Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

digital vs. medium format

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 9:47:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

Hey folks -

I was looking at picking up a used MF camera in my area ( ~ $500 ) and
the sales guy was giving me a hard pitch on the digital cameras they
have in stock. Specifically he was harping on the Canon 10D. He showed
me a print that was larger than 2' in both dimensions that was made
from the canon, and I was impressed. When you looked at it very
closely, you saw what looked like weird Quake texture maps, but with
film you would see grain, I guess, so it seems an even trade off.

Anyway, my original thought was to buy a MF camera ( I like working
with film and holding a mechanical device in my hands ) and buy a
digital back for it later on when the prices fell. I asked the sales
guy about the quality of the lenses, and he said they were worse on the
MF, because poor quality lenses wouldn't be as noticeable on MF! Is
this true? If so, it seems I should just go digital. ( or maybe try to
get a deal on a used MF camera if I finance a digital -- I'll bet the
sales guy makes more money of a new digital than a used MF. )

More about : digital medium format

Anonymous
March 23, 2005 10:48:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

Here's a little calculation for you to look at. Let us say you got a
6x4.5 format MF camera. And let us say the lens for it was indeed
poorer such that you could only get a maximum resolution of 45 lp/mm on
film so assume its maximum theoretical resolution was double that at 90
lp/mm so that the film sensors must be able to pick up 180 patches per
light per mm (since a line must have dark and light elements to be a
line). So a 6x4.5 (really 57mmx42mm) will have this many effective film
sensors:

57*180*42*180 = 77,565,600 sensors

Now for digital cameras, the current design is to have colored masks
over the sensors so one picks up green, one red and the other blue
light so it takes 3 digital sensors to give a true color so a digital
camera back would need:

77,565,600 * 3 = 232,696,800 pixels

So when 232 megapixels backs for MF cameras are firstly made and come
down in price to a sensible level then you can buy one to stick on the
back, knowing it will give you just as good results as film.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 1:01:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

lawpoop@gmail.com wrote:

> Hey folks -
>
> I was looking at picking up a used MF camera in my area ( ~ $500 ) and
> the sales guy was giving me a hard pitch on the digital cameras they
> have in stock. Specifically he was harping on the Canon 10D. He showed
> me a print that was larger than 2' in both dimensions that was made
> from the canon, and I was impressed. When you looked at it very
> closely, you saw what looked like weird Quake texture maps, but with
> film you would see grain, I guess, so it seems an even trade off.
>
> Anyway, my original thought was to buy a MF camera ( I like working
> with film and holding a mechanical device in my hands ) and buy a
> digital back for it later on when the prices fell. I asked the sales
> guy about the quality of the lenses, and he said they were worse on the
> MF, because poor quality lenses wouldn't be as noticeable on MF! Is
> this true? If so, it seems I should just go digital. ( or maybe try to
> get a deal on a used MF camera if I finance a digital -- I'll bet the
> sales guy makes more money of a new digital than a used MF. )

I was within 24 hours of buying a 500CM, back and 150mm f/4. The lens
had some minor deposits on the 2nd group from the front (oil?). But
that put me off as I love backlit shots on MF E-6. Then I found the 7D
at a good price... so, MF will have to wait until the fall.

I've sent a medium print job from one of my first images via the web to
be printed. I'll pick it up later today.

MF Lens quality? The word "worse" is probably the wrong one to use,
but _yes_: many high quality 35mm primes from Minolta, Nikon, Canon,
Pentax, Oly, Tamron and others are SHARPER than most Carl Zeiss optics
for MF. They have to be to push the 35mm format. With MF sized film
the lens maker has a more breathing room.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 1:39:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"RolandRB" <rolandberry@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111592898.061671.122740@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Here's a little calculation for you to look at. Let us say you got a
> 6x4.5 format MF camera. [...]

Here's my assertion - pure digital capture is cleaner and capable of higher
resolution color fidelity than scanned film of the same size as the sensor.
Have fun with that.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 2:25:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

<lawpoop@gmail.com> wrote in message:

> I was looking at picking up a used MF camera in my area ( ~ $500 ) and
> the sales guy was giving me a hard pitch on the digital cameras they
> have in stock. Specifically he was harping on the Canon 10D.

Depending on your wants, needs, shooting habits, computer skills, lab
access, etc. either one could be right for you. Before jumping into
medium format on the basis of cheap used equipment, though, remember
that consumables costs for medium format are still significant. Since
I don't develop my own film, each medium format slide costs me about
70 cents just to proof.

However, if my sales guy was harping on the discontinued Canon 10D, I'd
seriously consider taking my business elsewhere. Normally I have no
issue with buying discontinued models, as long warranty service is
available and the price is right. However, since the 10D can't mount
EF-S lenses, it limits the alternatives for wide-angle lenses and
wide-to-tele zooms.

While I don't respond well to hard pitches in general, had he been
pitching the 20D or even the 300D/Digital Rebel it would have raised
less of a red flag in my mind. To me, it sounds like he was trying
to get rid of his old stock (and possibly earn a spiff by doing so.)

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 2:25:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"Michael Benveniste" <mhb-offer@clearether.com> wrote in message
news:3adjkmF6b7d4hU1@individual.net...

> Depending on your wants, needs, shooting habits, computer skills, lab
> access, etc. either one could be right for you. Before jumping into
> medium format on the basis of cheap used equipment, though, remember
> that consumables costs for medium format are still significant. Since
> I don't develop my own film, each medium format slide costs me about
> 70 cents just to proof.

The hidden demon of digital at this time is the issue of replacing and
upgrading cameras (or backs) to remain in the 60% sector. The $1,500 digicam
you buy today will be worth zip in four years, but you will probably want to
replace it in three years. If you want to be at the top of the professional
game, it's far, far more expensive.

I'd like to know the real sales figures on the super-high-end MF digital
backs. I strongly suspect the prices are going to remain very high because
they aren't selling enough, to make the economy of scale; the marketplace
isn't going for the product. We will know when/if a manufacturer finally
gives up on the product because they cannot make decent-enough money for the
stockholders. Stockholders have a way of killing good things that are not
highly profitable. There's a bust coming up in two years - that's my little
risky prediction.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 4:28:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

<lawpoop@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111589248.567833.133140@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Hey folks -
>
> I was looking at picking up a used MF camera in my area ( ~ $500 ) and
> the sales guy was giving me a hard pitch on the digital cameras they
> have in stock. Specifically he was harping on the Canon 10D. He showed
> me a print that was larger than 2' in both dimensions that was made
> from the canon, and I was impressed. When you looked at it very
> closely, you saw what looked like weird Quake texture maps, but with
> film you would see grain, I guess, so it seems an even trade off.
>
> Anyway, my original thought was to buy a MF camera ( I like working
> with film and holding a mechanical device in my hands ) and buy a
> digital back for it later on when the prices fell. I asked the sales
> guy about the quality of the lenses, and he said they were worse on the
> MF, because poor quality lenses wouldn't be as noticeable on MF! Is
> this true? If so, it seems I should just go digital. ( or maybe try to
> get a deal on a used MF camera if I finance a digital -- I'll bet the
> sales guy makes more money of a new digital than a used MF. )

Interesting question. When I did this for a living full-time I had a 35mm,
a Hassleblad and a 4x5. The 4x5 was just too big, and the Hassleblad
produced stunning photos, but was a pain to carry around with a bunch of
lenses and backs. I always kept gravitating back to the 35 and never
regretted it. The vast majority of shots were more than good enough for any
use, and it was expecially great for action photography.

Now, having experienced the world of digital slr, I can only say that when I
blow up an image to the equivalent of a 16x20 or more, it is possible to get
an image that looks as good or better than 35mm film, and that's at 6.1
megapixels. I can make "noise" look like film grain with a tweak here and
there.

While the idea of a medium format digital looks great on paper, they are
extremely expensive right now, and if you buy a camera that does not yet
have a digital back, you have no guarantee they will ever make a digital
back for that model. And if they do, what are the odds it will cover the
same area as the original film size? Look at what's happened to most
DSLR's, and many think that will be the "new" format for digital SLR's,
which lenses to match the fact that the coverage area is smaller.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 5:08:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"jjs" <john@xstafford.net> writes:

> "Michael Benveniste" <mhb-offer@clearether.com> wrote in message
> news:3adjkmF6b7d4hU1@individual.net...
>
>> Depending on your wants, needs, shooting habits, computer skills, lab
>> access, etc. either one could be right for you. Before jumping into
>> medium format on the basis of cheap used equipment, though, remember
>> that consumables costs for medium format are still significant. Since
>> I don't develop my own film, each medium format slide costs me about
>> 70 cents just to proof.
>
> The hidden demon of digital at this time is the issue of replacing and
> upgrading cameras (or backs) to remain in the 60% sector. The $1,500 digicam
> you buy today will be worth zip in four years, but you will probably want to
> replace it in three years. If you want to be at the top of the professional
> game, it's far, far more expensive.

Not really. If you want to be at the top of the professional game,
you're spending 5-figure amounts in lab fees for processing and
scanning each year. You get that free with your digital body. Film
plus professional processing plus lab scanning (needed for nearly any
professional use of images these days) comes to more than $20/roll, so
a $1500 body is paid off in only 75 rolls -- far less than a single
year of professional use.

Low volume amateurs, and artists who are living off their day jobs,
are the ones really being squeezed by the current pricing structure.

> I'd like to know the real sales figures on the super-high-end MF
> digital backs. I strongly suspect the prices are going to remain
> very high because they aren't selling enough, to make the economy of
> scale; the marketplace isn't going for the product. We will know
> when/if a manufacturer finally gives up on the product because they
> cannot make decent-enough money for the stockholders. Stockholders
> have a way of killing good things that are not highly
> profitable. There's a bust coming up in two years - that's my little
> risky prediction.

I suspect you're right that the prices won't come down rapidly. The
fabrications of such huge devices remains expensive, and isn't
mainstream in the fab business either so it won't benefit as much from
R&D as other types of work.

But I don't think they're 'failing' in the marketplace; I think the
professionals are using them. They're just too expensive for the
amateur market, unlike DSLRs.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 5:09:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"jjs" <john@xstafford.net> writes:

> "RolandRB" <rolandberry@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1111592898.061671.122740@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Here's a little calculation for you to look at. Let us say you got a
>> 6x4.5 format MF camera. [...]
>
> Here's my assertion - pure digital capture is cleaner and capable of
> higher resolution color fidelity than scanned film of the same size
> as the sensor. Have fun with that.

I think that's clearly true in the current state of the arts (both
film and sensors change, after all). And I love it.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 5:17:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) writes:

>>I was looking at picking up a used MF camera in my area ( ~ $500 ) and
>>[...]
>
> A quality print requires 300dpi of information, which means that every
> step of the final printing process must have at least that much
> information. (But see my caveat below. Also, 200dpi doesn't look bad
> either, but not nearly as good as 300dpi). For a 24"x36" print, then,
> you need
>
> 7200x10800 or 77Mpix
>
> for a great print, or
>
> 24x36x4000 or 34Mpix
>
> for a good print.
>
> Even most 35mm film has trouble coming up with 77Mpix of image data,
> but medium format does very well.

The biggest fallacy here is that scanned pixels are much less clean
than digital-original pixels.

The other one is that some big prints fail to look good because of grain,
and others fail to look good because of lack of detail. (Then there's
the ones that fail to look good because of lousy printing, or a bad
original photo, but I think we can skip those, since we're talking
about technical potential here.) Digital originals will, generally
speaking, never fail to look good because of grain. They may,
however, fail to look good because of lack of detail; depending on the
subject matter, style of photo, and degree of enlargement.

So what "works" is highly variable. I've got a 16x24 print from a
Fuji S2 original that looks far better than any print in that size
range I ever made from a 35mm negative. (Which is partly just support
for your claim that medium-format film will more reliably produce
prints that size than 35mm film will.)

>>[...] I asked the sales guy about the quality of the lenses, and he
>>said they were worse on the MF, because poor quality lenses wouldn't
>>be as noticeable on MF! Is this true? If so, it seems I should just
>
> It is technically true that a minor defect on a MF lens will be less
> of a problem than a minor defect on a 35mm or dSLR lens, because the
> defect contributes to less of the picture on MF than on smaller
> formats. But don't be misled. A good MF setup can produce much
> crisper enlargements than anything a 35mm camera can.

Of the same size, yes. However, that MF lens has a lower resolution.

> Caveat: When I say that a good print requires 300dpi of information,
> I'm talking about a good, sharp, print. I have 12x18 enlargements
> from my 3Mpix camera which I love, but with only about 120dpi, they
> more resemble impressionist paintings than photographs.

I have 8.5x11 prints from my old 2Mpix camera, slightly cropped, and
from a housemate's different old 2Mpix camera, that I've put into
stacks with darkroom prints to show to serious photographers who use
MF and do their own darkroom work, and nobody has complained about
lack of resolution, and many people have commented on what strikingly
nice prints they are. The lowest ended up being 107PPI if I'm
remembering correctly.

Mind you, I'd *never* suggest as a rule of thumb that 107PPI is
adequate printing resolution! But with the right photos sometimes it
works surprisingly well (this one was a very sharp insect macro shot;
not something I'd have expected to print well with inadequate
resolution at all). What I *would* suggest is that, if you have a
picture that you'd love to see twice as big as the numbers say you can
make it -- give it a try. *Sometimes* it'll actually work anyway, and
then you've got a great print you didn't think was possible. The rest
of the time you've wasted some paper and ink.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 5:57:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

<lawpoop@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111589248.567833.133140@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Hey folks -
>
> I was looking at picking up a used MF camera in my area ( ~ $500 ) and
> the sales guy was giving me a hard pitch on the digital cameras they
> have in stock. Specifically he was harping on the Canon 10D. He showed
> me a print that was larger than 2' in both dimensions that was made
> from the canon, and I was impressed. When you looked at it very
> closely, you saw what looked like weird Quake texture maps, but with
> film you would see grain, I guess, so it seems an even trade off.
>
> Anyway, my original thought was to buy a MF camera ( I like working
> with film and holding a mechanical device in my hands ) and buy a
> digital back for it later on when the prices fell. I asked the sales
> guy about the quality of the lenses, and he said they were worse on the
> MF, because poor quality lenses wouldn't be as noticeable on MF! Is
> this true? If so, it seems I should just go digital. ( or maybe try to
> get a deal on a used MF camera if I finance a digital -- I'll bet the
> sales guy makes more money of a new digital than a used MF. )
>


Sure is nice to take pictures without all the computer fuss, which is the
case when I shoot film and MF, and looking at MF slides, for the first
time, on a light table, now that, for me, is excitement.

I have digital gear that I use professionally, and it is fun, but for
personal enjoyment, I prefer MF. My around town camera is a Fuji GA645,
Zi.


See, this argument about resolution is nonesense. MF has more than
enough, so does digital.


Patrick
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 6:24:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:m24qf215xr.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
> "jjs" <john@xstafford.net> writes:

>> The hidden demon of digital at this time is the issue of replacing and
>> upgrading cameras (or backs) to remain in the 60% sector. The $1,500
>> digicam
>> you buy today will be worth zip in four years, but you will probably want
>> to
>> replace it in three years. If you want to be at the top of the
>> professional
>> game, it's far, far more expensive.
>
> Not really. If you want to be at the top of the professional game,
> you're spending 5-figure amounts in lab fees for processing and
> scanning each year. You get that free with your digital body. Film
> plus professional processing plus lab scanning (needed for nearly any
> professional use of images these days) comes to more than $20/roll, so
> a $1500 body is paid off in only 75 rolls -- far less than a single
> year of professional use.

Maybe times have changed, but when I was involved in product and ad
photography, the client picked up the bill for processing - from film to
end. Now there is a trend to lay a lot of the expense on photographers for
digal work because it seems so "can do", and cheaper for the client. This is
another burden that pushes the pro to obsolete hardware for the next better
thing.

> But I don't think they're 'failing' in the marketplace; I think the
> professionals are using them. They're just too expensive for the
> amateur market, unlike DSLRs.

Well, of course I don't know, but I have a strong hunch that the spendy
units are losing propositions. I'd not mind being completely wrong about
that.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 6:29:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

In article <1111589248.567833.133140@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
<lawpoop@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Anyway, my original thought was to buy a MF camera ( I like working
>with film and holding a mechanical device in my hands ) and buy a
>digital back for it later on when the prices fell. I asked the sales
>guy about the quality of the lenses, and he said they were worse on the
>MF, because poor quality lenses wouldn't be as noticeable on MF! Is
>this true? If so, it seems I should just go digital. ( or maybe try to
>get a deal on a used MF camera if I finance a digital -- I'll bet the
>sales guy makes more money of a new digital than a used MF. )

Medium format is traditionally less fussy about lenses than the 35mm and
digital stuff, because you're not enlarging the results as much.

As for comparative image quality, the large prints from the 6/8mp DSLRs do
indeed look very good, but similar medium format prints look better, a lot
better, IME.

If you want to give it a try, you could do far worse than pick up a second
hand Twin Lens Reflex, such as a Rolleicord, Rolleiflex Automat, or Yashica
Mat 124 for not much money, shoot off a few rolls of slides or negatives,
and see if you feel comfortable with the format. You can pick up a decent
"starter" TLR on eBay for less than the price of all but the cheapest lenses
for a DSLR.

If you're happy with the fixed lens, manual focusing and exposure, and not
being able to do macro, then a twin lens reflex really is a joy to use, and
will produce some truly stunning results.

Good luck!
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 6:37:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

Inaccessible <pandemonium@pitchedpipes.com> writes:

> In article <Xns9622D91515EBDklotjohan@130.133.1.4>,
> Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It is cleaner to detect the digital image directly instead
>> of first using some electrochemical method. That is a
>> trivial truth. The smooth pictures you get from high end
>> digital cameras is a kind of proof. Film is grainy and have
>> low fidelity.
>>
>> Of course a large format camera with superb lenses is
>> much, much better than any digital camera. But at the same
>> size film sux. And even medium format film has problems
>> with graininess compared to DSLRs.
>
> Your basing your assumption on scanned film. Try basing your
> results on Optical prints for film versus computer generated
> ones. Sometimes the digital will be better, sometimes the
> film will be. I don't make generalized statements which is what
> my issue was.

Well, high-end scanning and digital printing is the best way to
produce professional-quality prints these days, at least unless you
have a freezer full of dye-transfer materials left. In fact, this was
true 3-5 years ago.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 6:45:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

Inaccessible <pandemonium@pitchedpipes.com> writes:

> In article <Xns9622DF72DDADBklotjohan@130.133.1.4>,
> Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> When making professional prints film is normally scanned.
>
> Another generalized statement.
>
>> Good scanners can extract more information from
>> film than any enlarger can do.
>
> Have you ever made an optical print? I don't need the information
> gotten from scanning to make a better optic print than digitized film
> produces through a computer printer, provided the film is exposed
> correctly to start.

I've made thousands of optical prints, and also own some really fine
ones made by others (I'm a pretty good B&W printer, but I ain't no
"master").

Consider, for example, this article from June 1999 by Galen Rowell
about how he was converted to digital printing
<http://www.mountainlight.com/articles/op1999.06f.html&g...;:

My miraculous conversion literally happened overnight. Federal Express
delivered 50-inch prints outputted from my digital files that held all
the saturation of my original 35mm transparencies with even better
tonal separation and the apparent sharpness of medium format.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 7:14:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"While the idea of a medium format digital looks great on paper, they
are
extremely expensive right now..."

Well, it's about $500 for a used hasselblad, I don't consider that to
be extremely expensive. I'm certain that after 3 years the hassy will
still be worth around $500, while the digital camera will be worth
maybe $250? In any case, if I decide next year that I need a digital
camera, I will get more bang for my buck than buying one right now.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 7:19:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

I like the way you think.

Personally, I like to work with my hands. I love computers, but I want
to work manually with my art. I enjoy handling MF negatives and looking
at them through the light box.

The guy at the camera store was trying to sell my on 'creating the best
image possible' but that's just not my game with photography. I like it
for the tactile experience, believe it or not. Normally I think
statements like that are malarkey, but for me its true in this case.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 7:59:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

>I was looking at picking up a used MF camera in my area ( ~ $500 ) and
>[...]

A quality print requires 300dpi of information, which means that every
step of the final printing process must have at least that much
information. (But see my caveat below. Also, 200dpi doesn't look bad
either, but not nearly as good as 300dpi). For a 24"x36" print, then,
you need

7200x10800 or 77Mpix

for a great print, or

24x36x4000 or 34Mpix

for a good print.

Even most 35mm film has trouble coming up with 77Mpix of image data,
but medium format does very well.

>[...] I asked the sales guy about the quality of the lenses, and he
>said they were worse on the MF, because poor quality lenses wouldn't
>be as noticeable on MF! Is this true? If so, it seems I should just

It is technically true that a minor defect on a MF lens will be less
of a problem than a minor defect on a 35mm or dSLR lens, because the
defect contributes to less of the picture on MF than on smaller
formats. But don't be misled. A good MF setup can produce much
crisper enlargements than anything a 35mm camera can.

Caveat: When I say that a good print requires 300dpi of information,
I'm talking about a good, sharp, print. I have 12x18 enlargements
from my 3Mpix camera which I love, but with only about 120dpi, they
more resemble impressionist paintings than photographs.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 9:10:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:01:37 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>lawpoop@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Hey folks -
>>
>> I was looking at picking up a used MF camera in my area ( ~ $500 ) and
>> the sales guy was giving me a hard pitch on the digital cameras they
>> have in stock. Specifically he was harping on the Canon 10D. He showed
>> me a print that was larger than 2' in both dimensions that was made
>> from the canon, and I was impressed. When you looked at it very
>> closely, you saw what looked like weird Quake texture maps, but with
>> film you would see grain, I guess, so it seems an even trade off.
>>
>> Anyway, my original thought was to buy a MF camera ( I like working
>> with film and holding a mechanical device in my hands ) and buy a
>> digital back for it later on when the prices fell. I asked the sales
>> guy about the quality of the lenses, and he said they were worse on the
>> MF, because poor quality lenses wouldn't be as noticeable on MF! Is
>> this true? If so, it seems I should just go digital. ( or maybe try to
>> get a deal on a used MF camera if I finance a digital -- I'll bet the
>> sales guy makes more money of a new digital than a used MF. )
>
>I was within 24 hours of buying a 500CM, back and 150mm f/4. The lens
>had some minor deposits on the 2nd group from the front (oil?). But
>that put me off as I love backlit shots on MF E-6. Then I found the 7D
>at a good price... so, MF will have to wait until the fall.
>
>I've sent a medium print job from one of my first images via the web to
>be printed. I'll pick it up later today.
>
>MF Lens quality? The word "worse" is probably the wrong one to use,
>but _yes_: many high quality 35mm primes from Minolta, Nikon, Canon,
>Pentax, Oly, Tamron and others are SHARPER than most Carl Zeiss optics
>for MF. They have to be to push the 35mm format. With MF sized film
>the lens maker has a more breathing room.
>
>Cheers,
>Alan

It's also the fact it's more difficult to produce a lens to a certain
optical quality that has to support a larger format. Which begs the
question; Why aren't lenses made for smaller CCDs (smaller than 35mm
film) substantially cheaper than 35mm counterparts? Oh Olympus....
-Rich
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 9:35:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"RolandRB" <rolandberry@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1111592898.061671.122740@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

> Here's a little calculation for you to look at. Let us say you got a
> 6x4.5 format MF camera. And let us say the lens for it was indeed
> poorer such that you could only get a maximum resolution of 45 lp/mm on
> film so assume its maximum theoretical resolution was double that at 90
> lp/mm so that the film sensors must be able to pick up 180 patches per
> light per mm (since a line must have dark and light elements to be a
> line). So a 6x4.5 (really 57mmx42mm) will have this many effective film
> sensors:
>
> 57*180*42*180 = 77,565,600 sensors
>
> Now for digital cameras, the current design is to have colored masks
> over the sensors so one picks up green, one red and the other blue
> light so it takes 3 digital sensors to give a true color so a digital
> camera back would need:
>
> 77,565,600 * 3 = 232,696,800 pixels
>
> So when 232 megapixels backs for MF cameras are firstly made and come
> down in price to a sensible level then you can buy one to stick on the
> back, knowing it will give you just as good results as film.

Nope.

The film is grainy and has a non linear response.
It is also not as flat as a digital sensor. The
color fidelity of the layers is also questionable.
There is also the matter of scanning or making
an enlargemant of the image - losing lots of quality.

Direct light to digital sensor is a much cleaner way
of recording images. Film sux!


/Roland
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 9:40:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

>
> It's also the fact it's more difficult to produce a lens to a certain
> optical quality that has to support a larger format. Which begs the

Yes.

> question; Why aren't lenses made for smaller CCDs (smaller than 35mm
> film) substantially cheaper than 35mm counterparts? Oh Olympus....

I believe it's called "profit".

The Oly 4/3 300mm f/2.8 (equiv view of a 600mm in 35mm) is about
US$6300(after $700 rebate) which is about $2K higher than 300 f/2.8
prices for 35mm.

A Canon 600mm f/4 for 35mm (IS) is US$7,200.

So Oly are gouging it a wee bit hard...

