M9 and Fujica GSW690III compared

C

C_R

Established
Local time
6:08 PM
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
150
Guess what is what: M9 and Elmarit 28 Asph., conversion with Capture One Pro 6.0 and the other is Fujica GSW690III with Velvia 50, scanned with a Hasselblad-Imacon X1 @3200 dpi

No. 1
5250089998_8e78308709_o.jpg


No 2
5250091660_9f6abf9bab_o.jpg


I have original size crops here, but it is too obvious then
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38068178@N08/
http://www.carstenranke.com
 
I'll have to guess the top one is the m9, though it doesn't really matter... Either way, the m9 is one impressive image maker!
 
@Steve: yes, LL has some provocant stuff, do you know this article ?

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

Quote: "In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10."

This is the point: we all discuss about monitor size, downsized, photos - hard to tell the difference.
When you look at the original size files film wins clearly but you must look at really large prints
 
I like the second image a little bit better. But I think that is more related to difference in lighting. Quality wise the second image seems to be a little bit sharper. I can only guess which one is analog or digital. I go for the second one to done with the M9.

Regards
Steve
 
I vote second one is the Velvia 50, MF. Just reminds me of my own Velvia shots. However, that first one is pretty darn close in rendition and is very nice.
 
I picked out the first as the scan before even reading the comments. IMO It's quite easy to tell by looking at the nature of the light. Look at the colour, if you look at the lower region of the photograph of the digital you can see that for one it is quite stark on separating out the colour channels and lacks that natural colour cast.

Just imagine if you were standing at that same place, just ask yourself which shot looks more 'real'?

The first shot clearly.
 
Last edited:
The issues are that the film shot was scanned, and that we are looking at them on computer monitors. If the final output is web-viewing, both cameras are over-kill. IMO
 
Neare said:
Just imagine if you were standing at that same place, just ask yourself which shot looks more 'real'?
Click to expand...

When I use Velvia, it never looks "real" (though I've never found that a really meaningful or useful category for viewing photography).

This was shot on Velvia 50 with a ZM 21/4,5

Fire on the mountain

64700013 by areality4all, on Flickr
 
Great shot ! Nice light and lines.

I tried to re-scan the fff Scan RAW file so that it matched my impression of the scene. And then, thereafter the M9 file was tailored with help of Capture One Pro 6.0 to match the analog picture. I was just curious what differences then still remain (of course, the small monitor view is another issue)
 
noimmunity said:
When I use Velvia, it never looks "real" (though I've never found that a really meaningful or useful category for viewing photography).
Click to expand...

Perhaps.. But are you saying you've done no post on that shot whatsoever? I rarely shoot slide, but when I do use velvia it comes out contrasty and saturated for sure but I find the colours to always be true to their origin.
 
JSU said:
It would help if you would clone out the sensor spot that is just right of center, but still in the dark cloud, and just down from the top of the frame. A dirty sensor is a dead give away for a dit cam.
Click to expand...

and in the left top corner two spots as well... so no doubts that #2 is from M9
 
Last edited:
C_R said:
Guess what is what: M9 and Elmarit 28 Asph., conversion with Capture One Pro 6.0 and the other is Fujica GSW690III with Velvia 50, scanned with a Hasselblad-Imacon X1 @3200 dpi
Click to expand...

I hope the bottom one (#2) is the Fuji, because I have a Fuji and I'll probably never have the M9. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom