Best Digital =/+ Medium Format of 10 Years Ago?

[Benjamin Marks]

I recently made a bunch of pictures with an M9 and 90 and 75 lenses stopped down a couple of stops at the M9's native ISO of 160. I was just blown away by the detail in the resulting images. Back in my medium format days, I tended to use 400 speed film, because the lenses were a little slower than their 35mm counterparts.

It seems to me that the current digital files I am getting (M9, D3) are significantly higher resolution than what I was getting then. And my current cameras are hardly cutting edge.

Any sense of this from the slower film medium format crowd?

 

[Mudman]

I dunno. Compared to my D300 and D2x, my Medium format cameras rock with resolution with the slide filim and slow B&W that I use. I was disappointed at a roll of 320 tri-x I ran through the hasselblad the other day.

 

[kmallick]

There is no doubt that the best digital cameras produce outstanding images that look fantastic on the screen and even printed. Like you I am amazed by the detail in my M9 images. But even with slower lenses and slower ISO film speed, I think medium format still outshines the digital when it comes to smooth gradations in tones and total dynamic range. I also find the images from medium format look better when printed on a large size (16x20 or eve 11x14). I won't even go into the perspective and dof that the medium format provides. In my opinion each has its place and advantages.

 

[Bobfrance]

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't shoot MF for detail I shoot it for the focal lengths it enables me to use.
An 80mm/f4 shot into a 6x6 looks quite different to a 35mm/f1.4 shot onto 35mm, be it digital or film, despite the FOV being similar.

That said, I believe Salgado has moved form a Mamiya 7 to a Canon 1D, so they must be all right I suppose. 😉




.

 

[FPjohn]

The consensus appears to be that digital still concedes to film in dynamic range while the best "large format" digital backs now equal 4x5 in resolution.

My opinion is that film and digital are media that differ in "gestalt" as kmallick observes.

yours
FPJ

 

[thegman]

This is an interesting article:

http://www.twinlenslife.com/2011/01/digital-vs-film-canon-5d-mark-ii-vs.html

It shows Ektar 100 in 135 to be roughly on a par with a Canon 5D mk II for detail, in fact I'd say the Ektar has ever so slightly more detail.

The M9 I expect has a much better sensor than the 5D Mark II, so would trump the Ektar in 135 probably reasonably easily, but I'd expect Ektar in 6x7 to carry very significantly more detail than the M9.

 

[keytarjunkie]

I don't care about resolution and sharpness - when I use medium and large format cameras I'm much more interested in the perspective you get from the larger image size. To me, that is why it looks so good - it has nothing to do with how much detail the image contains.

In response to the topic, I think film and digital are pretty close these days. But, like I said, I don't care.



Also: Above me the 5D mark II was compared to Ektar 100. The 5D mark II costs over $2000 and then you need to add a lens and memory card. With a simple camera like a Yashica T4D for under $200 with a sharp 35/3.5 Zeiss lens, and a roll of Ektar for $5, and processing for another $5-10, I'd say that's not a bad deal!

 

[Chris101]

=/+ in what regard?

 

[MCTuomey]

This is an interesting article:

http://www.twinlenslife.com/2011/01/digital-vs-film-canon-5d-mark-ii-vs.html

It shows Ektar 100 in 135 to be roughly on a par with a Canon 5D mk II for detail, in fact I'd say the Ektar has ever so slightly more detail.

Late last year I compared Ektar 100 and Provia prints (Mamiya 7II/150mm combo) to prints from a 5DMkII/ts-e90. Tripod-based, well-controlled shooting of cityscapes. At 11x14/16x20/16x24 sizes the differences did not seem significant for me. I tried a couple prints at 24x30 and 20x30, and at that size I began to see that the MF rig produced better looking detail. So I think the question depends on print size and whether you're shooting B&W or color. Also, whether you're investing in the highest quality scans (I used NCPS and a local lab).

 

[mbisc]

Define "better" -- I am sure your M9 beats a Holga MF camera in terms of resolution and the absence of light leaks, but beyond that, it's apples and oranges (or tomato vs. tomatah) 🙂

 

[NLewis]

From everything I've seen, the resolution of a 21-24mp digital camera is around the same as 6x7 using Velvia or other fine-grained film. You might be able to get more resolution on the film, but the question becomes, can you get it off the film? Drum scans are expensive.

MF film is now about the color, BW tone, dynamic range, "look" of the large film and related lenses, etc.

http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

 

[LeicaM3]

You seem to be narrowing it down to resolution, so I will respond to that primarily.

A 125mb scan of medium format shot at 25asa gives me more detail than the raw image from a D700. Not sure how important that is though.

Agree with the note on dynamic range.
For me medium format gives me better overall images than a D700 or M9 (only used for about 1000 images). Better dynamic range and tonality, detail, print better, no issues with correct colors, grain if I want to.
In low light, no contest - D700 all the way.

 

[Sparrow]

It depends on how one defines Best ...

 

[oftheherd]

From everything I've seen, the resolution of a 21-24mp digital camera is around the same as 6x7 using Velvia or other fine-grained film. You might be able to get more resolution on the film, but the question becomes, can you get it off the film? Drum scans are expensive.

MF film is now about the color, BW tone, dynamic range, "look" of the large film and related lenses, etc.

http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

Well, I guess I am at a disadvantage. I only get my MF images off the film onto a sheet of silver laden paper. 😛

 

[jsrockit]

With a simple camera like a Yashica T4D for under $200 with a sharp 35/3.5 Zeiss lens, and a roll of Ektar for $5, and processing for another $5-10, I'd say that's not a bad deal!

Sounds like a good deal if you are only doing a few rolls and don't want any control over your photographs.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I have accumulated a lot of MF gear over the years. Recently it has been so cheap that it has been hard to resist my inner 23 year old telling me I need a 90mm KL lens for my RB67 when it is only priced at $109 from KEH. But I have a couple of Rolleiflexes, a couple of 501 series Hassies, a Bronica SQ-A, a Pentax 67, an RB, some Fuji rangefinders. Equipment bloat. You know the type. In fact the low prices on this gear oddly argue _against_ selling it I will get an adequate amount of fun out of almost any of the gear compared to its current sale price. I am just wondering whether I will actually use the stuff, given the results I am currently getting out of the M9 and D3. I am thinking of loading up the RB67 with some nice slow film this weekend and then thinking deep thoughts about thinning the heard once I have looked at the negatives.

 

[sojournerphoto]

I did a quick and simple test of Ektar in a Mamiya 7ii against a 1Ds3. Zeiss ZF 2/35 on the 1Ds3 focused using live view and Mamiya 80 lense focused using the rf. Both on the same tripod, sequentially. Film scanned on a Nikon 9000

The Mamiya clearly gave more resolution in a 33 by 22 print. Not so much that most viewers would object to the digital print, but if you looked then you could se the difference.

That's just rsolution, which is often not a key characteristic of a good photo🙂

 

[jsrockit]

I am mostly digital, but recently bought a Rolleiflex because I wanted the square with proper depth of field control. I'm not into cropping to square or using P&S cameras with square formats. That is where medium format comes in handy for me... the square.

 

[TXForester]

This is an interesting article:

http://www.twinlenslife.com/2011/01/digital-vs-film-canon-5d-mark-ii-vs.html

I'm not arguing with the results, but wouldn't it have been a better test to shoot the Ektar with a EOS film body so the same lens is used?

 

[LeicaM3]

Sounds like a good deal if you are only doing a few rolls and don't want any control over your photographs.

Oh, prior to digital we had no control over our photographs?

:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:


Priceless. Should be my new sig 😀