(When) Will 35mm DSLR Exceed MF Film Image Quality?

<p>MF is a vague term but I would say the best DSLRs have already caught up with 645 film in terms of resolution. 67 still has the edge.<br>

Medium format digital surpassed MF film years ago.</p>

<p>The Puts comparison is confused since it compares B/W film exposed with no consideration to dynamic range with a AA-filterless sensor exposed to a pattern smaller than the pixel spacing, and to no one's surprise sees Moire effects in the color image. Turn the color digital image back into black and white, choose a raw development package (Capture One in this case) which goes for detail, don't worry about the noise, and the digital sensor is a clear winner at constant image size, same lens. But I don't think there is much photographic relevance.<br>

As for me, I've spent a small sub-prime mortgage on Leica M8/9 gear with very pleasing results, and less than the price of one lens on a Hasselblad Xpan and a 500 C/M. I'm having a lot of fun with the Hassies, and I expect as my scanning technique and equipment improves, sometime in 2011, film will surpass digital again. <br>

scott</p>

 

<p>I have done side-by-side tests tests of 35mm E6 and D3/D700 and - on a purely resolution basis only - the slide film yields clearly higher detail. Digital was better for colour separation and much better for dynamic range. The film was scanned on a Coolscan 9000 and the digital files went through NX2 (the best IQ for NEFs you can get). As I don't own a 1Ds III or a D3X I can only speculate that they equal or surpass 35mm slide film. But there is no way that they can touch well processed/scanned/printed medium format film yet. Give it a few years I would guess.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The answer is whenever digital files can capture more pixels than can be digitised from film in scanning.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is one of the most often used arguments in the film vs digital debate. It is a flawed theory. You can keep scanning film at higher resolutions year after year. You can capture as many pixels as you like but all you'll be doing is filling your hard drive faster than before.</p>

<p>Film is an analogue format and is made up of microscopic particles stuck to a sheet of gelatine. Opinions vary on the optimum scanning resolution but it's usually between 4000 and 8000dpi. At these resolutions you can clearly see the grain of the film. Scan at a higher resolution and all you'll see is larger grain.</p>

<p>You can only scan film so much. Film does not have a hidden infinite amount of detail that is yet to be discovered. No-one's going to announce in 100 years time that they can scan a frame of film at 1,000,000dpi and discover that your Aunty Eve did indeed have an eyelash in her eye on the day of her silver wedding. If you've already scanned your film on a top class scanner at 4000dpi or 8000dpi then you've got all the detail you're going to get. Film technology is no longer being advanced. The film we have now is the best it's ever going to be.</p>

<p>So, to summarise, a future 200 megapixel scan of a 35mm negative won't come anywhere near the image quality of today's 60 megapixel MF digital files which is what your theory implies.</p>

<p>My own personal opinion (and one that will, no doubt, be open to heated debate) is that 35mm film was surpassed years ago and medium format film already has its back against the wall when compared to the latest 35mm DSLRs.</p>

<p>Which one looks better when printed at 36x24"? That is indeed a matter of opinion. Personally, I much prefer the look of film.</p>

<p>Given the number of people who convince themselves that they can make great large prints from flatbed scans, I'd suggest that for those people, a top of range new dslr will indeed exceed the resolution of MF by the time you make a print. </p>

<p>A flip example but hopefully one that demonstrates that there is no universal answer and that you really have to understand the needs of your application before forming a view, and that different applications have different answers. IMO it is unwise to base this decision on pixel count alone; as people used to say a lot on here, not all pixels are created equal. </p>

<p> Further there's more to life than resolution when choosing a camera for a particular task- for example if I really can't use a tripod then I'm going to lean strongly in favour of a dSLR with IS. If I need the ultimate in dynamic range I'm going to value neg film and so on.</p>

<p>The whole debate is a bit like comparing the bhp of similar cars- might from time to time be important but there are so many more factors that are or should be in play that you don't really expect anyone to decide what to buy with that at the forefront of their mind. The output of photography is almost invariably judged subjectively- you either like that print or you don't, you're moved by someone's work or you don't and so on. Why then do some people find it best to reduce their choices to numbers when in large measure you can use either to make the biggest print you're ever going to want, and either to satisfy the most demanding commercial applications until we get seriously specialised. </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1540525">Lad Lueck</a> , Dec 29, 2009; 10:01 p.m.<br>

Erwin Puts comparison was slanted toward film. He shot high-contrast targets (film measures better at high contrast, not so good with real-world contrast on small details), on a B&W microfilm, and compared to a color digital system.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>First, there was more than one film used. Ilford Delta 100 is a conventional B&W film....not a microfilm. Second, high contrast targets are valid. In a finely detailed landscape type scene, texture is recorded as fine microcontrast regions on the film. This is why digital B&W is so much more difficult....the sensors do not have that final bit of detail needed to provide the depth to the image. Finally, as there are only color digital systems, it appears that will always be an excuse.....its no fair, he used B&W film against a color sensor.....apples to oranges. Until they come out with a B&W sensor for you, color is the only option....so it is a completely valid comparison.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Such an incredible amount of words and "brain power" wasted on a seemingly infinite number of threads with assertions from both sides.<br>

Here's the best course: Conduct your own scientific experiment, keeping everything equal (lighting, field of view, etc). Rent or borrow the top digital (D3x? 1Ds3?) and compare to your favorite MF camera. Have a great scan done. Or 2 from different houses (I had 2 large drum scans from 2 different houses made). Post process to get your favorite "look" from each. Compare in the largest size you ever print. Then you are done. No wondering if a poster is prejudiced or presented the results fairly. No wondering if the person doing the tests is reliable or unbiased. And great comfort in the fact that you made the decision for yourself and do not have to revisit it until substantial changes have been made in the "best" camera systems that might change the results. Best of all, you can read threads like this and just smile, not caring who asserts what! </p>

<p>I know the topic has been driven into the ground but I still find the discussions very interesting. I think it is something a lot of us are still arguing with ourselves about. I do a lot of amateur architectural shots and I bought a D700 so I could get full focal length out of an older 28mm PC. The 11x14 prints I am getting out of digital certainly rival any 35mm results I was capable of, or even the results I got from 6x7 at 11x14. The ease of use over my 4x5 view camera/darkroom path is also significant. My reality is that 11x14 is as large as I normally print so the D700 is getting a lot of use but the view camera is still there and my path if I want 16x20 and above. The ability to automatically geotag my photos is just icing.<br>

I think the real question is how soon 6x4.5 digital backs are available at prices affordable to an amateur. This could happen within 18 months and when it does, I’m a little worried that the medium format cameras unable to take auxiliary backs like the Pentax line and the my Mamiya 7 may be expensive doorstops. Hopefully with the large amount of good glass out there someone will make adapters to fit these lenses to something that can hold a digital back.<br>

Ultimately, nothing beats real estate. With the price of sensors falling, there is nothing stopping manufacturers from making cameras with larger sensors. Certainly 6x7 sensors should be very hand holdable on a camera that looks like an RB or a Mamiya7. Digital’s advantages of instant view ability to confirm you got the shot, flexibility to set scene appropriate ISO and ability to store larger and larger numbers of photos on smaller and smaller devices far outweigh only disadvantage of being a need for battery power (something pros accepted some time ago). Film just doesn’t have any inherent advantages over digital capture. It’s hard to see how film will have very much appeal outside of art and niche advanced amateur circles. I’m sure film will be available for sometime from Kodak or a descendent and some 3^rd world countries but the question we’ll be asking ourselves is why use film with it’s chemicals and disadvantages when image quality will be with the digital capture path.</p>

<p>*****Re * inespensive digital backs in the future*:<br /> <br /> If one looks *backwards* in the rear view mirror of digital backs history; the tunnel goes back about 1 1/2 decades; and NO back has ever been low in cost. I hate to be abit negative; but I really see no magic bullet that will *magically* make digtal backs cost way less.<br>

The *wish* for an inexpensive digital back is like the wish of an inexpensive metal lathe or big tractor; it might happen it is is made all in chine with super mature stable technology. Early digital backs for a Hasselblad wer only 32mm square; an early one was a huge 4 megapixels and cost as much as new car.The long term trend as been down in pricing; but I see no infection point with a radical drop coming. The market is dinky.<br>

<br /> ****Re MF versus digtial:<br /> <br /> As for comparing film versus digital; it will go on forever. The topic is almost 2 decades old. Newcomers want an exact answer to justify the purchase of the new toy ! :) The downside of folks wanting an exact answer is that folks equate their 1950's brownie 120 negatives to holding gobs of usefull info; and often a dumb 1200 dpi flatbed is a vast overkill. Most all MF shot in the last 100+ years is by amateurs and most were with simple 1 element lenses.<br>

<br /> If one wants goosed number one can shoot with panatomic-x of tech pan at F11 and have ones rig on a granite block; then have the film drum scanned. The *goal* is to brage to otherss that this super best case negative *holds* XYZ megapixels.:)</p>

<p>I think the current DSLRs can equal the quality. But not in a strict one shot comparison test. What if you shoot your MF scene and then take your >20megapixel DSLR and divide that scene up into 5 or 6 separate images that you stitch together? </p>

<p>>Early digital backs for a Hasselblad wer only 32mm square; an early one was a huge 4 megapixels and cost as much as new car.</p>

<p>Now, that 25 Mpix sensor on a SONY costs under $3K. The high Mpix sensor will drop in price when they are mass produced.</p>

<p>>If one wants goosed number one can shoot with panatomic-x of tech pan at F11 and have ones rig on a granite block; then have the film drum scanned. The *goal* is to brage to otherss that this super best case negative *holds* XYZ megapixels.:)</p>

<p>Drum scans will give you the resolution but it cannot remove grains without removing resolution. If one likes grains, then by all means use film.</p>

<p>Additionally, try using film shooting at ISO 6400 and let me know how often those images are publishable. I am sure you will be able to show me one out of 1,000. With the current Nikon D3 or D3S, you will get publishable images most of the time.</p>

<p>Back to using wet lab to process films and make prints? No ... I can do all these on my desktop with a few clicks. If you enjoy wet lab, go for it; I won't.</p>

<p>Last question: how many professional photographers are still using film and is able to make a comfortable living? I do not have the actual number but I can certainly bet it is less than 20%. I am almost certain that number is less.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Even after saying that digital is already as good as film, I still shoot B&W film and greatly prefer it to B&W conversions for printing. However, it is the PRINTS that love the look and feel of not the negatives. <br>

As for the savings, when I shot MF film for weddings (RB67) it cost me $1 everytime that I pushed the shutter release on the camera. That was film, processing and proofing. I used to shoot about 300 - 400 images at a wedding. Shooting digital, I get 600 - 1000 images at each wedding with almost no marginal cost at all. So, each wedding costs me about $350 less to shoot. Twenty-five weddings a year . . . $8750 savings for my business. This doesn't even include the fact that I can experiment more and improve my images faster, nor does it include all of the family pictures and other images that take. My D200's also require far less care and maintenance than my RB's.<br>

The OP asked about 30x40 inch prints hanging on walls: I haven't printe anything quite that large, but I do have many 16x20 prints that I would challenge anyone to tell me if they were printed from film or digital. I also have a 24x30 inch print of my son playing youth football (about age 6). This print is a vertical crop from a hortizontal image taken with my Fuji S2. The S2 was not even set on it's highest resolution. I admit that if you look very closely at some of the helmets and the logos on the side of them, there is a little bit of stairstepping. If I knew then what I know now, I could probably have avioded that. But, you can't come close to seeing it at normal viewing distances.<br>

The other thing to point out is that if I had taken the same image of my son's football game with my RB, I would have been forced to crop even more in order to produce the same print. <br>

There are still plenty of reasons to shoot film in all sorts of different situations. But, objective quality is not one of them anymore.</p>

<p>Medium format has two things going for it regardless of whether we're talking digital or film:<br>

- It has a shallower depth of field. This makes it more suitable for portraits.<br>

- It has better circles of confusion (or whatever it's called). This allows sharper lenses. Or to be more accurate, it takes better advantage of sharp lenses.</p>

<p>On the other hand, medium format digital will certainly overtake film some day.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Medium format has two things going for it regardless of whether we're talking digital or film:<br />- It has a shallower depth of field. This makes it more suitable for portraits.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />If the same lens is used you would be correct. But how many medium format lenses open up to f1.2 or beyond? As far as I'm concerened, the depth of field on MF is actually a disadvantage, especially for landscape photographers. To get front to back sharpness using MF you often have to close the aperture down way beyond its optimal point, thus reducing sharpness by way of diffraction.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have done side-by-side tests tests of 35mm E6 and D3/D700 and - on a purely resolution basis only - the slide film yields clearly higher detail. Digital was better for colour separation and much better for dynamic range. The film was scanned on a Coolscan 9000 and the digital files went through NX2 (the best IQ for NEFs you can get). As I don't own a 1Ds III or a D3X I can only speculate that they equal or surpass 35mm slide film. But there is no way that they can touch well processed/scanned/printed medium format film yet.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let's discuss this a bit.</p>

