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!
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
Hercules,
Your statement is kind of without base, or it is dependent on how you use your 10D, or you are an inexperienced photographer. Image quality is in the eyes of the beholder (Read "The Tao of Photography"). It really depends on what kind of job you are working on. I own a Canon 10D with all Canon's fastest prime lenses (15/2.8, 24/1.4, 35/1.4,50 /1.4, 85/1.2, 100/2.8, 135/2.0, 200/2.8, and 1.4x telecon), a Contax ND with a 50/1.4 and NAM-1, a Contax 645 with all lenses, a Contax G2 with all lenses, a Contaflex S w/50 2.8 and a Contaflex BC w/ 50/2.8. When I need to work fast I use the ND first and the 10D second (for quality) but for superior quality where portability isn't an issue I use the 645 w/220 vaccum backs and for portability/quality film combo I use the G2. The G2 is always over my shoulder film or digital and frankly it is one of the best/most flexible cameras I have ever owned bar none (and if Kyocera would make a digital G2 body I would probably fight to get in line first). I will put my 645 against my 10D any day (for grain and lots of other reasons) and I believe the 645 wins hands down even with NPC 160 or Provia 100F versus the 10D at 100 ISO. But this is based on my judgement based on how I use my photographic tools. I wouldn't need Neat Image and FocalBlade if the 10D had no grain. Image quality is the exact reason many photographers are not completely digital on the front end. We can't manage the front end in a manner that beats film yet. Besides, I have many clients that want my digital images to look like grainy film. It all comes down to the end use and the output the artist wants.
Your statement is kind of without base, or it is dependent on how you use your 10D, or you are an inexperienced photographer. Image quality is in the eyes of the beholder (Read "The Tao of Photography"). It really depends on what kind of job you are working on. I own a Canon 10D with all Canon's fastest prime lenses (15/2.8, 24/1.4, 35/1.4,50 /1.4, 85/1.2, 100/2.8, 135/2.0, 200/2.8, and 1.4x telecon), a Contax ND with a 50/1.4 and NAM-1, a Contax 645 with all lenses, a Contax G2 with all lenses, a Contaflex S w/50 2.8 and a Contaflex BC w/ 50/2.8. When I need to work fast I use the ND first and the 10D second (for quality) but for superior quality where portability isn't an issue I use the 645 w/220 vaccum backs and for portability/quality film combo I use the G2. The G2 is always over my shoulder film or digital and frankly it is one of the best/most flexible cameras I have ever owned bar none (and if Kyocera would make a digital G2 body I would probably fight to get in line first). I will put my 645 against my 10D any day (for grain and lots of other reasons) and I believe the 645 wins hands down even with NPC 160 or Provia 100F versus the 10D at 100 ISO. But this is based on my judgement based on how I use my photographic tools. I wouldn't need Neat Image and FocalBlade if the 10D had no grain. Image quality is the exact reason many photographers are not completely digital on the front end. We can't manage the front end in a manner that beats film yet. Besides, I have many clients that want my digital images to look like grainy film. It all comes down to the end use and the output the artist wants.
hercules201
Member
Gee, sorry I forgot to mention I read a test. They used Provia 100F and a Canon 10D. The film was scanned but the digital SLR was a clear winner in my eyes and the tester. Can't find that link again.
Resolution was better and grain in Provia 100F was very bothersome when compared. It even had black dots spread all over.
This is not a troll.
I can however agree that digital images look too sharp. After all your eye can't even grab a scenery with that sharpness in one glance but when you put it on screen or print it's "too much". Your eyes can only see a sharp "dot" the rest of your viewfild is unsharp, difficult to understand but true.
Resolution was better and grain in Provia 100F was very bothersome when compared. It even had black dots spread all over.
This is not a troll.
I can however agree that digital images look too sharp. After all your eye can't even grab a scenery with that sharpness in one glance but when you put it on screen or print it's "too much". Your eyes can only see a sharp "dot" the rest of your viewfild is unsharp, difficult to understand but true.
hercules201
Member
A quality drum scan on a 35 mm slide will produce an file of 96 meg. or about 10 times the canon D10.
--
So? There is 10 times as much grain. You have to understand what information is. The fact that there is 10 times more information doesn't mean it's meaningful for a human eye and brain.
Unplug your printer when it's printing and plug back.. Will you get a new novel never written on the papers?
--
So? There is 10 times as much grain. You have to understand what information is. The fact that there is 10 times more information doesn't mean it's meaningful for a human eye and brain.
Unplug your printer when it's printing and plug back.. Will you get a new novel never written on the papers?
