DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

G2 Newbies Observations

Mike, as i keep repeating, this was never intended to be a discourse on digital's superiority. In fact, i have been espousing both sides, as i see benefits and advantages to both media. Yes, i did "point" to the Reichman article, as the first set of s&le comparison images i could find at that quick moment. But, no, i don't rely on that single piece to validate my claims that I ALSO HAVE SEEN THE SAME RESULTS. And, THAT has been the foundation of all of my comments. If you're so infuriated by MR's stuff, dismiss it and focus on the true issue. Yes, i said it seems the 1Ds images are better. Operative word is "seems." I also have said that i prefer the "dirty" analog media for aesthetic reasons. So, rather than jump me for a bit of lexicon, please make an effort to rediscover the content of the post.

No, it was not my intent to "prove" anything with that link. As i said before, (why aren't you getting this?) the link was for the purpose of illustrating something, and for DISCUSSION. Either way, i still fail to see how the linked s&les don't contradict a post above that asserts that 35mm is still better than digital. MRs illustration is with 6x7 film, and regardless of the conversations you have with fellow conspiracy theorists, it still demonstrates 'something.' Extrapolate down for a much smaller 35mm frame, and the differences are more significant. But, again, throw it all out. I'm saying i've achieved the same results, and with (only) a D60, versus both 35mm and 6x4.5. I haven't compared 6x7.

You said "Haven't you guys seen the Luminous Landscape shootout?" and then proceeded to say that it seems that 1Ds images are "superior on every front". If your idea of proving your point was referencing that article on luminous-landscape, then that idea is wrong.

A GMC commercial? Trucks is trucks. Whatever.

Your objections:
"Seeing where? On the 72dpi screen? Or on optically made print? Or on inkjet? Or on projector? What exactly is being compared? If the purpose of his article was comparing resolving power of his scanner and his digital camera - mission partially accomplished. If his purpose was to compare resolving power of FILM based system and resolving power of digital system - the mission is a total failure.

I'm still not sure what world you're living in. All of your 'statistics' are only valid in a purely speculative, academic sense. You use mathematics to prove something that should be decided with your eyes. For one thing, you still haven't indicated how you could examine a digital file with a microscope. So, whatever quantitative measure you would get by measuring film resolution is really moot. Secondly, it just doesn't matter anyway. Film is a different TYPE of media. Your nyquist formulations and 'equivalent megapixels' factors are irrelevant. A 16Mp file from a film scan is different than a 16Mp digital capture. Enlarge both, and you'll see the difference. It seems that all of your arguments are strictly numbers-based, and those numbers are being improperly applied. Whatever - i will always prefer to rely on my eyes. I used to have the same objections as you, but then i actually USED the equipment. Theoretical fuzzy math.

You say it very aptly here: "Your film pictures are probably sharper than digital. Most likely you simply don't have adequate equipment to get all that detail out."

You're telling me which is sharper? Based on what? NOT seeing the images? That pretty much encapsulates the foundation of your logic. But, even if your presumtuous conclusion were correct, the secondary, qualifying statement invalidates it. Most likely, most people don't have adequate equipment to "get the sharpness out." And, as an art director in New York, if i don't have access to the best equipment, then who does? Again, you're comparing theoretical data instead of real-world information. As i continue to say, the only data that really matters to me is That Which Can Actually Be Realized. Further, i have also been speaking of working professionals, who in the commercial world, must deal with reproducing their images. I'm not going to go into an entire 'thing' with regard to press limitations, but suffice it to say that even your mathematical 'advantages' dissapear on press.

So, even if we concede that Reichman was "ought" [sic] to contrive certain results, he didn't have to go very far. But, i suppose you're calling me a liar, and might also make the accusation that i'm somehow in league with MR. Perhaps in your mind, we're one and the same.... Really, though, what would be my motivations?







That's why, in response to what you said:
"I would only compare 'full-sized' sensors, of DSLRs or digital backs to drum scans of 35mm/MF film".

You: "Academic one? Aren't we ought to see whether film has more detail or digital? If you can't extract that detail because you have terrible enlarger lens - it has nothing to do with film itself! The details are THERE."

No, i'm not "ought" (again?) to see whether film has more detail than digital. Again, it's an impossible comparison. You CAN'T measure the detail without scanning the film, or without outputting the digital file to film emulsion. Both are flawed processes. But, in the REAL WORLD, film is routinely, and by necessity, scanned for use, for commercial use. You keep ignoring the basics of my comments in order to continue on your rant. I am NOT talking about gallery/exhibition prints, in which the negative would be used to make a print 'directly.' I SAID that i still find silver prints to be superiour to any inkjets. THIS IS NOT PART OF THE ARGUMENT!


