Has anyone seen this MF digital?
- Thread starter MP Guy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 9
- Views 968
bmattock
Veteran
No - but it took me a moment to realize that's two different cameras! Apparently, there is the camera 'ZD' and the back, also called 'ZD'. OK, I get it now. One is for if you already have a Mamiya MF system, the other for if you just have the lenses. Hmmm.
Well, I have Bronica stuff - and no interchangeable backs, either. Oh well.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Well, I have Bronica stuff - and no interchangeable backs, either. Oh well.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
S
sfaust
Guest
Yes, I've been watching the MF digital arena for a while. A 22 megapixel MF camera pretty much outshines 35mm film. The big issue is cost. Unless I had enough work that warrants the increased size, the cost factor is just too high in the $15k-$22k range. Hard to justify when my clients are very happy with 6mp images.
I'm not sure I'd want to have to deal with multiple 60-130mb images in my workflow either. Talk about choking a PCs bus and disk system.
But the images area awesome! Look at the detail you can extract out of these MF backs.
I'm not sure I'd want to have to deal with multiple 60-130mb images in my workflow either. Talk about choking a PCs bus and disk system.
But the images area awesome! Look at the detail you can extract out of these MF backs.
S
sfaust
Guest
That image isn't that exciting until you figure out its a crop from the following image.
And this also shows how you can't judge sharpness from a compressed image. If you look at the original you would never guess there was that much detail by looking at her eye. But when you get the 100% crop, you can see every single eyelash.
And this also shows how you can't judge sharpness from a compressed image. If you look at the original you would never guess there was that much detail by looking at her eye. But when you get the 100% crop, you can see every single eyelash.
thats impressive resoultion. but a 35mm scanned at 4800 dpi shoudl yield about 32 mp. The way I see it and please let me know if i am wrong here. but 32 mp in a smaller frame is better than 22 mp in a mf frame. does this make sense?
By the way, what did you shoot that with?
By the way, what did you shoot that with?
S
StuartR
Guest
I am fairly certain you are wrong Jorge. I have a 4800 dpi scanner, and it would not equal a 22mp back for a MF camera. At such gigantic enlargements, you start to run into problems -- film grain becomes very noticeable, even for fine or ultra-fine grain films. Furthermore, the lenses in the scanners, while good, are not the equal of any dedicated lens for a camera. The same goes for the sensor. And again, the fact remains that you are making a copy of a picture already made. with a digital back, you have an exact transfer of the very image that was taken. Don't get me wrong, you can get very good results with a 4800 dpi scanner, but just because it has more pixels does not mean it has better resolution. You can do a lot though. Here is an example of a Mamiya 7II shot scanned at 4800dpi and then a 100% crop from that image.
S
StuartR
Guest
Here is a 100% crop from the original image. The original size was 10488x10440 ( believe I cropped it at scanning). But what you will see is that the fine detail is there, but being limited by film grain and other effects. And this is for a medium format image, using delta 100 in Xtol, a very, very fine grain combination. That said, film has undeniable advantages, particularly in medium format. The greatest of which might be the tonality of black and white images and the increased dynamic range of negative film.
S
sfaust
Guest
Thats roughly about the same 100% crop size. The difference is very noticable. But as you said, there are still advantages to MF film. But its hard to make a case for 35mm film against a MF digital.
Thanks for posting this, and do you mind if I use your example next time the question comes up on other forums I visit?
Thanks for posting this, and do you mind if I use your example next time the question comes up on other forums I visit?
S
StuartR
Guest
Not at all. But I am not sure it is the be all and end all. It might have been better had I had used distilled water in mixing my chemicals and so on, but this looks like it is pretty good.
The real test would be to examine large prints made by both cameras -- the digital from a good epson like the 9600 or something and then the film made with a high quality enlarger and fiber print. Then I think things might be different.
The real test would be to examine large prints made by both cameras -- the digital from a good epson like the 9600 or something and then the film made with a high quality enlarger and fiber print. Then I think things might be different.
Last edited by a moderator:
R
Rich Silfver
Guest
Digital MF is indeed becoming interesting - and soon within the grasps of prosumers.
Hasselblad's 96C back (info here) gives a 16 or 22 megapix sensor - and it fits your old V-class 'blad (500c, 500c/m, etc).
Great way to be able to enjoy bodies and lenses that were 'built for film' and have the ruggedness that I feel digital cameras are missing.
Streetprice for the back is now about 9,000 dollars but you should be able to pick it up for quite a bit less than that a year from now.
Hasselblad's 96C back (info here) gives a 16 or 22 megapix sensor - and it fits your old V-class 'blad (500c, 500c/m, etc).
Great way to be able to enjoy bodies and lenses that were 'built for film' and have the ruggedness that I feel digital cameras are missing.
Streetprice for the back is now about 9,000 dollars but you should be able to pick it up for quite a bit less than that a year from now.
Similar threads
