JanPB
Member
You are right about the high ISO (finally able to photograph aurora borealis properly!) but those new cameras are SOOOO UGLY!
--
Jan
40oz
...
Folder, please
Sensor size is the major factor here. 6x6 trumps 2.4 x 3.6 by a very large margin. It doesn't matter how many pixels the DSLR has, you are still taking pictures with a 24x36mm sensor. And you will need to blow them up far more than the MF camera to get the same print size. So any defect or aberration in your lens is going to be obvious in your prints. That slight color-fringing near the corners is going to be an inch wide on an 11x14 sheet. Even if you have detail in there, it's going to look smeared.
But if your sensor is twice the size, the same lens flaws will be much less noticeable. And not being confined to a restricted color gamut when you print means your MF film shots will have truer colors and smoother tones. Even a 50MP 6x7 digital sensor would have a restricted color gamut.
There are so many differences between a mf film folder and a new DSLR I cannot really perceive one as an alternative to the other. I really cannot see a 24x36mm DSLR as somehow on par with MF as far as enlargement ability or image quality goes. But if you are printing digitally anyway, it's probably more suitable.
They are your pictures. I don't think it matters what camera you're using if you don't like the shots. But at least with the film camera, you can change the film to get a different look you might like better. With the Canon, you are stuck with the way it captures light. No matter what, at the end of the day the digital sensor is only going to capture so much red, so much blue, and so much green. And in a grid pattern, merging anything that is projected onto a sensor site into one signal.
Last edited:
Fred Burton
Well-known
"That slight color-fringing near the corners is going to be an inch wide on an 11x14 sheet. Even if you have detail in there, it's going to look smeared."
When is the last time you shot digital or printed digital with a decent digital camera? I print 19"x22" regularly from a 5D and all of these fringing and smeared results you talk about just don't exist. This whole digital vs film thing is more religion now than anything else.
When is the last time you shot digital or printed digital with a decent digital camera? I print 19"x22" regularly from a 5D and all of these fringing and smeared results you talk about just don't exist. This whole digital vs film thing is more religion now than anything else.
fbf
Well-known
I don't think the new fuji folder will beat the upcoming 5dII DSLR. The HD video alone will attract hundred thousand new users to jump into canon. Will fuji even be able to make hundred thousands of the new folder? I doubt it.
However, I would love to have one of the folders. Its size, the old fashion look, functionalities are all we need for medium format. The lens quality should be as good as the older fuji folder if not better.
That's it. I want it so I will get it. Please do not comparing it to modern DSLRs. They are made for different purposes.
However, I would love to have one of the folders. Its size, the old fashion look, functionalities are all we need for medium format. The lens quality should be as good as the older fuji folder if not better.
That's it. I want it so I will get it. Please do not comparing it to modern DSLRs. They are made for different purposes.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Folder, please
Sensor size is the major factor here. 6x6 trumps 2.4 x 3.6 by a very large margin. It doesn't matter how many pixels the DSLR has, you are still taking pictures with a 24x36mm sensor. And you will need to blow them up far more than the MF camera to get the same print size. So any defect or aberration in your lens is going to be obvious in your prints. That slight color-fringing near the corners is going to be an inch wide on an 11x14 sheet. Even if you have detail in there, it's going to look smeared.
But if your sensor is twice the size, the same lens flaws will be much less noticeable. And not being confined to a restricted color gamut when you print means your MF film shots will have truer colors and smoother tones. Even a 50MP 6x7 digital sensor would have a restricted color gamut.
There are so many differences between a mf film folder and a new DSLR I cannot really perceive one as an alternative to the other. I really cannot see a 24x36mm DSLR as somehow on par with MF as far as enlargement ability or image quality goes. But if you are printing digitally anyway, it's probably more suitable.
They are your pictures. I don't think it matters what camera you're using if you don't like the shots. But at least with the film camera, you can change the film to get a different look you might like better. With the Canon, you are stuck with the way it captures light. No matter what, at the end of the day the digital sensor is only going to capture so much red, so much blue, and so much green. And in a grid pattern, merging anything that is projected onto a sensor site into one signal.
I love film so much that it would please me to agree with you, but i just can't.
1. Doesn't much matter that the film area is larger than the digital sensor. They're different animals and surface area alone doesn't account for one's superiority/inferiority.
2. The supposed superiority of medium format film over digital really is only valid with the fastest, finest-grained film. Above ISO 400, digital is just better with regard to noise/grain.
3. You can enlarge a 5D or 5DII's files with gradual uprezzing to get incredibly large print sizes. And, if you add simulated grain, you can obscure any digital noise or artifacts so as to go even larger. 6x7 film can go larger, but it's all moot until you reach that threshold. I suspect those of us who aren't exhibiting in galleries aren't reaching that limit.
4. It's misleading or inaccurate to suggest that a digital sensor is only capable of rendering images in one way. Yes, you can change a roll of film and get different characteristics. But, similarly, you can process a digital file to get different characteristics. Even before you reach Photoshop, you can process a RAW file to get different characteristics. And, once a file, originating from film or a sensor, is in Photoshop, it's all moot once again. You're not "stuck with the way it captures light." You're free to manipulate it as you choose. You want it warmer, it's warmer. You want it with more contrast? You have it. Less saturation, fine. Cross-processed? Bleach-bypass? Whatever.
Speaking about sensor sites and "one signal" is like talking about brush bristles instead of paintings.
One look at a current issue of Vogue will show you that the work of twenty different photographers, virtually all of which are using Hasselblad H cameras with digital sensors, all looks different, despite the "one signal" and 'inflexibility to capture varying amounts of red, blue, green.' And, there aren't many RFF readers who are dealing with clients who are that demanding, working with such tremendous budgets and under such scrutiny.
So much of the 'scientific discussion' is irrelevant in real world circumstances. Color gamut and dynamic range, for example. People don't shoot Kodachrome to get the maximum dynamic range. If you made prints with an emphasis on showing maximum dynamic range, your prints would probably be pretty flat/dull/uninteresting. When i look at Penn or Koudelka or Meisel, dynamic range isn't part of the appeal.
amateriat
We're all light!
CXDH: You mention "real-world" conditions here. But, How many of those Vogue shoots were actually shot under "real-world" conditions?
I ask this because, in the first brochures I read for early-generation dSLRs, most of the "examples" illustrated in these brochures (which were rather impressive, at least for the time), were shot under controlled studio conditions. A 3MP camera can be made to shine when you can control contrast ratios and the like. Real world" conditions would mean working out in the field. Certain contemporary dSLRs work quite well under these conditions, but to say that this is the norm for Vogue shoot would be something of a stretch. Working with a serious support team and a budget of a certain size, no problem. Outside of that, good luck.
- Barrett
I ask this because, in the first brochures I read for early-generation dSLRs, most of the "examples" illustrated in these brochures (which were rather impressive, at least for the time), were shot under controlled studio conditions. A 3MP camera can be made to shine when you can control contrast ratios and the like. Real world" conditions would mean working out in the field. Certain contemporary dSLRs work quite well under these conditions, but to say that this is the norm for Vogue shoot would be something of a stretch. Working with a serious support team and a budget of a certain size, no problem. Outside of that, good luck.
- Barrett
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
Void megs and pixels
Void megs and pixels
I have the 600 MB files of Bessa II, Monitor, scans and the smaller but better Iskra 6x6 scans. 16 bit scans made with a Nikon 8000 and a wet mount holder. That one is good for at least a true optical 3800 PPI scanning resolution, unlike the scans from the V700 that I also have and use with wet mounting but they do not get higher than 2500 PPI in true resolution in my opinion.
In both cases much of that quantity is a waste of memory and time as it will deliver at best a nice reproduction of the film content but not of the actual scene photographed. That is improved 2x to 3x corner to corner with better analogue cameras than the folders mentioned but even then it still contains a lot of void data. Film grain is noise although we like it. The translation of the recording color filters and layers in an analogue>digital process to the print in the end: CMYK>RGB>CMYK(+KKRGB in my case) is much harder to control, more limited in gamut and bound to deliver color errors.
With the increased dynamic range, wider gamut and higher resolution of digital sensors + the color and exposure control in the latest FF digital cameras it is hard to compete on quality. B&W film may be the exception for some time. So does real wide angle photography. The actual limitation in FF DSLR models is already close to what the latest lenses can bring but even with that limitation MF digital cameras faces competition from the FF digital cameras till the 50MP backs for MF are really available. Check DPreview forum discussion on that subject.
There are reasons to use an analogue folder but they were more realistic 5 years ago than they will be 2 years in the future. I leave the fun part out in comparing digital with analogue. As soon as Micro4/3 gets competition from a true compact MicroAPS model and who knows a true Leica or Cosina FF that delivers 5D Mark II quality then there's little reason left to carry an MF film folder, new or old.
All IMHO
Ernst Dinkla
Void megs and pixels
I have the 600 MB files of Bessa II, Monitor, scans and the smaller but better Iskra 6x6 scans. 16 bit scans made with a Nikon 8000 and a wet mount holder. That one is good for at least a true optical 3800 PPI scanning resolution, unlike the scans from the V700 that I also have and use with wet mounting but they do not get higher than 2500 PPI in true resolution in my opinion.
In both cases much of that quantity is a waste of memory and time as it will deliver at best a nice reproduction of the film content but not of the actual scene photographed. That is improved 2x to 3x corner to corner with better analogue cameras than the folders mentioned but even then it still contains a lot of void data. Film grain is noise although we like it. The translation of the recording color filters and layers in an analogue>digital process to the print in the end: CMYK>RGB>CMYK(+KKRGB in my case) is much harder to control, more limited in gamut and bound to deliver color errors.
With the increased dynamic range, wider gamut and higher resolution of digital sensors + the color and exposure control in the latest FF digital cameras it is hard to compete on quality. B&W film may be the exception for some time. So does real wide angle photography. The actual limitation in FF DSLR models is already close to what the latest lenses can bring but even with that limitation MF digital cameras faces competition from the FF digital cameras till the 50MP backs for MF are really available. Check DPreview forum discussion on that subject.
There are reasons to use an analogue folder but they were more realistic 5 years ago than they will be 2 years in the future. I leave the fun part out in comparing digital with analogue. As soon as Micro4/3 gets competition from a true compact MicroAPS model and who knows a true Leica or Cosina FF that delivers 5D Mark II quality then there's little reason left to carry an MF film folder, new or old.
All IMHO
Ernst Dinkla
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Chippy,
A 1Ds3 produces around 63Mb (at 8 Bit, twice at 16bit) tiffs, compared to the 600Mb scan, although the raw file contains only around 37Mb of actual data. My LS5000 produces film scans with a similar resolution to the 1Ds3, i.e. around 5600 pixels by 3800 pixels, but I've yet to see a film scanned print that can match a 1Ds3 in detail resolved and clarity. They have a different charm. In fact, I've got 33 inch by 22 inch prints from a 1Ds3 that are perceptually better when viewed close up than 18 by 12's from reala or fp4 in rodinal. That suggests to me at least that a 1Ds3 will ourperform 6 by 7 except in particular circumstances (fine grained film, right light etc). At high iso there's no contest. I am intersted in how the new Ektar will perform though.
I still like and shoot film, but it's quite shocking how big scan files don't translate into great prints necessarily!
Mike
A 1Ds3 produces around 63Mb (at 8 Bit, twice at 16bit) tiffs, compared to the 600Mb scan, although the raw file contains only around 37Mb of actual data. My LS5000 produces film scans with a similar resolution to the 1Ds3, i.e. around 5600 pixels by 3800 pixels, but I've yet to see a film scanned print that can match a 1Ds3 in detail resolved and clarity. They have a different charm. In fact, I've got 33 inch by 22 inch prints from a 1Ds3 that are perceptually better when viewed close up than 18 by 12's from reala or fp4 in rodinal. That suggests to me at least that a 1Ds3 will ourperform 6 by 7 except in particular circumstances (fine grained film, right light etc). At high iso there's no contest. I am intersted in how the new Ektar will perform though.
I still like and shoot film, but it's quite shocking how big scan files don't translate into great prints necessarily!
Mike
gb hill
Veteran
No, because on the other thread you guys have talked so much on how much you would pay for it I doubt it will be very cheap once it comes out.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Andrew
Yes, I've no comparator for MF as I can't afford a suitable scanner and camera at once at the moment, so I'm cheating a bit by extrapolating from 35mm to MF by considering 4 frames of 35mm against one from the 1Ds3.
In terms of where digital sits, it's just as diverse as film. The little P&S probably replace the 35mm P&S' with varying degrees of success. This is where you really do see limited dynamic range compared to film - but I've some niceprints from my Ricoh GX100.
I don't really know much abut the entry and mid level dslrs (APS-C sensors) as I've only once used a canon 20D and that only very briefly, but I think they probably do replace 35mm, and the latest should improve on it in terms of resolution.
Upper end dslrs' are a clear step ahead of most 35mm in terms of resolution (I'm planning on trying the adox cms sometime) and are often considered to be equivalent to various forms of MF. There are a number of comparisons on the web that suggest a Canon 5D is similar or better than 645 etc. Luminous Landscape has several such, but I'd take it with a healthy pinch of salt as part of it's mission is to excite digital gear lust I concluded that the only real way to know was to test it myself, but since I just enjoy making pictures with either I dont get to excited these days.
Oh, I agree as to being baffels about the amounts people seem to be willing to pay for the folder. If it's cheap it might work for me, but otherwise I'd sooner have a Mamiya 7 ot 5 by 4 kit.
Mike
Yes, I've no comparator for MF as I can't afford a suitable scanner and camera at once at the moment, so I'm cheating a bit by extrapolating from 35mm to MF by considering 4 frames of 35mm against one from the 1Ds3.
In terms of where digital sits, it's just as diverse as film. The little P&S probably replace the 35mm P&S' with varying degrees of success. This is where you really do see limited dynamic range compared to film - but I've some niceprints from my Ricoh GX100.
I don't really know much abut the entry and mid level dslrs (APS-C sensors) as I've only once used a canon 20D and that only very briefly, but I think they probably do replace 35mm, and the latest should improve on it in terms of resolution.
Upper end dslrs' are a clear step ahead of most 35mm in terms of resolution (I'm planning on trying the adox cms sometime) and are often considered to be equivalent to various forms of MF. There are a number of comparisons on the web that suggest a Canon 5D is similar or better than 645 etc. Luminous Landscape has several such, but I'd take it with a healthy pinch of salt as part of it's mission is to excite digital gear lust
I concluded that the only real way to know was to test it myself, but since I just enjoy making pictures with either I dont get to excited these days.Oh, I agree as to being baffels about the amounts people seem to be willing to pay for the folder. If it's cheap it might work for me, but otherwise I'd sooner have a Mamiya 7 ot 5 by 4 kit.
Mike
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Hey there, Barrett.
Maybe we're not talking about the same thing / or maybe i wasn't clear?
My (attempted) point was that the discussion about dynamic range (as an example) is often just a technical discussion without a lot of merit when it comes to producing an interesting print and then RE-producing it. Like, when you scan a piece of film, most 'experts' advise you to scan so that you first capture the broadest range of tones, and then you can take all the information into photoshop to do your editing. But, if you left the image like that, it would be pretty flat. So, a 'real world' situation would involve Taking OUT information - crushing the blacks, for instance. Adding contrast. Which is sorta the opposite of the race for more and more dynamic range.
But, it all depends on what you want your images to look like and then, what is the disposition of the images. If you're shooting for magazines, billboards, etc, a lot of what gets captured is 'lost' in the printing process. So, two different ways, the broad dynamic range captured by a Hassy H2+Leaf combo is just not necessary because it gets discarded at the editing stage, or lost in the printing.
"Real world," to me, means whatever you use a camera for, aside from testing and reviews.
I agree - most advertising images supplied by manufacturers to sell gear are done under controlled situations, with kind lighting ratios, so as to not stress the files. But, Vogue shoots aren't necessarily done that way. And, Vogue shoots are done "out in the field." Unless, by "field" you mean photojournalism. I guess, for me, a Vogue shoot IS a real world situation. At least, that WAS my aspiration, and it continues to be the way i 'work.'
[Sorry for the rambling. I don't even remember what this thread is about at this point....]
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
If they don't announce price and availability soon, i will have committed my resources elsewhere. I'm growing very impatient. There was a Big Tease, months ago, and now nothing. What are they waiting for - more labs to go under? More emulsions to be discontinued? More more practical dSLRs to be announced and released?
I agree with some of the comments above - that a 5DII will give better 'quality' images than even scanned 6x7 film, but there's still the matter of medium format's 'dimensionality' advantage. Even if you could capture the same amount of detail with a dSLR as with a super-duper high-end scan of 6x7 film, the 6x7 image will still just look 'different.' Just like an 8x10 camera's image is different. I suppose the differences are more pronounced if you shoot with shallow DOF. If you shoot landscapes, or product with deep DOF, maybe there's a 'flattening' effect. I wanna use this folder for travel portraiture, though.....
Just shot a beautiful old man on the beach in Rio this afternoon, with a Hasselblad. I shoulda been using the Bessa. For my next trip, i will likely have the 5DII. It's going to be difficult now to justify buying the folder....
I agree with some of the comments above - that a 5DII will give better 'quality' images than even scanned 6x7 film, but there's still the matter of medium format's 'dimensionality' advantage. Even if you could capture the same amount of detail with a dSLR as with a super-duper high-end scan of 6x7 film, the 6x7 image will still just look 'different.' Just like an 8x10 camera's image is different. I suppose the differences are more pronounced if you shoot with shallow DOF. If you shoot landscapes, or product with deep DOF, maybe there's a 'flattening' effect. I wanna use this folder for travel portraiture, though.....
Just shot a beautiful old man on the beach in Rio this afternoon, with a Hasselblad. I shoulda been using the Bessa. For my next trip, i will likely have the 5DII. It's going to be difficult now to justify buying the folder....
ray*j*gun
Veteran
Fred Burton
Well-known
I'm guessing that with the economic mess, figuring out how to price this thing is a challenge.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Surely we can wait a couple of months to hear Fuji Voigtlander's final specifications and price points?
I'd be very interested in a Fuji with a chrome finish with some laser etching of my choice.
I'd be very interested in a Fuji with a chrome finish with some laser etching of my choice.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
Not that I am a big Fuji (or any other brand) fan but I have a S5 and it is doing fine... Maybe it will collapse tomorrow (knok, knok...I touch wood) but it seems to be a decent quality product to me.
By the way, yes, I would indeed buy the new Fuji RF if the lens performs as one expect a Fuji lens to perform and for me 6x7 or 6x9 would be a better format than 6x6. A red hole in the back would also be welcome!
GLF
russianRF
Fed 5C User
I would think it's obvious that medium format film (especially under 400 ISO) would mop the floor with even the best 35mm digital. Else, why bother having medium format digital?