It's going to tell you a true resolving power of film. If you're going to use scanner that CAN'T see all the details on film and say "okay, that's the true measure of detail the film can capture", then you're fooling yourself. Pretty simple.

You:
"All the people that shoot slides and then project it on their screen will tell you that digital isn't there yet."

For the last time - anyone who shoots slides and projects them CANNOT have made a comparison between those slides and digital. A comparison would involve projecting the digital images side by side with the film counterparts. How/when was this done? You're endeavouring to compare Two Different Media types, with different purposes, applications, and means of display. As soon as you can explain how this can be done, AND then SHOW us how your argument makes sense in a practical, real life ex&le.... If you want real-life ex&les, as i suggested, visit Mark Tucker's work. Then, perhaps you could go to RobGalbraith.com, and read similar discussion from working professionals who use both film and digital and who therefore have a more firm basis for comparison. The continued naysaying from those who apparently haven't even used one of the media in question is rather pointless.

But, Mike, it's ridiculous to continue this in argumentative form. I apologize now, if you've taken offense to anything above. I made what i considered to be a simple statement, and then i find myself having to defend someone else (with whom i have no affiliation or allegiance), simply because his conclusions are similar to my own, although with different methodology, and apparently different motives.

Peace.
 
So Joe,

Gotten your first roll back? What do you think?

Best regards,

--Rick
 
I have to say that given the price of the Canon EOS 1DS of £5799.99 sans lenses, in the latest Jacobs advert in Amateur Photographer, it blooming well ought to better than anything else on earth or possibly the universe.
John
 
Yea, I think we should apologize to Joe for destroying his thread of "Newbies Observations" of the G2. Scott
 
PS> To Mike and his need to use the microscope for a fair comparison... well that depends...

The flaw depends upon what you want to compare.
happy.gif
If you want to compare which system (film v. digital) makes better prints, then you must include a scanner as part of the process. However, if you want to compare storage of the image, then film slide versus the digital file could be compared and the slide examined under the best microscope. Cheers, Scott
 
Rick;

Thanks for asking about roll #1. I started on Saturday, shot about half a roll or T-Max (100) and started raking leaves. Then it started to rain, contrast went away visually but I shot a few more. Still a half roll to go, I'll have something by next week. Basically spent the time that I had taking a few high contrast shots that I can reference with what I have previously shot with my SLR/CZ 50/1.7. On a tripod, with high contrast targets (like a flag down the street) I get roughly 40 lp/mm with the camera/lens/scanner combination using Velvia (this is realisticly what I can expect with this combo). Next in queue is a roll of Velvia. What I'm hoping for out of the G2 is to see more contrast and perhaps a little more sharpness at wide aperture. As a broader hope, maybe better detail accuracy in lower contrast situations at all f's.

A couple more observations:
- I like the way the G2 feels, not taking too long to make the holding transition.
- I have always used AE lock on my Contax SLR to hone to the zone that I want. The G2 AE lock is no big deal to adapt. Quite easy.
- The AF is not noisy to me (but the term noise is subjective). I think that others have noted that whatever noise exists probably seems loudest to the person holding the camera.
- The speed of the AF is okay. Not the fastest that I've seen (far slower than a Canon AF anything) but I'll be looking for accuracy. Its fast enough, I'm not shooting sports.
- The AF accuracy is interesting. Sometimes, dead nuts on, other times slightly off. The viewfinder is invaluable.....I see that it is a half meter off and recompose and hit AF and its dead on. Its probably just my learning curve or an inadvertant bad target within the focus target. I wish that the accuracy that is displayed in the DX window was shown in the viewfinder. When the AF is right, it looks to be VERY right. Again, it might be my learning curve here. In any case, I have an okay sense of distance and if the distance displayed is off, I just redo it.
- The info in the viewfinder is perfect. Not too much info, not too little. For me, just about right. It also is relatively intuitive. Again, wish that distance was more accurate, and more minor, wish that f was displayed. I'm a minimalist and can live with both.
- The sound of the shutter is very crisp. Much nicer and less vibration relative to my 139Q "twang" sound.
- Played around with MF. This seems to me fine. Its a little slow to do (I have a hard time with the dial relative to just twisting a SLR lens) but fine. It'll be interesting over the long run to see how much I use it. Right now, I don't think that I'll use it consistently.
- The one thing that I need quickly is a cover of some sort. I can see where the back will get scratched because of general use. My current bags are useless as well....this will take some thinking to solve...perhaps a very small foamed Pelican box.

