Ukko Heikkinen
Established
I have a Minolta Scan Elite 5400. It is a dedicated film scanner and reportedly good at that.
I have cut MF negatives and scanned them on the Minolta. The scans are not better than those I first made on my Epson 4870.
I get better scans and prints from 35 mm negatives (Bessas and Leitz glass) than MF negatives ( Mamiya 7, Rolleiflex).
I believe I know what I am doing.
Is there any reason why a dedicated MF film scanner, i.e. Nikon 9000, would be better than the 35 mm Minolta?
I have a theory of my own, but I would appreciate it very much if there were an expert in the group who could explain all this.
Ukko Heikkinen
I have cut MF negatives and scanned them on the Minolta. The scans are not better than those I first made on my Epson 4870.
I get better scans and prints from 35 mm negatives (Bessas and Leitz glass) than MF negatives ( Mamiya 7, Rolleiflex).
I believe I know what I am doing.
Is there any reason why a dedicated MF film scanner, i.e. Nikon 9000, would be better than the 35 mm Minolta?
I have a theory of my own, but I would appreciate it very much if there were an expert in the group who could explain all this.
Ukko Heikkinen
T_om
Well-known
You are using a Minolta 5400 to scan medium format film?
Or are you taking a MF negative and cutting a 35mm crop out of it and scanning that?
If the latter, then I would certainly expect 35mm film to outperform the cropped bits of a 6x6 or larger negative.
MF quality comes primarily from real estate... it has more area and is therefore not enlarged to the extent 35mm stuff is usually enlarged.
As for the lenses themselves, 35mm optics can usually beat most MF optics when bench tested, so the results of your tests are pretty much what I would expect. Most people are surprised to see the different test results comparing MF and LF optics with tiny little 35mm glass. But the lens systems for the larger formats do not have to be as good because they are not pushed as far.
Tom
Or are you taking a MF negative and cutting a 35mm crop out of it and scanning that?
If the latter, then I would certainly expect 35mm film to outperform the cropped bits of a 6x6 or larger negative.
MF quality comes primarily from real estate... it has more area and is therefore not enlarged to the extent 35mm stuff is usually enlarged.
As for the lenses themselves, 35mm optics can usually beat most MF optics when bench tested, so the results of your tests are pretty much what I would expect. Most people are surprised to see the different test results comparing MF and LF optics with tiny little 35mm glass. But the lens systems for the larger formats do not have to be as good because they are not pushed as far.
Tom
pvdhaar
Peter
An additional source of difference may lie in the emulsion and bases of the films that you're using.
Quite some films are different between their 35mm and 120 format incarnations, even if they sport the same name on the box..
In these kind of tests, you need to be dead sure that you're actually using the same film. Run a roll of 35mm film through your MF gear and then compare the results.
Running a roll of 35mm film through MF gear is easier than you think. There's enough room to put a 35mm canister in both the Mamiya 7 and the Rolleiflex. Use a bit of cardboard to center the canister, and put the film leader in the take up spool so that the film will more or less run through the middle. The one difference after shooting is that you'll have to rewind the 35mm film in the darkroom.
Quite some films are different between their 35mm and 120 format incarnations, even if they sport the same name on the box..
In these kind of tests, you need to be dead sure that you're actually using the same film. Run a roll of 35mm film through your MF gear and then compare the results.
Running a roll of 35mm film through MF gear is easier than you think. There's enough room to put a 35mm canister in both the Mamiya 7 and the Rolleiflex. Use a bit of cardboard to center the canister, and put the film leader in the take up spool so that the film will more or less run through the middle. The one difference after shooting is that you'll have to rewind the 35mm film in the darkroom.
Ukko Heikkinen
Established
Thank you very much for your help.
Yes. But the numerical differences are not great - is "Weighted MTF f8 0.87" (Leica M Summicron-M 50/2,0 ) really that much better than "Weighted MTF f8 0.83" (Mamiya 7 N 80/4 L )? ( http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html )
Regards
Ukko Heikkinen
T_om said:
Yes. But the numerical differences are not great - is "Weighted MTF f8 0.87" (Leica M Summicron-M 50/2,0 ) really that much better than "Weighted MTF f8 0.83" (Mamiya 7 N 80/4 L )? ( http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html )
Regards
Ukko Heikkinen
Ukko Heikkinen
Established
Thank you for your help, Peter. much obliged.
My Mamiya 7 has a 135 Panoramic Adapter Kit.
Regards
Ukko Heikkinen
pvdhaar said:
My Mamiya 7 has a 135 Panoramic Adapter Kit.
Regards
Ukko Heikkinen
djon
Well-known
I think Tom's right about lenses...and I don't believe anything that's published about resolution.
Yes, there are some superb MF lenses, but there aren't any MF cameras tht hold roll film flat (without glass plates, per Rollei & Hassleblad).
Nikon (any) arguably autofocuses more accurately than Minolta, and it does have significantly deeper depth of field, and the film holder holds film much flatter. And of course, if you demand REAL flatness Nikons use standard or customized anti-newton glass carriers....don't think proper carriers of any type are available for Minolta.
Yes, there are some superb MF lenses, but there aren't any MF cameras tht hold roll film flat (without glass plates, per Rollei & Hassleblad).
Nikon (any) arguably autofocuses more accurately than Minolta, and it does have significantly deeper depth of field, and the film holder holds film much flatter. And of course, if you demand REAL flatness Nikons use standard or customized anti-newton glass carriers....don't think proper carriers of any type are available for Minolta.
Last edited: