What's new
DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are 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. From smartphone to Medium Format.

DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

RAW Developer revisited

Robert,

It's high time we did have some controversy. When I was talking to a Kodak rep at a photo show in France last year and complimenting him on the achievement of a 14mp camera, he said that digital still had some way to go to equal film. For ex&le their best current 100ASA 35mm colour negative had a resolving power equivalent to around 38mp. On this basis a 6 x 6 negative would have an equivalent to around 158mp. I am a keen digital as well as film user but unless I need instant photos or am using my camera for P&S, I think film is currently best. Even more than the resolving power of digital, I think the most important current issue is noise. I use an SL300RT* and generally it is very good but may be prone to noise generated in the ultra violet sensitivity range. This shows up as noisy skies when taking photos at higher altitudes. My previous Kyocera S5 had noise suppressed to the point that the photos became dull and flat. Before that I had a Leica Digilux 1 where the noise on blues and reds made most of the photos very hard on the eye. I am not a great fan of "box" type medium format cameras (e.g. Contax 645, Hasselblad etc) principally because I find them hard to hold/focus and more suited to tripod work. I could be tempted by a rangefinder medium format but I am not sure if there is one made currently. I hope this generates some replies as would love to hear others' views Wilson
 
Wilson,

While I agree digital is not yet the 1-to-1 equivalent to film, I think that stating 35mm is the equivalent of 38MP is definitely on the optimistic side. What is that based on? You can't even get decent resolution data on film from Kodak anymore, that I could find. All they give you is data so you can compare one of their films to another one of their films.

I would weigh those statements based on their source, i.e. a Kodak rep ... can they can provide some empirical data?

Cheers,

DJ
 
Wilson,

The Mamiya 7II is an interesting MF rangefinder, but I understand that it's not great for tight head shots, which I often take. That's why I'm interested in the Contax 645. The drawbacks are weight, expense, slow flash sync, and AF speed. On the plus side, it really does seem easy to handle, and oh, the image quality is fantastic!

I'm skeptical of claims on commercially funded sites that current DSLRS match the resolution of medium format. After all, the folks writing the reviews are paid by digital camera manufacturers. That's why I've posted the question here. No one here has a commercial interest in pushing DSLR's and many of you have medium format experience.

Robert
 
Hi Robert,

"I'm skeptical of claims on commercially funded sites that current DSLRS match the resolution of medium format."

As you should be, as most any claim of that nature is simply erroneous (er, silly ;-). Anyone making such claims must either highly qualify the claim (Holga vs D1s, Holga in plastic bag or with jelly on the lense...), or the person making the claim should not be taken seriously (to be read...they don't know what they are talking about ;-).

Regards,

Austin
 
I agree, Austin,

Most forums are even worse than the review sites. There are folks out there that claim they can print to A0 from a 3.2 MP camera - with stunning output! Why not just get a 2 pixel camera with genuine fractals and call it a day? Not to mention that most forums "conversations" seem more like religous wars than an attempt to share information and learn.

On the plus side - spring has arrived and the clocks have moved forward. Life is good.

Robert
 
You like losing an hour??? I feel cheated! And where's the spring weather so we can make spring images? I guess I'm seeing the glass as half empty ...

Oh, wait - the raw plug-in! OK, life is good ... I think I may get the 85/1.4 after all
happy.gif
.

Robert, what size is A0?

DJ
 
A lot of claims as to what can be done with digital in relation to
film is based on looking, not just math and charts. There are so many variables that can effect what makes a print look good or not.

We can go on and on as the whether one thing rivals another, but it's all in the eye of the beholder.

The fact is, digital cameras like the Kodak 1Ds and Kodak 14-Pro ARE being used to replace Medium Format. Just look at the plunge in demand for MF gear. Does it really replace MF? Right or wrong, in the digital domain it seems it does for a LOT of photographers and clients.

In the right hands ( like Irakly's ) the ND files can also rival MF. But that is comparing them in the digital domain... not MF wet prints laid next to digital inkjets. It's ND inkjets verses scanned MF film made into inkjets that are being compared.

I do a fair amount of commercial work. The art directors and clients haven't wanted film from me in 3 years. 100% of the commercial jobs have been done with the Canon 1Ds or using a digital back on a MF camera. It's their $, and in the "eyes of these beholders", digital is just fine.
 
DJ,

An A0 print has an area of 1 square meter. And there are folks claiming flawless quality A0 prints from 3.2 MP cameras! So yes, Marc has a valid point - quality is in the eye of the beholder.

I've decided to hold off a bit on a plunge back into MF. The all-digital work flow is preferable, but the prices of digital cameras that rival MF are still out of my reach.

In the mean time, I'm working with Henry Scherer on acquiring a Contax IIIa. He's just started a program where he locates, purchases, and restores vintage Contax rangefinders for individuals under contract. So I'll end up with a perfectly functioning state-of-the-art (as of 1955) camera for less than the price of a TVSD. This should be fun!

And DJ, have an extra cup of coffee and get outside. The buds are on the verge of erupting. Pretty nice compensation for that lost hour!

Robert
 
Marc,

"There are so many variables that can effect what makes a print look good or not."

and a LOT of that is in how competently the resultant image is created. I disagree that visual comparison of 6M DSLRs (even 11/14M) with MF will give "equal" results for large print sizes, unless someone did something "wrong" with the MF workflow, or the viewer isn't really very adept at critical viewing... Certainly for smaller prints, and/or non-critical viewing, yes, they certainly can compare, but so can 35mm film and MF.

As far as people using 11/14M pixel DSLRs to replace MF, that wasn't in question. The purposes people replace them with obviously is not a quality issue. 35mm film would have provided the same results they seek, but digital has added benefits that were not part of the original equation, immediacy.

Digital IS fine, no one said any differently, it's fine for *some* things. It's when claims are made that it's equal to MF film that the claim is simply not valid as a general statement. No, it isn't just "math", I speak from direct experience, and interestingly enough, the "math" agrees with my experience.

Regards,

Austin
 
DJ,

If I understood the rep correctly (my technical French is just about adequate) the estimated resolving power of equivalent to 38mp for a 35mm negative was based upon an ability to discriminate just over 200 lines per millimeter, times 36mm, times 24mm. Since the rep was comparing film favourably to their new, whizzy 14mp camera, which they were selling hard on the stand, I was more inclined to believe his statement than I would usually be. Wilson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top