New Luminous Landscape 8x10 comparison

D

DamenS

Well-known
Local time
11:37 PM
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
412
Location
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
View My Gallery
Proves - PROVES I tell's ya' - that even 8x10 film cannot compare to a new digital 80 megapixel back ...

From the makers of the world-famous and universally admired, "Canon d30 3 megapixel camera beats 35mm film", and the critical success "Canon 1ds 11 megapixel beats 6x7 film", comes the third edition in the "Film is dead" trilogy ... MARVEL at the 100% comparisons, THRILL at the informed commentary etc etc.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/iq180_vs_8x10.shtml
 
DamenS said:
Proves - PROVES I tell's ya' - that even 8x10 film cannot compare to a new digital 80 megapixel back ...

From the makers of the world-famous and universally admired, "Canon d30 3 megapixel camera beats 35mm film", and the critical success "Canon 1ds 11 megapixel beats 6x7 film", comes the third edition in the "Film is dead" trilogy ... MARVEL at the 100% comparisons, THRILL at the informed commentary etc etc.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/iq180_vs_8x10.shtml
Click to expand...

Thanks for the laugh. I read that article before I came here today and boy those LL articles have a way of ticking me off. Oh! for a mere $20+ grand, I too can make an image that would otherwise cost $5 a pop?! Does LL tend to PO anyone else?
 
Last edited:
Let's face it, we're all jealous cause none of us has had the creativity to shoot a bunch of blue drums and random cars in front of a couple of buildings with the blinds down!
 
pvdhaar said:
Let's face it, we're all jealous cause none of us has had the creativity to shoot a bunch of blue drums and random cars in front of a couple of buildings with the blinds down!
Click to expand...

Nah, we just can't afford to do it with $40,000 worth of equipment.

Anyway, the author of the article specialises in running workshops in "digital capture and printing" however claims that there was no bias. He wrote a followup article http://www.markuszuber.com/8by10.html
 
I hope we are not for one instant suggesting that someone with something to sell, may be a slightly, ahem, biased source.

I rank this test right up there in the "fallibility stakes" with the recent test of the Leica 24mm Summilux on the Nex 7, where Michael managed to "prove" that even ON CENTRE, the 24mm Leica lens looks like it wasn't focussed compared to the Zeiss lens, the results were so bad - maybe he was still drunk from the lavish "press junket" bestowed upon him by Sony or Zeiss ?
 
Last edited:
Strange so soft scans when it was only scanned at 745ppi. I would have though those scans would have been tack sharp. Was there focusing errors, are 8x10 lenses really so soft? Somthing seems a bit off to me.
 
I'm thinking that they could kill three birds with one stone by simply attaching the Leica Summilux 24mm to the front of their 8x10' camera, and then take a photo of the resultant negative with a Canon d30 3 Megapixel camera and publish the results against an 80 megapixel back ... that way, in one fell swoop, they would have proven ALL of their sponsors and financial contributers to have the best equipment available on the market today !!
 
Noll said:
Don't get me started. Too late. Does LL tend to piss anyone else off?
Click to expand...

When I started with film photography a couple years ago, I read those articles with interest, but you're right, now come to think of it, I left with a slight bad taste in my mouth.

And guess what, I like film more anyways, even when digital has reached even higher level of perfection (quoting the article) than it is now. 🙂

The meaning of "aesthetics in imperfection" will be totally lost to folks who think like these people.
 
LL has lots of technically good photographers whose photos lack 'soul.' While I do visit GetDpi sometimes, thats even worse. People constantly upgrading and chasing megapixels. Its as if they don't feel there is anything creative/vision-wise left to learn.

As for the 80MP beating 10x8 they might well be right. I'm not sure what that means though.
 
DamenS said:
I'm thinking that they could kill three birds with one stone by simply attaching the Leica Summilux 24mm to the front of their 8x10' camera, and then take a photo of the resultant negative with a Canon d30 3 Megapixel camera and publish the results against an 80 megapixel back ... that way, in one fell swoop, they would have proven ALL of their sponsors and financial contributers to have the best equipment available on the market today !!
Click to expand...


Thats funny as hell...thanks Damen. I don't care what anyone says, good E-6 film on a light table looks a million times better than anything I've ever seen on an LCD.
 
How the hell can anything be determined on computer screens? And who cares? If an 8x10 negative can produce a wonderful printed image, who cares? If an IQ180 file can produce a wonderful printed image, who cares?

I'm not quite sure who benefits from these endless arguments other than the equipment manufacturers, and a few egos.

Sorry for my curmudgeonli-ness this morning ... I haven't done my zazen for awhile. :angel:
 
I don't understand the can't see it on a monitor mentality.

I have a fairly modest Samsung LED monitor and at 1280 on the long side and higher (excluding very short panoramas) there is definitely an ability to see differences in lenses. Of course picking between the summicron 50 and planar 50 is still tough, but it's certainly enough to tell if a wide was made for an SLR or a RF, or to see a quality lens versus a zoom.

Granted it's hardly an 8x10 or 11x14 print but it's not non-existent

as for the "article", well I think op-ed might be better as its implications are more fitting IMO.
 
Reworded: I don't make final evaluations on a monitor, even if it is a critical tool in a digital workflow. I evaluate prints. 99% of the time, 100% views aren't relevant for me. That' just me.
 
Trius said:
Reworded: I don't make final evaluations on a monitor, even if it is a critical tool in a digital workflow. I evaluate prints. 99% of the time, 100% views aren't relevant for me. That' just me.
Click to expand...

Seriously. I've learned never to judge by negatives by how they scan and present on a monitor. Most of my 35mm HP5 scans look like sh*t on a monitor compared to digital capture (pcretty sure its a function of how monitors represent grain) but once printed up they look beautiful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom