Scans Versus 4/3 or NEX Pix: Can You See A Difference?

[wgerrard]

Here's the deal: I shoot with an RF and scan the negatives. I don't print. Let's assume that some amount of image quality degradation is an inevitable result of the scanning process. if I picked up a 4/3 or a NEX or something similar to use while traveling, would I get images on a par with the scans I'm doing now? (I use a CoolScan V ED.)

I like my RF's, and I like the lenses, but I keep thinking I'm putting myself through some unnecessary hassle, especially since the scanning means I'm not getting the best possible results from the hardware.

 

[goffer]

what type of film do you typically shoot?

 

[wgerrard]

Ektar, and a range of b&w films I process myself.

 

[Steve M.]

I agree, it seems a digital would suit your needs better if you're not printing your photos. The only fly in the ointment is your B&W will not look as good. There are a number of sites you can download a digital image from whatever camera you'd like to buy. Do that, and convert it to B&W, and see if you can live w/ that. If so, or if you're happy w/ mostly color, then a film camera doesn't seem to be a good fit for you.

 

[goffer]

It just depends on what you are after I suppose... resolution wise you'll get better IQ with the digital stuff if you are pixel peeping but what you are going to lose the most is in the crop factor (4/3 is a 2x crop and the NEX is a 1.5x). I personally love film for its dynamic range, but if IQ is what you are after the NEX line has better IQ and better noise control over the 4/3 stuff. I'd jump on a NEX-5 myself but I just dont like the menu/control layout and there isnt an EVF out yet... I'm waiting to see what the NEX-7 has for me.

 

[wgerrard]

Well, I never shoot b&w while traveling. That's all color.

One thing that makes me hesitate is my difficulty using an LCD screen versus a viewfinder. I've used a variety of cameras with LCD screens, including the Ricoh GX-200 i have now. For me, framing and composing is so much easier with a viewfinder. On the other hand, I've found the GX-200's EVF to be less than stellar in both low light and very bright light.

I have managed to convince myself that the lack of anything comparable to my 2.0. 1.5 and 1.2 lenses might be (maybe?) compensated for by high ISO's and stabilization software.

[EDIT: Goffer, What I'm really after is less stuff to carry around when I travel. Something like a GH1 with a kit lens is sorely tempting.]

 

[DNG]

You tell me

ISO 100 and 320 on Panasonic G1 with a CV 25mm snapshot (A very sharp lens)

I don't have a film comparison... But the finer detail on the 100% crop is pretty impressive with a 12mp m43 camera and sharp adapted lens.
Film may be finer grained.. don't know

ISO 320 w/ 100% crop

100%

ISO 100 w/ 100% Crop

100%

 

[goffer]

Well, I never shoot b&w while traveling. That's all color.

One thing that makes me hesitate is my difficulty using an LCD screen versus a viewfinder. I've used a variety of cameras with LCD screens, including the Ricoh GX-200 i have now. For me, framing and composing is so much easier with a viewfinder. On the other hand, I've found the GX-200's EVF to be less than stellar in both low light and very bright light.

I have managed to convince myself that the lack of anything comparable to my 2.0. 1.5 and 1.2 lenses might be (maybe?) compensated for by high ISO's and stabilization software.

[EDIT: Goffer, What I'm really after is less stuff to carry around when I travel. Something like a GH1 with a kit lens is sorely tempting.]

I'd look at the EP-1 or 2 with the new EVF... supposedly it's quite something. Fast glass could be compensatable if you dont need DOF.

 

[Tegla]

Here's the deal: I shoot with an RF and scan the negatives. I don't print.

If you don't print you need 3-4MP digital camera. Sorry about this 😉
Let's start again.
If you don't print, maybe you don't need film camera. I use 35mm film because it forces me to make prints. When i bought my first digital camera, my daughter was a baby. I was making photos, but no prints. After 6 months, whole family started to ask for prints from their newborn family member. Than i went back to film and never turn back. This is just my experience. It is not about technical comparison.

P.S. Also i can't simulate film look on digital.

 

[sc_rufctr]

GDI

The film scans look "better" to my eye.

It's hard to describe but somehow they look "warmer" , easier to look at.
(Hope that makes sense)

 

[gdi]

GDI

The film scans look "better" to my eye.

It's hard to describe but somehow they look "warmer" , easier to look at.
(Hope that makes sense)

I agree, even though the film shots are taken with a relatively low res/contrast lens. Digital falls short in my view for B&W when compared with trad B&W film; of course others feel differently.

 

[--]

...I use a CoolScan V ED...

Regarding your question you will get "something else" - not better and not worse. I have used loads of digital cameras and software to match. I still prefer the scanned pictures from my film cameras though.

Does it mean I use film cameras a lot? No, hardly ever actually. It is so much easier to shoot with digital (albeit whether it is cheaper is debatable if you - like many shooters - change cameras often) and you can backup. Something you cannot do with film until after the roll has been processed.

Are you using VueScan on your scanner? The guy behind is amazing. I do not even use his software and the output from my old Minolta scanner (far less advanced than yours) is good enough to me. But it is worth a free trial download.

If you consider buying into mirrorless? Then wait. To me the m4/3 cameras are heavily overpriced at the moment. Probably Photokina will bring out more competition and the prices will slowly fall quite a bit. Whatever you buy consider something where you can use your current lenses.

And, more than ever, I think it good advice to try out the cameras in your hands. Apart from the Ricoh GXR (quite pricey) none of them are very good handling wise. The GF1 (to my hands) is almost passable. Then PENs not. The bigger Panasonics definitely not - your hands may wary 😉 The Samsung NX I do not like. The Nex 5 is okay, so-so.

In this size segment I have settled for Sigmas (DP1 and DP2). Those are cameras that will make you curse them at short intervals. Often you will head back resolved to sell them (if possible) and otherwise throw them into the rubbish bin, pour something inflammable unto them and rejoice while they burn. And then you see the pictures and forget. The output is almost film like.

Good luck hunting.

 

[Pico]

I got a Lumix G1 4/3 after shooting film for forty years; I can state with certainty that the image IQ is inferior to any scanned 35mm film (shot properly) when you want excellent prints of 10" (long side). The major issue is the small sensor. It is also vastly inferior with the use of, say, the VC 15mm. I've shot it with Summilux lenses and they perform well, but far too long for average work (for me), and it remains that the IQ is inferior due to the small sensor.

So, to my fresh eyes 4/3 just sucks. It looks just plain bad.

Your Eyes and Mind May Vary.

 

[aad]

Those color G1 pictures-I think the scans from my SD IV are a lot better. Enough to outweigh the convenience/ Not sure...

 

[wgerrard]

Thanks everyone for the comments. I hope we can keep the focus on mirrorless versus scanned film, rather than the dead horse of film versus digital. When folks post images here to illustrate film vs. digital differences, I have to admit I usually can't see a difference.

The fact is, as I see it, that a scan is is a digital image. Every photo posted anywhere on the web is a digital image. Has to be.

I use RF film cameras because I like the cameras and their lenses, not so much because I'm a film fanatic. And, I like to travel with as little "stuff" as possible. Right now, that's a smallish bag with one RF and three lenses. I only use the bag when I travel, and after even a week I'm complaining about lugging the thing. So, since I don't, and almost certainly won't, print, I'm looking at this issue and wondering if I'd be happier traveling with a mirrorless camera and a kit lens. The convenience factor is important here.

Xpanded brought up the subject of handling, and how comfortable a camera is to use. I agree. I'm 6'4" with reasonably large hands and have found many smallish cameras to be difficult to use. It's like the buttons were made for people half my size.

I'm not looking to buy immediately, if I do buy. But, I have a trip coming up in late September. If something new hits the market before then, I'll certainly take a close look.

(In reading this, I sound very much like someone who has already decided to buy a mirrorless and a kit lens, but hasn't seen any that say "Buy Me!". Hmmm...)

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Bill: I'd like to offer a different point of view. It seems to me there are two major things you change when you move from 35mm (or some larger format) to a chip with smaller-than-35 surface area (either m4/3 or a 1.3 crop). The first is the behavior of your lenses, which will be cropped. This will affect near-far relationships in your pictures if you keep the same FOV (e.g. a 20mm lens for your old 35, or using your old 35 or taking six steps back to preserve your framing). The second is the response of your medium. Film has its characteristic curve, sensitivity drops off gradually, but you may have to deal with reciprocity; digital is linear (either responds or doesn't) and has no reciprocity problem/features. If you are used to using slide film, you may find these digital qualities less annoying than I do. I "grew up" on Tri-X and got spoiled by its latitude. I am assuming that you are an accomplished enough scanner that you can get your full dynamic range out of scanned film.

When I started using a Nikon D3, I felt that I finally had found a camera where the IQ, particularly at high ISOs was consistently better than what I could achieve with film. For me, this translates into more flexibility, less expense and hassle. With the smaller chips in 1.3 crop and m4/3 cameras, you give back some of these gains in IQ. How much? I can't quantify it in a useful way. I'd say that IQ from my EP-2 at ISO 800 is a little better than Delta 1600 pulled to 800; but I happen to like the look of the Delta much better and have been unwilling so far to try to duplicate that look in conversion of the EP-2's RAW files. It probably could be done with an AlienSkin type BW conversation plug-in. I think xpanded has it right: you will get something different.

If you have a film-to-digital workflow, then you really have to manage backwards from the IQ possible (and associated problems) on monitors and in the venues you want to see your images. One way of thinking about this is: What is the lowest level of image quality you are willing to live with?

Ahh, what the hell. Just get the camera.

Ben Marks

 

[Matus]

I think it all depends what you are after. To my eye most digital captures looks somewhat live-less (sterile could be a better word). Color can often look very dandy. In other words - the look is very different.

Concerning the resolution digital is superior to film in any given format (like 35mm film versus FX cameras and so on). But the question is what you need. (I use MF film when I want larger prints, or even 4x5)

Still - if you do not have some particular lenses for your film cameras (which will change their angle of view when mounted on small sensor cameras) or if you do not have some favorite technique (BW or color) that gives you just the look you like - you might be better off with a digital camera. Now - whether the cameras that are currently on the market will fulfill your expectations is something you have to figure out. If there is no such one - just keep shooting film and get digital once you can get what you want.

 

[wgerrard]

What is the lowest level of image quality you are willing to live with?

Ben Marks

If I'm honest, it's lower than I'd like to admit. Maybe it's my eyes.

Because I don't print, I don't have complete control of how my images are going to look to someone else. Example: I work on a Mac. The first time I saw my images on someone else's screen (a Toshiba laptop running Windows) I thought I was looking at them through a dirty window. On the other hand, things looked just fine to the laptop's owner.

I don't bother synching my monitor because of that: Who knows what kind of screen the images be seen on.

I bought an enlarger last year, but can't get psyched to use it. (Creating the necessary darkness is a real logistics problem for me, as well.) The folks I want to see my pictures don't want prints. They want files on laptops and phones and Flickr.

 

[wgerrard]

I think it all depends what you are after. To my eye most digital captures looks somewhat live-less (sterile could be a better word). Color can often look very dandy. In other words - the look is very different.

Matus, I'm wondering about using a mirrorless for travel, not necessarily to replace the cameras I use now. For that purpose, convenience is important to me, and takes precedence over subtle differences in images. In any case, at least for me, the differences between scanned color film and a digital shot are pretty much a wash. Other people seem to notice much greater differences on screen than I do.

 

[gdi]

Thanks everyone for the comments. I hope we can keep the focus on mirrorless versus scanned film, rather than the dead horse of film versus digital. When folks post images here to illustrate film vs. digital differences, I have to admit I usually can't see a difference.

The fact is, as I see it, that a scan is is a digital image. Every photo posted anywhere on the web is a digital image. Has to be.

I use RF film cameras because I like the cameras and their lenses, not so much because I'm a film fanatic. And, I like to travel with as little "stuff" as possible. Right now, that's a smallish bag with one RF and three lenses. I only use the bag when I travel, and after even a week I'm complaining about lugging the thing. So, since I don't, and almost certainly won't, print, I'm looking at this issue and wondering if I'd be happier traveling with a mirrorless camera and a kit lens. The convenience factor is important here.

Xpanded brought up the subject of handling, and how comfortable a camera is to use. I agree. I'm 6'4" with reasonably large hands and have found many smallish cameras to be difficult to use. It's like the buttons were made for people half my size.

I'm not looking to buy immediately, if I do buy. But, I have a trip coming up in late September. If something new hits the market before then, I'll certainly take a close look.

(In reading this, I sound very much like someone who has already decided to buy a mirrorless and a kit lens, but hasn't seen any that say "Buy Me!". Hmmm...)

Humm, I don't think anyone intended to turn this into a film vs digital debate (I know I didn't). Yes, of course everything on the web was digitized at some point; but wasn't your question whether you will get the same thing if you shoot with a digital camera versus a film camera and scanned it on your Coolscan?

If that is correct, then the answer is no. But does it matter to you? If, as you say, you never print, don't calibrate your monitor, and don't have particularly high quality requirements, then I think you are making the right decision to go digital. It is so much easier, quicker and cleaner.

Good luck choosing the right camera for you (I actually think the new 4/3rds give very good results).