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 9:43:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:m2vf7iyv4y.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
> joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) writes:
>
>>>I was looking at picking up a used MF camera in my area ( ~ $500 ) and
>>>[...]
>>
>> A quality print requires 300dpi of information, which means that every
>> step of the final printing process must have at least that much
>> information. (But see my caveat below. Also, 200dpi doesn't look bad
>> either, but not nearly as good as 300dpi). For a 24"x36" print, then,
>> you need
>>
>> 7200x10800 or 77Mpix
>>
>> for a great print, or
>>
>> 24x36x4000 or 34Mpix
>>
>> for a good print.
>>
>> Even most 35mm film has trouble coming up with 77Mpix of image data,
>> but medium format does very well.
>
> The biggest fallacy here is that scanned pixels are much less clean
> than digital-original pixels.
>
> The other one is that some big prints fail to look good because of grain,
> and others fail to look good because of lack of detail. (Then there's
> the ones that fail to look good because of lousy printing, or a bad
> original photo, but I think we can skip those, since we're talking
> about technical potential here.) Digital originals will, generally
> speaking, never fail to look good because of grain. They may,
> however, fail to look good because of lack of detail; depending on the
> subject matter, style of photo, and degree of enlargement.
>
> So what "works" is highly variable. I've got a 16x24 print from a
> Fuji S2 original that looks far better than any print in that size
> range I ever made from a 35mm negative. (Which is partly just support
> for your claim that medium-format film will more reliably produce
> prints that size than 35mm film will.)
>
>>>[...] I asked the sales guy about the quality of the lenses, and he
>>>said they were worse on the MF, because poor quality lenses wouldn't
>>>be as noticeable on MF! Is this true? If so, it seems I should just
>>
>> It is technically true that a minor defect on a MF lens will be less
>> of a problem than a minor defect on a 35mm or dSLR lens, because the
>> defect contributes to less of the picture on MF than on smaller
>> formats. But don't be misled. A good MF setup can produce much
>> crisper enlargements than anything a 35mm camera can.
>
> Of the same size, yes. However, that MF lens has a lower resolution.
>
>> Caveat: When I say that a good print requires 300dpi of information,
>> I'm talking about a good, sharp, print. I have 12x18 enlargements
>> from my 3Mpix camera which I love, but with only about 120dpi, they
>> more resemble impressionist paintings than photographs.
>
> I have 8.5x11 prints from my old 2Mpix camera, slightly cropped, and
> from a housemate's different old 2Mpix camera, that I've put into
> stacks with darkroom prints to show to serious photographers who use
> MF and do their own darkroom work, and nobody has complained about
> lack of resolution, and many people have commented on what strikingly
> nice prints they are. The lowest ended up being 107PPI if I'm
> remembering correctly.
>
> Mind you, I'd *never* suggest as a rule of thumb that 107PPI is
> adequate printing resolution! But with the right photos sometimes it
> works surprisingly well (this one was a very sharp insect macro shot;
> not something I'd have expected to print well with inadequate
> resolution at all). What I *would* suggest is that, if you have a
> picture that you'd love to see twice as big as the numbers say you can
> make it -- give it a try. *Sometimes* it'll actually work anyway, and
> then you've got a great print you didn't think was possible. The rest
> of the time you've wasted some paper and ink.
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt;
> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 10:22:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

<lawpoop@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111589248.567833.133140@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> Anyway, my original thought was to buy a MF camera ( I like working
> with film and holding a mechanical device in my hands ) and buy a
> digital back for it later on when the prices fell. I asked the sales
> guy about the quality of the lenses, and he said they were worse on the
> MF, because poor quality lenses wouldn't be as noticeable on MF! Is
> this true? If so, it seems I should just go digital. ( or maybe try to
> get a deal on a used MF camera if I finance a digital -- I'll bet the
> sales guy makes more money of a new digital than a used MF. )

Forget technical quality for the moment, because there's another difference
between digital and MF that is much more important: depth of field. Because
the MF image is larger, and the lenses are correspondingly larger, you will
have much less depth of field with MF than with any smaller format at a
corresponding aperture.

So an important question to ask yourself is whether this difference is
important to you, and if so, in which direction it argues. If you mostly
want your pictures to have everything sharp, that argues in favor of
digital. If you prefer to be able to have your subject sharp and throw
everything else out of focus, that argues in favor of MF.

There's also the cost and convenience question, of course. What will you be
doing with the pictures after you take them? How much are you willing to
spend on materials and processing? And so on.

I suggest that you make up your mind on all these factors, and any others
you can think of, before using technical image quality to decide.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 10:24:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

Don't forget finding a processor you can work with to do any cropping you
might want to do. I have a Mimaya 330 that I got a few years back and I just
never really liked the square prints. I took the film to a reputable photo
store that was really farther than convenient for me and it was like they
had no idea what to do with medium format prints. I asked for a contact
sheet and they just looked at each other. The pictures and quality were
nice, but really needed cropping and sizing. It was more of a pain than I
wanted to deal with and I still have several rolls of film in the freezer.

YMMV

mike

"Andrew Koenig" <ark@acm.org> wrote in message
news:xlj0e.442801$w62.171532@bgtnsc05->
> There's also the cost and convenience question, of course. What will you
> be doing with the pictures after you take them? How much are you willing
> to spend on materials and processing? And so on.
>
> I suggest that you make up your mind on all these factors, and any others
> you can think of, before using technical image quality to decide.
>
>
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 10:28:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

In article <1111592898.061671.122740@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
RolandRB <rolandberry@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>77,565,600 * 3 = 232,696,800 pixels
>
>So when 232 megapixels backs for MF cameras are firstly made and come
>down in price to a sensible level then you can buy one to stick on the
>back, knowing it will give you just as good results as film.

I'd say that your arithmetic is being massively over-generous to the film.
IME, from shooting DSLRs and medium format and 35mm slides, you should
expect to get equivalent quality per pixel to digital at up to 1 megapixel
per square centimetre for slide film, so 36 megapixels for 6*6. If you go to
heroic lengths and use the best and most expensive equipment, you might be
able to approach double that, but 230 megapixels is out by an order of
magnitude. It juse doesn't match the real world results that people are
getting.

My 1 megapixel/cm squared gives about 8 megapixels for 35mm, btw, which is
pretty much the commonly accepted figure for where slow slide film and DSLRs
at 100ISO reach parity for overall image quality.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 10:32:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

In article <Xns9622C73A0FE5Cklotjohan@130.133.1.4>,
Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:

> Direct light to digital sensor is a much cleaner way
> of recording images. Film sux!
>
>
> /Roland

No you do. IMOP.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 11:20:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

Inaccessible <pandemonium@pitchedpipes.com> wrote in news:p andemonium-
EDDEB1.14385423032005@news.verizon.net:

> No you do. IMOP.

eh?

It is cleaner to detect the digital image directly instead
of first using some electrochemical method. That is a
trivial truth. The smooth pictures you get from high end
digital cameras is a kind of proof. Film is grainy and have
low fidelity.

Of course a large format camera with superb lenses is
much, much better than any digital camera. But at the same
size film sux. And even medium format film has problems
with graininess compared to DSLRs.


/Roland
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 11:52:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

In article <Xns9622D91515EBDklotjohan@130.133.1.4>,
Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:

> It is cleaner to detect the digital image directly instead
> of first using some electrochemical method. That is a
> trivial truth. The smooth pictures you get from high end
> digital cameras is a kind of proof. Film is grainy and have
> low fidelity.
>
> Of course a large format camera with superb lenses is
> much, much better than any digital camera. But at the same
> size film sux. And even medium format film has problems
> with graininess compared to DSLRs.

Your basing your assumption on scanned film. Try basing your
results on Optical prints for film versus computer generated
ones. Sometimes the digital will be better, sometimes the
film will be. I don't make generalized statements which is what
my issue was.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 11:57:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

Inaccessible <pandemonium@pitchedpipes.com> wrote in news:p andemonium-
4879CD.15591523032005@news.verizon.net:

> Your basing your assumption on scanned film. Try basing your
> results on Optical prints for film versus computer generated
> ones. Sometimes the digital will be better, sometimes the
> film will be. I don't make generalized statements which is what
> my issue was.

When making professional prints film is normally scanned.

Good scanners can extract more information from
film than any enlarger can do.


/Roland
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 11:57:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9622DF72DDADBklotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> Inaccessible <pandemonium@pitchedpipes.com> wrote in news:p andemonium-
> 4879CD.15591523032005@news.verizon.net:
>
> [...]
> Good scanners can extract more information from
> film than any enlarger can do.

If a good scanner can resolve fine grain, then that's perfectly true, of
course. But do the high-end printers print that grain, or is there the
equivalent of dot-gain that blurs it? This is not an academic question
because grain is not always an enemy; sometimes it can convey accutance
where grainless cannot.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 12:06:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

In article <Xns9622DF72DDADBklotjohan@130.133.1.4>,
Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:
>
> When making professional prints film is normally scanned.

Another generalized statement.

> Good scanners can extract more information from
> film than any enlarger can do.

Have you ever made an optical print? I don't need the information
gotten from scanning to make a better optic print than digitized film
produces through a computer printer, provided the film is exposed
correctly to start.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 12:47:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

In article <eir8h2-plq.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>In article <1111592898.061671.122740@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>RolandRB <rolandberry@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>77,565,600 * 3 = 232,696,800 pixels
>>
>>So when 232 megapixels backs for MF cameras are firstly made and come
>>down in price to a sensible level then you can buy one to stick on the
>>back, knowing it will give you just as good results as film.
>
>I'd say that your arithmetic is being massively over-generous to the film.
>IME, from shooting DSLRs and medium format and 35mm slides, you should
>expect to get equivalent quality per pixel to digital at up to 1 megapixel
>per square centimetre for slide film, so 36 megapixels for 6*6. If you go to
>heroic lengths and use the best and most expensive equipment, you might be
>able to approach double that, but 230 megapixels is out by an order of
>magnitude. It juse doesn't match the real world results that people are
>getting.
>
>My 1 megapixel/cm squared gives about 8 megapixels for 35mm, btw, which is
>pretty much the commonly accepted figure for where slow slide film and DSLRs
>at 100ISO reach parity for overall image quality.


You can't really say they reach parity - the appearance is so different.

The digital image capture has the edge on overall appearance; the colour
fidelity is good, and the lack of grain noise is a big, big benefit.
But if you want absolute resolution (and have the ability to capture it)
film currently holds the edge. Not to the ridiculous lengths mentioned
above, perhaps, but Provia 100F (and a few other film emulsions) can
give you something more like 30 megapixels from 35mm under optimum
real-world conditions (solid tripod, top-quality lens, drum scanner).
[for reference, that's about what you get from a true 4000dpi scan]

That's 35mm, of course. It doesn't scale directly up to MF, because
lenses for the larger image circle don't offer the same resolution as
those made for the smaller format. And even if it did, that's still
less than 100 megapixels for a full-frame 645 sensor (and only 60MP
for the 1.3x crop factor of the latest sensor announced by Kodak).


Roughly, we have, for a full-frame 645 sensor:

18MP at 1 megapixel per sq cm (although the latest generation
of MF digital sensors seem to do rather better than that;
the Hasseblad H1D, for example, achieves 1.5 mp/cm2)

35MP doubling it, to get a good estimate of digital capabilites.
(this is about the pixel density of the Canon 1DS Mk II)

50MP about what I believe you could achieve from a MF system
(money no object, etc., etc.)

100MP what you *might* get if MF could match 35mm in resolution

220MP ?
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 12:56:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

In article <m2br9axcho.fsf@gw.dd-b.net>,
David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:

> My miraculous conversion literally happened overnight. Federal Express
> delivered 50-inch prints outputted from my digital files that held all
> the saturation of my original 35mm transparencies with even better
> tonal separation and the apparent sharpness of medium format.

Key word transparency. Up to the age of digitization prints from
transparency lacked,.... this is a prime example of how digital does
a better job. Thats why I stated what I did.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 12:57:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

In article <m2fyymxcuz.fsf@gw.dd-b.net>,
David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:

> > Your basing your assumption on scanned film. Try basing your
> > results on Optical prints for film versus computer generated
> > ones. Sometimes the digital will be better, sometimes the
> > film will be. I don't make generalized statements which is what
> > my issue was.
>
> Well, high-end scanning and digital printing is the best way to
> produce professional-quality prints these days, at least unless you
> have a freezer full of dye-transfer materials left. In fact, this was
> true 3-5 years ago.

Or shoot color negative materials and transparencies as reference
or scanning.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 2:49:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

But I think scanners will improve as well as the editing software. From
what I have experienced, color slide film starts to look poor if
enlarged linearly by 10x for the best films and 6x for more grainy film
due to the graininess/speckliness but good detail will be there. If the
editing software is improved then I think the speckliness could be
removed without softening the detail and losing resolution. I think
that better software would already be there if it were not for the
emphasis on digital. I used to write software packages for what later
became the PC twenty years ago and am now out of it, but I have thought
about learning one of the new Windows languages like C# and getting
back into it and trying my hand at writing my own editing software. I
am sure I could do a better job than what is currently on offer but
I'll probably never get round to it due to work. So here is something
for you to think about - if you can see better detail on film than is
currently possible with a digital capture then it is conceivable that
in the future you will be able to fully exploit that extra detail and
transfer the image to a digital format.
March 24, 2005 3:21:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

lawpoop@gmail.com wrote:

> Hey folks -
>
> I was looking at picking up a used MF camera in my area ( ~ $500 ) and
> the sales guy was giving me a hard pitch on the digital cameras they
> have in stock.

What size prints are you going to make? 8x10 or maybe 11X14's from a ~6-8MP
cameras look good. Anything larger, you need medium format. I've done some
16X20's and they look OK, about what you'd expect from 35mm. At that size
though, medium format is noticably better by a good margin.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 3:28:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

In article <1111623561.139209.139710@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
lawpoop@gmail.com wrote:

> I like the way you think.

Disconnected from who originally posted the original post ;-)

> Personally, I like to work with my hands. I love computers, but I want
> to work manually with my art. I enjoy handling MF negatives and looking
> at them through the light box.

Actually you look through the negative or transparency at the light box
if my understanding is correct. <g>

> The guy at the camera store was trying to sell my on 'creating the best
> image possible' but that's just not my game with photography. I like it
> for the tactile experience, believe it or not. Normally I think
> statements like that are malarkey, but for me its true in this case.

That's funny you should use the words "tactile" as someone was recently
being lambasted by multiple digit heads on the
rec.photo.digital.slr-systems group for using that very same term to
describe what they liked about optically created imagery <g> I agree
with you.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 10:41:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

On 23 Mar 2005 23:49:01 -0800, "RolandRB" <rolandberry@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>But I think scanners will improve as well as the editing software. From
>what I have experienced, color slide film starts to look poor if
>enlarged linearly by 10x for the best films and 6x for more grainy film
>due to the graininess/speckliness but good detail will be there. If the
>editing software is improved then I think the speckliness could be
>removed without softening the detail and losing resolution. I think
>that better software would already be there if it were not for the
>emphasis on digital. I used to write software packages for what later
>became the PC twenty years ago and am now out of it, but I have thought
>about learning one of the new Windows languages like C# and getting
>back into it and trying my hand at writing my own editing software. I
>am sure I could do a better job than what is currently on offer but
>I'll probably never get round to it due to work. So here is something
>for you to think about - if you can see better detail on film than is
>currently possible with a digital capture then it is conceivable that
>in the future you will be able to fully exploit that extra detail and
>transfer the image to a digital format.


I don't think you'd enjoy software or firmware
after being away twenty years. Trust me on this.

As to "better scanners" -- yes, it may be possible
technically but I think that market will soon be gone,
as film falls into disuse. It never was a huge
market anyway. How many Imacon scanners were
sold, total?

There are only one or two manufacturers of drum
scanners nowadays. Yes, CCDs are now excellent,
but there's not too much more resolution to be
had from MF film using CCDs, and less again for
LF film.

What you do see is scanning technology getting
ever-cheaper.

I wish it weren't so. I'd really love to be
able to get a top-notch, modern scanner for
4x5 film, but I don't think one exists -- that
I can buy without a new mortgage.

Alternatively, I'd love to see affordable
scanning backs for MF or LF - especially the
latter.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 12:02:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in news:D 1sup0$4ej$1
@inews.gazeta.pl:

>> question; Why aren't lenses made for smaller CCDs (smaller than 35mm
>> film) substantially cheaper than 35mm counterparts? Oh Olympus....
>
> I believe it's called "profit".

Cheaper lenses are made for smaller sensors by all DSLR makers.



/Roland
March 24, 2005 12:03:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

I will jum in with my two cents worth, having recently purchased a
Nikon D70. For the longest time I have shot primarily chromes, starting
with my very first camera when I was 7 or 8. I graduated to MF about 8
years back, having been in the 35mm realm for the majority of my life,
starting with borrowing my faather-in-law's Yashica 124. I loved the
resolution and look of the square format, and picked up my own as soon
as I could afford it. This kept me happy for a bit, but I missed the
ability to change lenses, so I bought a Bronica ETRS, and happily shot
away on it all last year.

My down fall was the purchase of a new Epson photo printer, I started
printing more prints, and my old flatbed scanner was just too slow at
this point. Converting MF chromes to digital was killing my wallet, to
the point I was not shooting as much. If I wasn't shooting as much,
what is the point?

The Nikon holds up QUITE well to my Bronica and Yashica in the range of
print sizes I typically work at, and I am no longer paying $100-200 per
session just to develop and transfer to digital.

MF is getting pretty inexpensive to buy, it's the consumables that are
bad. Don't by digital because you are being pushed it, buy it (or MF)
because YOU want to.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 12:10:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

Inaccessible <pandemonium@pitchedpipes.com> wrote in news:p andemonium-
98048B.17041223032005@news.verizon.net:

> Or shoot color negative materials and transparencies as reference
> or scanning.

Negative film has a highly compressed tonal scale (as it
has a low gamma) and the expansion of that tonal scale while
priniting enlarges the graininess.

NOTE - I know you can make wonderful images with film.
It is just that direct digital capture is a huge improvement
when it comes to tonal smoothness. The random behaviour
of film is both an advantage and a disadvantage. It helps
to render finer details (at least for long narrow lines) but
it also introduces an unevenness, i.e. graininess. OK - you
might like the graininess - and I do - but only for B&W.


/Roland
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 12:10:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

On 24 Mar 2005 09:10:51 GMT, Roland Karlsson
<roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:

>Inaccessible <pandemonium@pitchedpipes.com> wrote in news:p andemonium-
>98048B.17041223032005@news.verizon.net:
>
>> Or shoot color negative materials and transparencies as reference
>> or scanning.
>
>Negative film has a highly compressed tonal scale (as it
>has a low gamma) and the expansion of that tonal scale while
>priniting enlarges the graininess.

And note that this is a quality of the
film itself, regardless of whether the
subsequent processing is analog or digital.

>NOTE - I know you can make wonderful images with film.
>It is just that direct digital capture is a huge improvement
>when it comes to tonal smoothness. The random behaviour
>of film is both an advantage and a disadvantage. It helps
>to render finer details (at least for long narrow lines) but
>it also introduces an unevenness, i.e. graininess. OK - you
>might like the graininess - and I do - but only for B&W.


Agree on all counts.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 1:52:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Roland Karlsson wrote:

> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in news:D 1sup0$4ej$1
> @inews.gazeta.pl:
>
>
>>>question; Why aren't lenses made for smaller CCDs (smaller than 35mm
>>>film) substantially cheaper than 35mm counterparts? Oh Olympus....
>>
>>I believe it's called "profit".
>
>
> Cheaper lenses are made for smaller sensors by all DSLR makers.