Thanks to whoever put a link showing the G2 metering weighting in a farem. It seemed that emphasis with centered well...just knowing what the frame weighting is like is great.

keoj
 
Joe, I must have missed the link you are referring to on G2 metering in all this extraneous discussion. Can you point me to it? Scott
 
> David J Valvo (Smartrav) on Tuesday, November 18, replied: "the human eye is NOT a scanner. But the receptors of the optic nerve can be considered digital, like an oriental rug but the signals are continous stream analog."

... NOT really continuous stream analog, actually what is perceived as an image "remains in memory" for up to 1/15 sec. Analog films are 16 or 24 shots/sec and appear continuous. All life long you are digitally scanning x times per second your environment !!
 
Derek,

> But, no, i don't rely on that single piece to
> validate my claims that I ALSO HAVE SEEN THE
> SAME RESULTS

You WILL see the same results when you use SAME methods as he does. That's the whole point!

> Extrapolate down for a much smaller 35mm frame,
> and the differences are more significant

Resolving power of 35mm lenses is higher than medium format. Thus - even more detail stuffed on same type of emulsion. Bigger enlargement though, but that's a different story.

> I'm still not sure what world you're living in.
> All of your 'statistics' are only valid in a
> purely speculative, academic sense. You use
> mathematics to prove something that should be
> decided with your eyes.

First of all, math is an accurate science. Second, my eyes made the decision - digital sucks.

> MRs illustration is with 6x7 film, and
> regardless of the conversations you have with
> fellow conspiracy theorists, it still
> demonstrates 'something.'

It demonstrates one thing - his bias and incompetence. The comparison "review" he is doing is totally flawed and that's the whole problem.

> For one thing, you still
> haven't indicated how you could examine a
> digital file with a microscope.

What? I have a feeling that you don't get my point. You want to examine the detail/quality of images? Examine it at the source. Thus, view your digital files on say monitor (bad idea), or a inkjet print (still a bad idea) and view your slides on projector or under microscope and compare the two. The fact that you can't "view" both under exact same conditions is because with digital there is no image actually. It's a series of bits. So, if you really want to compare them using exact same methods - get that file to the slide (there are machines that do that) and by doing so you don't lose any "detail" that that file had - since it's just a direct film exposure using laser and compare it to the slide you obtained using traditional film system.

But using scanner and then inkjet printer to show you the detail of film? Please...

Scanner will not show you the detail that film has. It was not even designed to. You will lose a lot of detail that your film captured just because you used a scanner.

You want high quality print from film - get good enlarger. You want to actually see all that detail and color - get microscope or high-quality projector.

If the whole idea is to compare inkjet prints from both then conclusion can be reached about quality of INKJET prints and inkjet prints only! Not about quality of film vs. quality of digital images in general. Do you understand what I mean?

> Again, it's an impossible comparison. You CAN'T
> measure the detail without scanning the film, or
> without outputting the digital file to film
> emulsion.

Wrong again. You want to see it with your eyes as you said, or you want to see it with the "eyes" of your scanner? If you want to see it with your eyes - microscope. Or alternatively, if there is no microscope, at least output the digital file to slide and compare the two side-by-side enlarged through a high quality projector. Because again, with digital you're not losing detail when you output it to slide. While you do lose a lot of detail+color+contrast when you use scanner to "digitize" slide.

> I SAID that i still find silver prints to be
> superiour to any inkjets. THIS IS NOT PART OF
> THE ARGUMENT!

Who said it was? I only took an issue with reference you used (MR).

> I apologize now, if you've taken offense to
> anything above

Heh, you would have to go much further than that to offend me. So, no worries
happy.gif


> Peace

Sayonara (spelling?)


Scott,

> The flaw depends upon what you want to compare.
> If you want to compare which system (film v.
> digital) makes better prints, then you must
> include a scanner as part of the process.

Nope. You want to compare the prints? Make digital one via LightJet (or inkjet if you like) and film one via good enlarger. Scanner has no use in here, it only itroduces extraneous step in the process that adds more problems and spoils the comparison.

> However, if you want to compare storage of the
> image, then film slide versus the digital file
> could be compared and the slide examined under
> the best microscope.

Actually, I didn't quite get that. What do you mean? How good the image at the source is or what? If so, yepp, microscope.

> Yea, I think we should apologize to Joe for
> destroying his thread of "Newbies Observations"
> of the G2. Scott

Truly. Will stop right here.

> Joe, I must have missed the link you are
> referring to on G2 metering in all this
> extraneous discussion. Can you point me to it?
> Scott

Hm, actually I also haven't seen the link. I wonder which one he means. Perhaps in a different thread?

Mike.
 
Back
Top