![]() |
I found this comparison of 4 x 5 and PhaseOne P45 39 megapixel back. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml
Given that a Hasselblad H3D-39 on promotional offer, with a 28mm lens and voucher for a second lens runs to just shy of £21,000 excluding VAT :eek: , I can't see many of us taking it up. :D :D Interesting comparison though, and with 5 x 4 having 3.5 times greater area than 6x6cm. This would suggest that a Canon EOS-1DS MkII, at 16.7mp would give 6x6 a run for its money. Don |
Hi Don,
Very interesting article and thanks for sharing. I do not know the pixle density or format size of the H3D-39 back compared to the Canon 1DS MK II; this can throw a complicated equation when trying to find out how big you can go with print size. I would like to see a direct comparison between the 1DS MK II and a 6x7cm slide that has been DRUM Scanned. Regards Jonathan |
This is all a lot easier for you Jonathan, as you can do direct comparisons.
Some of the scanner stuff goes right over my head as I have not used a scanner to understand the implications. I had a Bronica SQA system, so out of interest I have done a bit of searching and came up with this comparison. SQA and Canon EOS 5D. http://www.shortwork.net/equip/review-1Ds-SQ-scantech/ As for me, well I do not print larger than A4, and for that the D2X is not stretched. Even at 12 x 16 I doubt I would see the difference between a SQA image and one from the X in terms of resolved detail, so I am quite happy. Just to show I am not biased against M/F, things I do miss : Huge viewfinder. Better range of interchangeable viewfinder screens. The ability to get the camera right to gound level without having to use a right angle finder. Less reliance on batteries. ( Used to change mine once or twice a year ). 1/500 sync speed even with the most basic of flash guns if the lens has a leaf shutter. Ignoring the conveniance of digital aspect, things I do not miss. WEIGHT. Body + MF finder and speedgrip, 50mm, 110 macro, 150mm PS lenses and 3 magazines and other lesser bits in a shoulder bag = hod carrier training. :D :D :D Interesting thread though. Don |
Jonathan makes a good point when he refers to a drum scan. A normal scanner does not get all of the detail from a slow film, especially if it is not a dedicated slide scanner, but a mid range flatbed. I am told that drum scans are expensive which kind of negates the cost savings of using MF gear.
But, I think we have a number of issues here. Some people maintain that a ~10 MP sensor does not even match a slow 35mm film as far as detail is concerned. I can't say that I have performed rigorous tests, but my own feeling from experience is that 10MP (a Nikon D200) roughly matches Kodachrome 64 in terms of resolving detail. Where the D200 wins is the smoothness of tones, and the dynamic range. The KR64 slide has a lot of 'noise' in the form of grain, or grain clumps if you want to be pedantic. So an A4 enlargement from a KR64 slide will show noticeable graininess whereas the digital image will not, and to my eyes the digital image is much better. As for Fuji Velvia at ISO 50, well I will have to leave that one to others to decide as I hate it and only used it once. My feeling is that the subjective quality is not better than a D200. I am curious what other peoples subjective impressions are on this matter. Psst Don, I hear that your D2x can do 3 foot by 2 foot prints with ease! |
I've never used MF so can't really comment on this, however... Pro bird photographer Nigel Blake took a stunning barn owl shot with an 8mp 20D, it is now a 7+ foot high poster at the visitor centre at RSPB Titchwell. It looks stunning (though I've not given it close inspection), make me wonder just how big you could print from a 1Ds mk II, especially for use in large advertising posters where fine detail is not always so vital.
http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/...hp?photo=40296 |
Thanks for that info, I will check it out the next time we are there. I have not been inside the centre for ages. Usually just a cup of coffee and a bun outside. :)
Don |
Just to make things more confusing, it has to be remembered that larger prints are viewed further away than smaller ones. Our eyes can only resolve a certain level of detail and therefore the larger prints can look good when viewed from a distance.
|
I agree that normal viewing distance is a factor for fine detail when enlarging images. But going back to Jonathans initial post there is a tendancy for viewers of highly detailed images to be drawn in to it to really look at the fine detail. I have just commented on two images from SeanKP in the gallery that would fall into that catagory.
Other images I have seen that follow that are, early ship pictures taken on massive glass plate negatives. Probably commissioned by the new owners. Also traction, and railway engines from 10 x 8 plates by the manufacturers of these. Incredibly smooth tone, not even a hint of grain, and the recorded detail is just incredible. In more recent times I have seen images taken on a 24inch polariod presented as contact prints .................... amazing. Going back to Leif's post, that is digitals greatest asset. Without grain masking detail, the detail that is captured by digital seems cleaner/clearer. I have only printed directly from slide on Cibachrome. I have never tried scanning. D100 prints from a six ink printer appeared to be more detailed in 10 x 8 prints compared to those from 35mm slides. 6 x 4.5 and the decision is less easy. 6x6 using Technical Pan is about where I am with the D2X, given that my comparison 6x6 images have been cropped to achieve similar aspect ratio. I would have to recreate my darkroom to positivly prove either way. Technical pan is an extremely fine grained film, so grain intrusion on recorded detail is only evident at high magnification. I used Tech Pan at ISO 12 to give some idea. Whether the X could stand up to a similar comparison with Jonathans 6x7 Mamiya is something else, as his origional post suggests. Don |
2 Attachment(s)
I have had a rummage for the type of image where interested people are really going to want maximum detail. In this case I don't think normal viewing distance would apply.
Taken on set during the filming of a TV series due for broadcast anytime now. In this case the job of the focus puller was my facination hence a pic of the camera. The enlarged section shows the focus drive mechanism. Taken with the consumer range 28-105 zoom, at f7.1, so the lens is not performing at its best aperture for this sort of thing. Also taken with the 'X 'just after I got it, so if it was taken today I would expect it to be a lot sharper. Of course if I had the 28-70 f2.8 with its increased resolution, then you could probably shave with it. Pics are the full frame with the crop marked, and then the interesting detail. Don |
Because Digital speaks the same language as computers, I have replaced all my 35mm film equipment for 8-10 megapixle; the time spent to make 35mm slide look as good as digital is not worth it.
Leif has pointed out that 10 megapixle = 35mm ISO 64 Kodachrome and I have read that it takes 15 megapixle to = 35mm Provia F 100, but Don has shown a report showing a 5D whooping a Bronica loaded with Provia F 100!!!?!...... How much did you sey that Canon 17 megapixle camera cost? Best regards to all Jonathan Farmer |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:36. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.