Voigtlander Bessar Versus Canon EOS350D

[desmo]

Just processed the film from the Bessa R and will print both the digital files and the comparable film prints in the next few days.

Comparative analysis to follow but it should be noted that the Canon's meter offered quite a different exposure than the Voigtlander even though the images from both look great. I'd suggest NOT using a digital camera as an exposure meter for film.

The Canon was certainly versatile with its zoom lens but since I had set it as 35mm lens vs 35mm lens equivalent, there was essentially no speed advantage in use for either.

My interest here is quality anyway, not convenience. Does a good 35mm camera have what it takes vs the 8MP Canon when comparing digital print to chemical print?

 

[RML]

To answer your question right now: yes, it has what it takes. However, the results will differ quite severely and won't be easy to compare. First of all, you'll have to see through the grain of the film scans and/or the grainlessness of the digital files. Even just that difference will be an important influence on how you perceive either scan/digi-file.

 

[desmo]

Parameters:

Best quality sought from each. The Canon was in Raw mode and the images converted by DxO Optics 3.5 with all it's distortion correction on.

The Voigtlander was loaded with APX25 and then Delta 100

 

[desmo]

Nope, I'm not comparing film scans to digital, that would be biased to digital.

Like many here, I'm interested in print quality. That means I'm comparing the digital print from the Canon with a chemical print from the Voigtlander.

Any scans would be from the prints not from a neg.

It's print quality that is important not on screen perception.

To answer your question right now: yes, it has what it takes. However, the results will differ quite severely and won't be easy to compare. First of all, you'll have to see through the grain of the film scans and/or the grainlessness of the digital files. Even just that difference will be an important influence on how you perceive either scan/digi-file.

 

[desmo]

Damn that's ugly!
Just started printing the comparison images starting with the digital prints.

Tones look OK, detail looks OK (although in comparison to the negs they are higher contrast)

HOWEVER: the 'scan' lines in the plain midtones (sky) are awful! Even at full arms length (A3 print) they are noticeable and ugly.

Epson R1800 at Best Photo Quality, tried both colour and monochrome print options with no real difference. The 'scan lines' are not visible in the darker tones or in the detailed areas of the print, just in the mid tones in the sky.

I think I'm gonna have to look at an Epson forum and see if there's a fix.

Not an auspicious start for what is supposed to be a top notch printer.

 

[desmo]

Whew! that's better.

A couple of helpful hints on an Epson users site and the problem is resolved.
No more banding and a fair comparison print to print (digital vs chemical)

I've printed the Canon digital file at 300dpi with no resizing. This essentially gives an image of 8x12". The print looks quite nice with a full range of tones from white to black. I've also printed a resized version of the same picture at A3 size to guage the difference in enlarging negs to digital files.

I shot images on the canon both in B&W mode and in colour (RAW) to convert to B&W. I note that the 'red filter' effect that is selectable in Canons' set up parameters, does not give the same deep dark skies as the negative does.

Tomorrow I hope to get started on the chemical prints (if my darkroom supply order arrives).

 

[lubitel]

interesting comparison, you are doing. I wonder which print is going to make you happier.

 

[sfb_dot_com]

My instant reaction is that this comparison is fairly meaningless. I think there are just too many variables of which insufficient can be controlled to give a like-for-like comparison. In my humble opinion you are comparing chalk with cheese, or maybe watercolour with oil paint. I might also add that choice of digicam, just as much as film type will influence the result. The Canon is noted as described above for it's grainless results, but has also been described as plastic elsewhere, whereas Nikon DSLRs are set up to give a different kind of result, hence a comparison against say a D2X might give a result that is qualitatively different

Just my opinion of course, and I have no intent in starting a flame war on this subject. I think your attempt is worthy, but will not advance people's understanding as much as you would like.

 

[desmo]

Those are valid points. I also think Canon produces quite plastic looks sometimes.

I use the Canon as a pro photographer and it is a great tool. What has always concerned me though is that the comparisons I've seen between the two mediums have been based on a scanned neg versus a digital file.
Since scanning a neg introduces its own effects and degrades the image to some extent, I wanted to compare the two based on my real interest as a photographer: Prints.

In my pro work I'm not much concerned with prints. Most of my clients won't need more than an 8x10 and the bulk of them need only 1/4 page.

However, as an artist behind a camera, it has always been the print that mattered, something to hang on the wall. Digital files are fine for small prints and the plasticness coupled with high edge contrast does give the impression of sharpness and quality but as a printer who regularly makes 20x24 and larger prints I have to ask; is digital cost effective? Does it really have the quality I'm after?

These are my questions and as you note, not important to others. They are important to me though. Do I sell the Voigtlander and buy a gruntier digital as well as a larger printer for it or do I stick with 35mm and my darkroom? Is that a cost effective way to get high quality or would I just be entering into the never ending spiral of upgrades?

My 5x4 certainly outperforms the Canon, there isn't even a contest there. The Voigtlander is a different story and I am interested in the results. There is something about a digital print that leaves me cold (Canon and Nikon). I still don't understand what it is and therefore decided to do the comparison. The pictures are the same on each but each is printed within its own system: digital for digital and chemical for chemical.

I hope my darkroom supplies arrive today, I'm out of fixer and out of large paper.

My instant reaction is that this comparison is fairly meaningless. I think there are just too many variables of which insufficient can be controlled to give a like-for-like comparison. In my humble opinion you are comparing chalk with cheese, or maybe watercolour with oil paint. I might also add that choice of digicam, just as much as film type will influence the result. The Canon is noted as described above for it's grainless results, but has also been described as plastic elsewhere, whereas Nikon DSLRs are set up to give a different kind of result, hence a comparison against say a D2X might give a result that is qualitatively different

Just my opinion of course, and I have no intent in starting a flame war on this subject. I think your attempt is worthy, but will not advance people's understanding as much as you would like.

 

[desmo]

BTW: this "In my humble opinion you are comparing chalk with cheese" is partly why I'm doing the test. Most or all of the comparisons between the two media have been biased and not based on print quality but on digital files (scanned versus digicam). They have compared average film scanned into digital files: chalk and cheese.

None have ever explained that the film and lens combo dictates the quality as does the sensor and lens in digital. What film was being used for the comparison? If comparing the best digital camera against the best film camera then surely the best lenses and the best film should also be used.

Is film or digital 'better'? Probably neither, they are just different. However, if the question is "Does digital give more detail and quality than film" we must use the best film as a comparison.

As a B&W printer, that means I should compare digital to the sharpest, least grainy films possible. Does digital compare in resolution to Tech Pan, APX25, Gigabit etc? Lens for lens I doubt it but I've never seen that kind of comparison. Usually the comparison is between regular colour film and digital. At only about 100lppm, consumer neg film is a poor medium and the odds are stacked in favour of digital. A 100lppm film can only resolve about the same amount of info as an 8MP camera can.
However, when we get down to the films mentioned above we see claims of 300, 600 and 900 lppm, resolutions that digital can't even begin to approach without mortgaging the house and selling the kids into slavery.

Those resolutions however, are not actually achievable by most lenses (even digital lenses). The best APO lenses from Leica might manage 300lppm or so but not much more. The difference might lie in the tonal range.

The question therefore remains: will a digital camera of relatively equal cost beat out the voigtlander for B&W prints.

I suspect that up to 11x14 there will be nothing much in it. After that I suspect film will win but I'm not sure.

Again though, I am answering my own questions and if they don't seem important to you or others, that's just fine; you have no need or desire to pay attention.

 

[RML]

DEsmo, perhaps, instead of printing the digital files yourself, you can have them printed by a lab? Would there then be any difference in the quality between prints? Just wondering as I can imagine that a pro lab can do a better job than a "home" printer.

 

[desmo]

Perhaps it could but I desire control over my own images. Perhaps a pro lab could also print better chemical prints too.
However, I bought the R1800 to get the best at a particular price point while retaining personal control. I don't get labs to print my film B&W prints and for the same reasons I don't want a lab printing my digital files.

This is a reality test not an absolute test. I don't have the latest Leaf back and sharpest lenses to pit against the best that 35mm has to offer. I'm comparing what I can justify for something that is not a big profit maker: Art Prints made at home

The R1800 cost me NZ$1100, the Canon cost NZ$1500. Extra storage media added to that cost as did the dedicated flash and replacement lens (the 18-55mm is a joke). Digital equipment therefore cost about $$3500.

The Voigtlander with 12mm and 35mm lenses can be bought here for about $1200. The enlarger is ex stock (I've had it for 10 years) but I could buy one today of the same quality (Durst M805) second hand for about NZ$200 with all trays and easels and with average lenses. Add another NZ$200 for an APO 50mm enlarger lens and that total is under NZ$2000.

Cost of materials is likely to favour digital in the long run but pennies during the processing is not something most care about much. If a digi print costs say $1 and an equivalent chem print costs $1.20; I'm not gonna quibble particularly if the chem print is 'nicer'.

However, each 'kit' is reasonable for the home artist and a reasonable comparison. Going to a gruntier Canon or Nikon digicam would push the budget beyond reasonable though.

DEsmo, perhaps, instead of printing the digital files yourself, you can have them printed by a lab? Would there then be any difference in the quality between prints? Just wondering as I can imagine that a pro lab can do a better job than a "home" printer.

 

[MCTuomey]

Very interesting comparison and even more interesting is your way of structuring it. I look forward to reading/seeing your results. Thanks for sharing with the forum!

 

[desmo]

thanks, for those who ARE interested, it should be finished in a few days time (as I get time and supplies)

Very interesting comparison and even more interesting is your way of structuring it. I look forward to reading/seeing your results. Thanks for sharing with the forum!

 

[sfb_dot_com]

I'm still interested, although I don't think that in fact your verdict as to which is best will be arrived at by conscious thought process. That being said, I guess I have a similar dilemma being the owner of both a DSLR (Nikon) and a Voigtlander Bessa, and not having enough money to expand both systems. I will therefore look forward to seeing if possible some of your results, which I hope will help inform my choices, even if they prove to differ from yours somewhat. They will have to be in any case, because I am for no man going back to a wet darkroom. A scanner, and digital prints it will have to be. My printer is the R800, the smaller brother of the R1800. BTW Have you tried the Quadtone RIP? I believe it is supposed to be the best option for B&W on an Epson Inkjet. I have the software, but have never installed it because it wants to be installed on a USB port and my R800 runs off a Firewire connection.

Anyway, enough of technicalities & I look forward to seeing the fruits of your labours.

Regards

Andy

 

[desmo]

Actually my analysis WILL be based on concious thought processes. The most important of all in fact for this context: Which looks best?

and yes, after I had a problem with banding on the R1800 I downloaded Quadtone and was rewarded with a perfect print.

BTW: I have no fear or objection to the wet darkroom as long as it is built well with the correct airflow. In fact it's much less of a headache and pain in the neck than sitting n front of a computer for hours on end. Some of these prints take a ridiculous length of time to print on the R1800.

I'm still interested, although I don't think that in fact your verdict as to which is best will be arrived at by conscious thought process. That being said, I guess I have a similar dilemma being the owner of both a DSLR (Nikon) and a Voigtlander Bessa, and not having enough money to expand both systems. I will therefore look forward to seeing if possible some of your results, which I hope will help inform my choices, even if they prove to differ from yours somewhat. They will have to be in any case, because I am for no man going back to a wet darkroom. A scanner, and digital prints it will have to be. My printer is the R800, the smaller brother of the R1800. BTW Have you tried the Quadtone RIP? I believe it is supposed to be the best option for B&W on an Epson Inkjet. I have the software, but have never installed it because it wants to be installed on a USB port and my R800 runs off a Firewire connection.

