Medium Format Film
 

To those of you that think Digital is the best thing since sliced bread, think again.

Many of us have hung up our 35mm gear because we now have digital cameras that take just as good if not better images than 35mm film; but what obout getting REALY BIG, SHARP IMAGES WITH FINE DETAIL AND RICH, SMOOTH COLOUR AND CONTRAST. We have all heard the stories " My 12 megapixle camera and zoom lens are so good, I printed a 16x20 print and it's still sharp". I am sure many of these images are fairly sharp (from a distance), but what are these images being compared to. Right now you can go into many camera stores and find a heap of Medium Format gear at low, low prices, many of us will bypass this gear because we think it's out dated junk. Think again, to get the equivalent performance from Digital compared to from these old Medium Format cameras, you will have to spend $25,000.00 to $40,000.00.

I have attached two images, the full size image I have printed 16x20 inches and I consider it to be very sharp, not as sharp as large format, but very sharp all the same. The other image is a croped out section about 2.5 x 2.5 inches in size; see if you can fiend which part it came from. This should give you an idea of what kind of detail you can expect from Medium format film.

The images shown were taken with 120 Slide film (Fuji Provia F 100) and the slide was scanned using a consumer level scanner. If a drum scanner were used, the image quality would be even better.

Untill digital gets realy big and affordable, I will continue to crank the leaver of my trusted and durable MEDIUM FORMAT CAMERA when I want that BIG image. For the rest of my photos I have the convenience of digital.

Best regards

Jonathan Farmer

For the rest of my

I moved to digital 2 years ago and really I would not want to go back. I genuinely feel that my photography has improved significantly due to using digital. I had dreadful problems with reciprocity failure, film colour shifts at long exposures, colour shifts due to cold light, films destroyed by the processor (rare but it happened) and other issues. I can see an image the day it was taken, and reshoot if need be. This is useful for seasonal subjects such as fungi and flowers which disappear in a week or two. And digital has greater dynamic range than slide emulsions. Plus I can increase the ISO if the light is dull and the subject is moving. It's as if I had a whole pocket full of emulsions of various ISO speeds. Many people do trumpet the benefits of film, but I have to admit it is not for me, for numerous reasons.

I don't doubt what you say though. And scanners are much better than they used to be. But they are still the limiting factor unless you go to wet chemistry. Perhaps for landscapes MF and LF are the way to go for those who cannot afford to spend £10,000 on the best 35mm gear.

I have been released to do so much more photography by digital that I would not want to go back and seeing I can only print up to A4 at home I am not really bothered by the superior quality that medium format offers. Others may disagree but I am not tempted back. There is an unfinished film in my film SLR that has been there for about 2 years, I really must finish it sometime!

Only if I have to go big.
 

Before I go misundrestood; the only reason I will use MF is when the final product has to be big and it is important that detail is as sharp as I can get it. 95% of my work is done with digital.

For FINE ART printed up to 16x20, I use MF or for advertising shots requiring large images for fussy clients.

Regards

Jonathan

It's a big debate you open, but I understand your personal reasoning Jonathan.
I like many have the privilage to look at the film vs digital debate from an objective point of view too.
We still get a healthy number of hobbyists, semi and pro photographers coming into the shop buying film chemistry and processing 35mm, medium and large format alike. We also get a massive number of seriuos digital users in the shop too.
The reason for film;
Personally a like 35mm film, but not because I consider it better quality than digital. No, I actually enjoy developing those transparency films through my processor and seeing those results. It's an age old technigue by today's standard's, and it's certainly not the quickest or cost effective work flow solution. The point is tho, part of my hobby I enjoy is the film processing part of it all. I can then scan those images, knowing I can always go back to them at a later date as I have done with many of my images in my gallery.
Now to the reason for digital;
A prime reason behind the explosion of digital media can be seen using my wife as an example, but is common I'm sure for many many other users...
Up until recently, Jacky used Pentax based 35mm film kit, took pictures, normally colour print, finished the film, had them developed, got them back to sift through which prints she liked etc....I bought her a digi SLR for her birthday...she hasn't put it down! Reason being I don't think just that it's a new toy, but she is a heavier computer user than me, now enjoys taking photos and looking at them instantly, can see where she might improve a shot, retake it, upload it instantly....all with the enjoyment ultimately of photography. I don't consider her photography any lesser than mine, it's just she doesn't particularly get my enjoyment from siting upstairs in the spare bedroom with the processor going! (can't see why??!)
The photography hobby is different things to different people.

Regarding the quality and size aspect of film vs digital;
With limited budget, yes, film has the edge when considering the initial outlay price, particualrly where medium and large format is concerned.
However, with a larger budget possible, there is no quality argument for film...it is pure noncence to rule out digital totally, even for the big billboard advertising quality images. Companies like Leaf, PhaseOne among others specialist in large digi backs, 60 megapixel is the norm, software enabling larger file sizes to be made even bigger plus high powered hardware are now commonplace.
In an industry that requires freeflow work and fast results digital is beginning to come out tops. A company that can afford it will dump old obsolete digi kit and buy the new upgrade....we saw it with the big news and sports photo agencies, and we'll probably see it with many studios up and down the high street too.

However, my personal view is your 20+ year old film camera can be 'upgraded' every time you put the new emulsion in!....just as long as you don't mind using the older design lenses etc!

Ho hum...I could waffle on for an age....but I got to stop now!....the summary for me is both have a place, but one thing is...digital has meant more and more people have gotten envolved in photography.
that's only got to be a good thing

Having switched to digital in October last year, I have found that I miss film. Essentially, I now have only one type of sensor, whereas with film, I could change 'sensor' at each reload. Undoubtedly digital is more convenient, more easily manipulated, quicker, and the ability to change iso keeps me shooting when I would have packed up previously, but I miss the suspense and surpise of getting prints and slides back from the developer. (Mind you, there was a fair dose of frustration inthere sometimes too!)

Overall, for me going digital has been positive, but I just cant shift that nostalgia.

I guess you do make a good point. Lots of digital users are dribbling at the thought of a Canon 1Ds II ... and yet ... they could in many respects get better results by buying an old MF camera, at a bargain price, and shooting slides. Mmmmm. Don't tempt me! I've spent too much already this year. I wonder how long before MF quality digital reaches the sub-£1000 mark?

Affordable and big
 

Big digital (22-60 Megapixle) is for the big guys like large advertising firms and high end magazines, but only about 5 years ago these same guys relied on MF film. For anyone who wants 3-5 times bigger than 12-16 megapixle (I think my math is correct once good scanning is done), there is 6x6 or 6x7 cm format. Yes you have to wait for the results with developing, you always have a dust problem (at least I do), no matter how clean I keep my D. Tank, there is alwayse dust present; your fastest shutter speed is around 1/500 sec. and maybe you have a choice of one zoom lens, all other lenses are primes; you also have to be very accurate with exposures. With all these challenges, I find I take more time when Using MF usualy resulting in better photographs. For all this bother, I only use MF for fine art requiring big images and for any image over 16x20 inches.

Best regards to all

Jonathan Farmer

Don't hold your breath! :D

A thread I will return to. I will just throw a thought or two into the pot in the mean time.

I have used 5x4 and 6x4.5, 6x6 and 6x9 on 120. The most obvious difference in the use of these formats over 35mm/digital, is that with a bigger neg to show up poor sharpness, then a SOLID TRIPOD was ALWAYS used.

As far as MEDIUM FORMAT is concerned then we are ranging through 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8 and 6x9. With each size increase comes bigger and heavier kit if we are talking SLR. Tripods required go in the same direction.

I would not argue that a 6x7 - 6x9 image will amaze but a Mamiya 6x7 is quite a beast, and a Fuji GX680, IS A BEAST.

Don

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

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

Jonathan,

I see from your gallery you have Nikon & Canon, and top glass so I post this link to a run off between The D2X and 1DS MkII. http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
Scroll down and the link is in the centre section.

This is where you enter new territory for web posting. If the image is full frame, and contains lots of fine detail, then you have to apply nearly maximum compression in ps to get a reasonable file size. That level of compression destroys the fine detail making some images unpostable as they just look rubbish. SeanKP's has found the same thing from his comment on the shot ' Cairo Cityscape ' taken with the 1DS MkII. Without compression the detail in that shot would be amazing.

Don

It's something I've been toying with, I used to have a Bronica many years ago and in some of the studio work I do it would be nice to have improved quality occasionally.

Having said that for 99% of occasions digital is more than the client wants.

Part of the reason I have re-kindled interest in MF is down to the prices being offered in the high street, one draw back was always not wishing to re-invest in darkrooms and rely on labs again. I was fortunate to recently purchase a MF and LF 5x4" scanner and it's on my to do list to scan all my older MF work.

This might inspire me to make the plunge again!

The last submission by Don really is an eye opener, especially to Canon users. Yes the Canon full frame is better for megapixle size but the density of the Nikon makes the 1.5 crop factor better because telephoto lenses now have 50% more power. (If you crop the Canon FF down to the Nikon DX format, you loose detail due to less pixel density). The Nikon DX format is also better for 35mm designed lenses as well especially for wide angles as the report shows light fall off in the corners using Canon's FF.

As it stands, at present the Nikon DX format has its fair share of advantages over Canon's FF; but is pixel density going to be the down fall of Nikon's DX format for the future? Because Canon has a bigger format, they will be able to cram in more pixels in the future, and if Nikon don't have a solution to this, Canon will continue to get bigger and bigger as far as megapixles are concerned.

It will be very interesting to see what Nikon is going to do next, if they do go FF, there will be a lot of good DX glass that can't be used.

I will be holding onto my Nikon D200 AND MY MEDIUM FORMAT GEAR until the fog clears from the path of formats, I hope I don't have to hold onto them for to long a time. Nikon's next moove will probably be the deciding factor.

Regards

Jonathan

Jonathan

I have just tried my DX12-24 on the F3 as it has 100% viewfinder and shows no obvious vignetting from about 19mm on.That suggests even if Nikon did introduce a FF DSLR then most DX lens owners would not loose out by much. A couple of mm at the wide end.

A never ending debate on Nikon and a full frame DSLR. To keep this thread clean I will start another one as quite a few members here use FF DSLR's and it would be interesting to see the various motivations for going that route as we know for pure resolution of fine detail that is not a primary requirement unless you want 20MP in a 35mm body and have the cash to fund it.:)

I firmly believe film at 120 and larger formats will be around for a good while yet. Plenty of time for Phase One digital backs to fall in price. It will be interesting to see how many current MF users switch to the Pentax 645 ( if thats what they end up naming it ) once it finally hits the market. Origionally announced in 2005 to be 18mp it was displayed at PMA earlier, and at this weeks Tokyo Show with a spec at 31mp Kodak sensor. No doubt final price pitching will be well below Hasselblad H3D-31.

Don

Jonathan

Here is a link to a Luminous Landscape shootout. Full frame Canons, various MF digital backs, 645 and 5x4 drum scanned film.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...-testing.shtml

Don

D2X v 35mm & 6x6 Provia 100F
 

I have now found a comparison between the D2x and Provia 100F in 35mm and 6x6 size.

http://www.michaelclarkphoto.com/d2xreview.html

Don

At the risk of stating the bleeping obvious, that is not quite a fair comparison, since there is a scanner in the way. One way to get an accurate comparison is to shoot slide film, and 'scan' the image using a macro lens and extension tubes to zoom in on the slide. The scan can then be compared to a digital image of the same scene. I am tempted to do that as I have the equipment and an old slide film lying around.

Leif,

I am not at all up on scanners, but as the mention was of the Nikon unit used, being the next best to drum scanning ( which I assume is the best ) I am a bit puzzled as it is not obvious to me that this is an unfair comparison.

You mention scanning using a macro lens and tubes, so assume you mean taking a pic of it a la slide copying. If so is a camera sensor superior to a scanner. Sorry I am a bit lost here. :confused:

Don

Copying a slide using a macro on a digital camera or any camera will not render results as good as a scanner for a few reasons; 1)…. Image quality will be lost due to creating a second generation using optics while the scanned image would be a direct copy from the slide. 2)… The camera can’t create a file big enough.

I have to page up for the Nikon 8000ED and to quote from its spec ' Tri-linear CCD with a total of 30,000 pixels, High-quality 48-bit images at file sizes up to 790 MB, and one of many sizes Effective Scanning Area: (6 x 6) 56.9 x 56.9mm (8,964 x 8,964 pixels)'

Don

Jonathan: I use a D200 and a Minolta 5400 scanner. The scanner does not get all of the detail from a Provia 100F slide (though it is close).

File size is rather misleading and although a scanner creates a large file, the file size is a poor measure of the amount of information in the scan. For example I can take a file, and make it bigger with interpolation, without increasing the amount of information. What matters is the quality of the scan. In practice a scanner is limited by the quality of the lens (it uses a lens), and the accuracy of the stepper motors.

Also I am suggesting using a macro lens and extension tubes, to go beyond 1:1. In other words, I suggest zooming in on part of the slide, so as to make sure that the DSLR captures all of the detail from the slide within the cropped area.

You might find this rather interesting:

http://www.borutfurlan.com/test_results.html

Ah! You are quoting the specs. Those terribly nice people at Nikon are giving you the pixels, not the actual amount of information in the scan. Also when they say 48 bits, all they mean is that the file store data from each pixel using 48 bits. But what about the sensor dynamic range and the analogue to digital converter? In practice the 8000ED has a much lower dynamic range than implied by the 48 bits figure. (The Minolta 5400 is no better.) If you doubt what I say, have a Google for reviews.

Leif,

You have knowledge of scanning through your practical use of it. I have none so I am in totally new territory. I will have a read through your link. Thanks

Don

Okay. I hope my postings do not sound rude, it's just the manufacturers specs really do have to be taken with more than a pinch of salt. Norman Koren also has some excellent information on his site.

All info gratefully recieved Leif.

I do recognise any manufacturer will try the blind with the most impressive numbers - thats marketing. In this case at the mo I know no better. :)

Don

Shed loads of info. A bit of rainy day reading. :D

http://www.normankoren.com/

Don

Thanks for posting the link Don.
It certainly confirms what many believe now....that a high spec 35mm 'style' pro digi body can out perform 35mm film.
To add impact to this review, I do hope that the guy writing it has been completely impartial and 'independant'. Looks like he might have been to me, but I have read so many reviews of digi bodies that as sponsored, either directly, or indirectly, by the manufacturer who I guess obviously need to promote the days latest new model. Sony are very good at doing this trick!
Cynical I know, but This review looks to be an unbiased comparison, which is good to see.

I agree over the unbiased bit Joe.

Although I have all my old darkroom kit in the loft I am not going to invest in a scanner to run a side by side using the F3 and 6mp D100, 12mp D2X and same lens.

I see Colab offer a Super Res ( 40-50mb) scanning service but that is £20:47 for a roll of 35mm. Something a bit odd about that as 120 comes in at the same file size and I would have expected higher for that.

Perhaps you and Christine can do a side by side. To be totally unbiased you would each need to be aiming to get the absolute best from your particular media.

Colab link http://www.colab.com/digital/scanning.aspx

Don

Don, yes we will have a go at doing just that, it will be interesting to see a comparison.

I am trying to work out what lenses to take with me, I don't want to be bogged down with too much weight. I think it will be the 80-400mm 18-55mm and the 1.4 converter just in case. I can't make my mind up to take the 400 f5.6 for that extra clarity if needed. Decisions, Decisions.

Christine,

I have just had a look at the Trentham Gardens web site and understand the dilema. If you go to the Monkey Forest then the 400 would be handy as I guess it is sharper than the zoom. Otherwise the zoom will cover most eventualities.

I look forward to the results and wish I was able to be there. Have a great day as I am sure you all will. :) :)

Don