Hi Herc,
"This is not a troll."
It *really* has to be. It's like saying your VW Beetle with a 20HP engine can outrun my 993 Turbo Porsche...unless something is simply drastically wrong with my car (or the images you've seen), it just isn't physically possible.
I have first hand experience with many digital 35mmDSLRs and none of them beat my MF, especially when your staple of digital comparison is the Canon 10D, which only has a 6M pixel sensor.
The Canon 1Ds and the newer Kodak 14M pixel camera are quite good, but still, don't "beat" ANY MF camera, as you claim.
Austin
"This is not a troll."
It *really* has to be. It's like saying your VW Beetle with a 20HP engine can outrun my 993 Turbo Porsche...unless something is simply drastically wrong with my car (or the images you've seen), it just isn't physically possible.
I have first hand experience with many digital 35mmDSLRs and none of them beat my MF, especially when your staple of digital comparison is the Canon 10D, which only has a 6M pixel sensor.
The Canon 1Ds and the newer Kodak 14M pixel camera are quite good, but still, don't "beat" ANY MF camera, as you claim.
Austin
N
nomed
I agree with Austin's comments. In addition to my Contax gear, I also own a Canon 6.3 megapixel camera and Epson 1280 printer. I am satisfied with the digital camera images when the original files are sufficiently large, properly manipulated and printed on high quality paper at sizes up to about 13 X 19. They do not, however, (in my opinion) rival a good scan from a 35mm slide on my Minolta film scanner. They most certainly do not rival MF, especially when enlarged beyond a certain point. I think the real issue here is how big you intend on making your prints. If you are only printing small sizes, the extra resolution possible with MF will probably not really be visible at smaller sizes. Rob
hercules201
Member
Ok, not the canon 10D I mean the one with 11M pixel. I read the test so... I can't understand how a 645 can remove all that grain. Take a picture of a metallic surface and compare. All that smooth metallic surface is washed away with film. Can't remember the link maybe it was http://luminous-landscape.com/
albert4321
Well-Known Member
To me, the general potential problem of digital images is skin tone and hi-light. Although One can claims that you can fix everything in Photoshop.
I don't own a 1Ds but ND, N1 and C645. I used the 10D few times and it never impresses me even with the low price point. For quality, my first choice is 645, then N1, then ND. I scan all the images from a pro lab, no dust, no dots, simply beautiful. The ND is quite good in Raw mode if you do it right, but dSLR is lack of the latitude of films. Digital image offers no grain, so what, it has a lot of down side. I am sure one day dSLR will out perform medium format film camera. But not the 10D in any standard.
There are all kind of test results out there, which usually is biased or just prove one point but may miss a lot of other issues of the subject.
What it comes down to is your own requirement, experience and own taste.
I don't own a 1Ds but ND, N1 and C645. I used the 10D few times and it never impresses me even with the low price point. For quality, my first choice is 645, then N1, then ND. I scan all the images from a pro lab, no dust, no dots, simply beautiful. The ND is quite good in Raw mode if you do it right, but dSLR is lack of the latitude of films. Digital image offers no grain, so what, it has a lot of down side. I am sure one day dSLR will out perform medium format film camera. But not the 10D in any standard.
There are all kind of test results out there, which usually is biased or just prove one point but may miss a lot of other issues of the subject.
What it comes down to is your own requirement, experience and own taste.
Ok, I have to comment on this ...
"Ok, not the canon 10D I mean the one with 11M pixel. I read the test so... "
It is obvious that you have had no personal experience with either camera, nor the possibilities of its files or access to a MF negative to compare. In earlier posts you made it sound like your comments were your own, however, they are other people's observations, not your own and as such, you should make that clear.
"Ok, not the canon 10D I mean the one with 11M pixel. I read the test so... "
It is obvious that you have had no personal experience with either camera, nor the possibilities of its files or access to a MF negative to compare. In earlier posts you made it sound like your comments were your own, however, they are other people's observations, not your own and as such, you should make that clear.
It's ridiculous to to compare a scanned analog film with a digital taken picture to judge film vs digital. What you do is compare the scanner vs digital camera. The film is of course much better than digital when it comes to resolution and color. If you test film vs digital the scanner should be at least as good as the film. I have not heard of a scanner that good. And it's posible to remove grain effects from scanned film (ICE GEM). I love film and hope I can use film many years to come. What digital is "is good enough" for many situations but no way as good as film. (I wonder how many 100 years old digital pictures there will be 100 years from now if it's not printed analog, but that's another question)