Here's a little math I worked out for Efke 35mm film:
35mm film = 36mm x 24mm exposed surface
Efke 25 = 115 lines per mm 4140 x 2760 x 4* or 45.7 effective megapixels
Efke 50 = 105 lines per mm 3780 x 2520 x 4* or 38.1 effective megapixels
Efke 100 = 90 lines per mm 3240 x 2160 x 4* or 23 effective megapixels
*lines per mm = 2 gradations of resolution, each way, hence 4
Using the same math for medium format:
Efke 25 medium format = 115 lines per mm;
60mm x 60mm exposed surface; 6900 X 6900 X 4 or 190.4 effective megapixels
Unless my math is way off, we are a LOOOONG ways away from digital 35mm matching medium format film. And I'm sorry, but sensor size is indeed important; until they can get 6900 by 6900 resolution without interpolation, film will offer better tonal range...
EDIT: I would also point out that it would seem obvious that greater sensor/film size equals more clear details and better tonality. After all, sensor size is EXACTLY the determining factor of quality between DSLRs and digital point-and-shoots. It's why an 8mp DSLR will still spank a 12mp point-and-shoot.
Here's a little math I worked out for Efke 35mm film:
35mm film = 36mm x 24mm exposed surface
Efke 25 = 115 lines per mm 4140 x 2760 x 4* or 45.7 effective megapixels
Efke 50 = 105 lines per mm 3780 x 2520 x 4* or 38.1 effective megapixels
Efke 100 = 90 lines per mm 3240 x 2160 x 4* or 23 effective megapixels
*lines per mm = 2 gradations of resolution, each way, hence 4
Using the same math for medium format:
Efke 25 medium format = 115 lines per mm;
60mm x 60mm exposed surface; 6900 X 6900 X 4 or 190.4 effective megapixels
Unless my math is way off, we are a LOOOONG ways away from digital 35mm matching medium format film. And I'm sorry, but sensor size is indeed important; until they can get 6900 by 6900 resolution without interpolation, film will offer better tonal range...
EDIT: I would also point out that it would seem obvious that greater sensor/film size equals more clear details and better tonality. After all, sensor size is EXACTLY the determining factor of quality between DSLRs and digital point-and-shoots. It's why an 8mp DSLR will still spank a 12mp point-and-shoot.
Last edited:
micromontenegro
Well-known
Exactly! I've lost all interest in it- I think it will be pig-expensive now.
5:00 PM
It's a light machine
Film (which I love and will never give up entirely) vs. digital is starting to seem a lot like steam vs. diesel to me. The amount of work and/or cost it takes to get scanned 35mm shot by my F5, M4 or Canon P to look as good as even a dirt-cheap Nikon D40 is pretty damn heroic. I'll buy the new Fuji folder in a heartbeat, but I don't seriously expect I'll be able to achieve Nikon D3x quality with it. I'll try, but the truth is that train has left the station.
kuzano
Veteran
Interesting observation....
Interesting observation....
Let's see.... A Fuji or Heliar lens quite as good as any lens in any MFR digital stable, and a negative that's 4+ greater than 35mm in size, or if you prefer 4+ times greater than any FF sensor on the market. The 6X7 format film negative scanned delivers on the order of 60 plus MegaPixels of data. Proven to me my scanning my Fuji 6X7 negs on a flatbed $500 scanner, the Epson
V700.
I don't think my reasons for not buying the new folder would fall to Image Quality, Tonal Range or Detail.
Interesting observation....
Let's see.... A Fuji or Heliar lens quite as good as any lens in any MFR digital stable, and a negative that's 4+ greater than 35mm in size, or if you prefer 4+ times greater than any FF sensor on the market. The 6X7 format film negative scanned delivers on the order of 60 plus MegaPixels of data. Proven to me my scanning my Fuji 6X7 negs on a flatbed $500 scanner, the Epson
V700.
I don't think my reasons for not buying the new folder would fall to Image Quality, Tonal Range or Detail.