Read the numbers (prices) I posted. They are quite contrary to your
statement.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 3:19:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

In article <Xns962367908E865klotjohan@130.133.1.4>,
Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:

> Inaccessible <pandemonium@pitchedpipes.com> wrote in news:p andemonium-
> 98048B.17041223032005@news.verizon.net:
>
> > Or shoot color negative materials and transparencies as reference
> > or scanning.
>
> Negative film has a highly compressed tonal scale (as it
> has a low gamma) and the expansion of that tonal scale while
> priniting enlarges the graininess.

The only reason you say that is based on scanning is it not?

> NOTE - I know you can make wonderful images with film.
> It is just that direct digital capture is a huge improvement
> when it comes to tonal smoothness. The random behaviour
> of film is both an advantage and a disadvantage. It helps
> to render finer details (at least for long narrow lines) but
> it also introduces an unevenness, i.e. graininess. OK - you
> might like the graininess - and I do - but only for B&W.

I don't see grain in MF much less LF. Of course I don't scan
my film.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 3:19:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:19:08 GMT, Inaccessible
<pandemonium@pitchedpipes.com> wrote:

>In article <Xns962367908E865klotjohan@130.133.1.4>,
> Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Inaccessible <pandemonium@pitchedpipes.com> wrote in news:p andemonium-
>> 98048B.17041223032005@news.verizon.net:
>>
>> > Or shoot color negative materials and transparencies as reference
>> > or scanning.
>>
>> Negative film has a highly compressed tonal scale (as it
>> has a low gamma) and the expansion of that tonal scale while
>> priniting enlarges the graininess.
>
>The only reason you say that is based on scanning is it not?
>
>> NOTE - I know you can make wonderful images with film.
>> It is just that direct digital capture is a huge improvement
>> when it comes to tonal smoothness. The random behaviour
>> of film is both an advantage and a disadvantage. It helps
>> to render finer details (at least for long narrow lines) but
>> it also introduces an unevenness, i.e. graininess. OK - you
>> might like the graininess - and I do - but only for B&W.
>
>I don't see grain in MF much less LF. Of course I don't scan
>my film.


We can put this to the test. Are you ready
for the challenge? (I've already done it.)

I've compared sharp optical prints against
scans of the slides/negatives they came from.

There's nothing in the print that isn't in
the scan. Results posted in URL below.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 3:30:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

No reflectance print will ever compare with a transparency viewed
directly.

Roland Karlsson wrote:
> Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in
news:f0sah2-
> ous.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org:
>
> >>You can use the Fred Miranda plugin Digital Velvia to get it.
> >>Or maybe you can't ... what you see is in the eye of the beholder
:) 
> >
> > Quite.
>
> :) 
>
> If you believe that it is impossible to get the Velvia look
> with a digital camera then no one can ever convince you.
> Its like those that buy low oxygen digital cables to achieve
> low jitter. No matter how much you show them meassurements
> that tells that there is no difference - they will hear it
> nevertheless :)  They have Golden Ears. Hmmmmm.....
>
>
> /Roland
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 3:43:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Roland Karlsson wrote:
> > Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in
> news:f0sah2-
> > ous.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org:
> >
> > >>You can use the Fred Miranda plugin Digital Velvia to get it.
> > >>Or maybe you can't ... what you see is in the eye of the beholder
> :) 
> > >
> > > Quite.
> >
> > :) 
> >
> > If you believe that it is impossible to get the Velvia look
> > with a digital camera then no one can ever convince you.
> > Its like those that buy low oxygen digital cables to achieve
> > low jitter. No matter how much you show them meassurements
> > that tells that there is no difference - they will hear it
> > nevertheless :)  They have Golden Ears. Hmmmmm.....
> >
>
> No reflectance print will ever compare with a transparency viewed
> directly.

So very true. Also true, IMHO, of a projected transparency.
Fortunately, a projected transparency can be duplicated by projecting a
digital image. You haven't REALLY seen the glory of your best digital
images until you've seen them projected.

Thankfully, this keeps getting easier and easier, with big HD projection
TVs, devices to show photos on TVs, and for the discerning few, Tivo's
Home Media features allowing you to show slideshows on your TV of images
stored on your computer.

Lisa
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 3:45:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

Inaccessible <pandemonium@pitchedpipes.com> wrote in news:p andemonium-
16C9EA.07253524032005@news.verizon.net:

> The only reason you say that is based on scanning is it not?

Nope - it is based upon making and looking at lots of
pictures made from negative film. It is also common
sense. In order to print from negative film you must
increase the contrast - then you also increases all
defects - grains - dust and unevenness etc.

> I don't see grain in MF much less LF.

Nor do I - at least not if you use low speed MF film and don't do
too large prints.

But thats not my point. My point is that at any size of sensor/film,
digital records a smoother picture.

> Of course I don't scan my film.

To make direct prints is becoming more and more uncommon.
For B&W prints that is really a shame. Well made B&W prints
are just beautiful. For color - I think it is just fine. Normal
negative to paper printing is not in any way in particular
beautiul IMHO. There are som special processes that are very
nice - but they are very seldom used. Ordinary prints from
negative film I think is generally dull.


/Roland
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 8:21:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

In article <Xns96238BFFDF1Fklotjohan@130.133.1.4>,
Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:

> Nope - it is based upon making and looking at lots of
> pictures made from negative film. It is also common
> sense. In order to print from negative film you must
> increase the contrast - then you also increases all
> defects - grains - dust and unevenness etc.

LOL.

> But thats not my point. My point is that at any size of sensor/film,
> digital records a smoother picture.

Smooth without detail? Or smooth without edge sharpening contrast?

> > Of course I don't scan my film.
>
> To make direct prints is becoming more and more uncommon.
> For B&W prints that is really a shame. Well made B&W prints
> are just beautiful. For color - I think it is just fine. Normal
> negative to paper printing is not in any way in particular
> beautiul IMHO. There are som special processes that are very
> nice - but they are very seldom used. Ordinary prints from
> negative film I think is generally dull.

Personal taste I guess then you have never seen my prints :-)
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 8:23:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

In article <5gd541hmntat7mofv88geuauh6uf2a19n1@4ax.com>,
rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote:

> >I don't see grain in MF much less LF. Of course I don't scan
> >my film.
>
>
> We can put this to the test. Are you ready
> for the challenge? (I've already done it.)
>
> I've compared sharp optical prints against
> scans of the slides/negatives they came from.
>
> There's nothing in the print that isn't in
> the scan. Results posted in URL below.

I should rephrase what I said: On average I don't make
prints from scanned film. Sometimes I do when it suits my
purpose most of those scans are from LF Transparencies instead of
C41.
!