Anyway, enough of technicalities & I look forward to seeing the fruits of your labours.

Regards

Andy

 

[RML]

Your explanations make perfect sense, Desmo.

I was just wondering about the lab prints because many of us don't have a dark room and don't do their own printer printing. I, for one, can't justify the cost of an Epson printer and ink for those 5 prints a year I make. 🙂

OK, let's wait and see the result of your experiments!

Perhaps it could but I desire control over my own images. Perhaps a pro lab could also print better chemical prints too.
However, I bought the R1800 to get the best at a particular price point while retaining personal control. I don't get labs to print my film B&W prints and for the same reasons I don't want a lab printing my digital files.

This is a reality test not an absolute test. I don't have the latest Leaf back and sharpest lenses to pit against the best that 35mm has to offer. I'm comparing what I can justify for something that is not a big profit maker: Art Prints made at home

The R1800 cost me NZ$1100, the Canon cost NZ$1500. Extra storage media added to that cost as did the dedicated flash and replacement lens (the 18-55mm is a joke). Digital equipment therefore cost about $$3500.

The Voigtlander with 12mm and 35mm lenses can be bought here for about $1200. The enlarger is ex stock (I've had it for 10 years) but I could buy one today of the same quality (Durst M805) second hand for about NZ$200 with all trays and easels and with average lenses. Add another NZ$200 for an APO 50mm enlarger lens and that total is under NZ$2000.

Cost of materials is likely to favour digital in the long run but pennies during the processing is not something most care about much. If a digi print costs say $1 and an equivalent chem print costs $1.20; I'm not gonna quibble particularly if the chem print is 'nicer'.

However, each 'kit' is reasonable for the home artist and a reasonable comparison. Going to a gruntier Canon or Nikon digicam would push the budget beyond reasonable though.

 

[desmo]

thanks RML,

This is an in between jobs kinda test so it's taking a while. The darkroom supplies didn't arrive yesterday so I'm running behind a bit.
The scans of the negs look good but as noted, I'm not interested in comparing scans.
Fingers crossed for chemistry today.

Your explanations make perfect sense, Desmo.

I was just wondering about the lab prints because many of us don't have a dark room and don't do their own printer printing. I, for one, can't justify the cost of an Epson printer and ink for those 5 prints a year I make. 🙂

OK, let's wait and see the result of your experiments!

 

[amateriat]

Desmo,

Firstly, I have to say yours is a hell of an undertaking. I look forward to your findings.

Secondly, the one additional factor you should consider is that the Canon and Cosina are radically different machines on more than one plane: the Canon is different not just because it's digital, but also because it's an SLR, a difference that's about as big as the fact that it doesn't use film. I've found the difference between shooting with SLRs and RFs so startling that, for the past four years-plus, I almost never shoot with the former, whether the shooting is for myself or for a client. SLRs are just not as inconspicuous nor as quiet as (most) RFs, and these, as well as the viewfinder difference, have implications in terms of shooting style, regardless of personal preference.

On printing: I can't quite recall the last time i ordered an enlargement from a lab, as I've been printing digitally for the last six years. Black-and-white printing has been problematic until about two years ago, when I started using a dedicated printer with quadtone inks, which made things easier but not exactly easy. Over this winter things got a lot easier with my newest printer (HP Photosmart 8750), which handles b/w and color with equal aplomb (by virtue of three of the nine inks it uses being gradations of black/grey). Now I just have one printer to feed instead of two, making it easier to stock up on given inks and paper.

I find scanning/printing the best possible quality combination (especially since I definitely don't have the amenities for a proper wet-printing setup). But since your pro-shooting situation sounds as if you really do need a digital rig from time to time, why choose between the Canon and Bessa? Grab the Canon when the client claims to Need It Now (whether or not the need is all that valid...sometimes it's best not to argue the point too much) and have the Bessa for everything else.


- Barrett