen those sites yet.
An even less complicated technique is to just ask yourself if you are satisfied with what you've got then don't bother looking. Performance for the sake of performance is a waste. Personally I still use film because I want better control over the DOF and can get film quality in a relatively small (even somewhat pocketable) and rugged camera. But those are just part of my criteria.
Thanks for the links Robert, I've not seen those sites yet.
Glad you found the links useful. They caused me to rethink what equipment to buy going forward. I sold off my Nikon SLR and my Mamiya TLR last year to buy an N1 (just fell in love with the Zeiss glass and the camera ergononmics). I was planning on getting a DSLR within the next year, but now I'm leaning back toward the Contax 645 (preferrably version 2, if that ever happens). I've also been playing around with a Canon S45 and have been dissappointed by the results. My N1 shots are much, much better. Colors are true and the shots are sharper. An unfair comparison, but in this case the convenience of a small p&s comes with too many trade-offs. So, back to MF film! Too bad good MF film scanners are so expensive!
Hi Robert,
You an get a near mint late model Leafscan 45 for around $1200 or less, with latest firmeware and rotating film holders. It is arguably one of the best film scanners ever made, and may be the best one for B&W as it scans B&W as B&W, not as RGB. Resolution for 35mm is 5080, and for MF is 2540. There is a Yahoo group for them if you are interested, and it has a files section with documentation and manuals.
Regards,
Austin
You an get a near mint late model Leafscan 45 for around $1200 or less, with latest firmeware and rotating film holders. It is arguably one of the best film scanners ever made, and may be the best one for B&W as it scans B&W as B&W, not as RGB. Resolution for 35mm is 5080, and for MF is 2540. There is a Yahoo group for them if you are interested, and it has a files section with documentation and manuals.
Regards,
Austin
Thanks for the scanner suggestions! But first I need to get another MF camera. And that won't be until early 2005, since I'm still adding to my children's college funds.
I haven't looked at flatbed scanners because I'll also need 35mm scans. I was under the impression that a dedicated film scanner would be best for 35 mm.
I'll look into both the Leaf 45 and the Epson 4870. After all, I have plenty of time to do research.
Thanks.
I haven't looked at flatbed scanners because I'll also need 35mm scans. I was under the impression that a dedicated film scanner would be best for 35 mm.
I'll look into both the Leaf 45 and the Epson 4870. After all, I have plenty of time to do research.
Thanks.