<p>First of all, the D3 and D700 aren't the kings of resolution; their strengths lie elsewhere. That said, the D700's output is superior to any 35mm slide that I've ever had professionally drum-scanned, even those captured with the same top-quality f/2.8 Nikon lenses used for the digital capture (lenses were shared on both the D700 and the F100). If you have a different experience, that's great, but I'd love to know your scanning secrets so I can stop paying big bucks for less-sharp-than-digital results. If 35mm film really does exceed the quality of the D700/D3, I can go back to carrying a lightweight N80 for most of my shooting. :)</p>

<p>I have several 600 MB, 16-bit scans of 6x7 chromes produced by well-regarded labs. I would say that the detail is a similar to a D700 image, but a file from a 20+ MP camera (5DmkII in my case) shows considerably more detail when properly captured and processed. Again, if you can tell me how to get even MORE detailed images out of my Pentax 67 II, I'd love to hear the secret. I already use mirror lock-up, fine-grained film, a heavy Gitzo tripod and custom quick-release plates to maximize stability and resolution.</p>

<p>I'm not a digital fanboy. I'm a big believer in film. Film looks great, the colors are always accurate, and you don't spend your life in front of a computer. Plus I love to use movements on my 4x5 camera. For years I have stubbornly held onto the belief that film is superior when used properly, but IMHO film, even in the larger formats, is starting to lag behind digital capture when you compare the quality of the final print. Part of me (nostalgia) wishes that this weren't so, but the other part of me wants to produce the best images that I can. I still shoot flim in some cases, but I suspect that my days of arguing with the X-ray scanning people at the airport may finally be coming to a close.</p>

 

<p>In this thread there have been many strange claims about the resolution of 35mm digital, comparisons of the number of images made economically (when was that ever a sensible metric? Every 35mm digital owner I know shoots too many images), and odd assaults on flatbed scanners, but I will not go point-by-point with any of this, and simply add a data point:</p>

<p>W.r.t. film, scanning 645 high-resolution film (Adox CHS 25) on an Epson V750, a decent consumer flatbed scanner, I find that about 2400dpi hits the point of diminishing returns, which yields about a 25MP image, and compares well to a Sony A900 (and I presume to the D3x, and probably exceeds the resolution of the somewhat softer 1Ds3 and 5D2). I could push the point of equivalence a little further away by buying a much better scanner, like the Imacons. This would have cost about the same, and yielded similar quality to my existing setup. The workflow would have been a bit slower, with less certainty of the outcome while working. The look of film is beyond debate and into preference, but I prefer it, so I would say that at this point, we are rapidly approaching the resolution equivalence, but not quite the overall IQ equivalence. The next generation of 35mm FF high-end cameras will probably match 6x7 film for resolution.</p>

<p>W.r.t. digital, MFDBs have already gotten cheap enough for serious amateurs. I paid about 5000 Euro for my Sinar eMotion 54LV, with 22MP on a 36x48mm sensor. My entire MFDB system (3 Hasselblad FE lenses with adapter, 3 Contax 645 lenses, a Hartblei T/S 45mm, Contax 645 camera, MFDB) costs less than a similar system built around the D3x or 1Ds3, but probably a bit more than a system built around the 5D2 or A900. The MFDB outresolves the 35mm systems by a small margin, due to the lacking AA filter, and it has a greater dynamic range, possibly excepting the D3x. Overall, parity has almost been reached at the high end of 35mm and low end of current MF (there are of course older backs which have already been exceeded; in reality, 22MP sensor in MF are almost obsolete, and 31MP would be the current low-end), but in the future, due to improvements in both systems, there will likely be continued parity across high-end 35mm FF digital and low-end MFDBs.</p>

<p>Just a data point, not too many hidden assumptions or opinions.</p>

<p>As a personal opinion, I find that I do better work with film. Given how much I have invested in MF and digital, this is a little disappointing, but I still keep both. The mindset of shooting less with film actually gives me more top-notch keepers, in an absolute sense. This works for me because I work slowly and deliberately, and might not be applicable in high-pressure jobs like weddings.</p>

<p>My two cents in that I hate these kind of threads. Endless technobabble - and the question has already been discussed 100 times here on PN.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have several 600 MB, 16-bit scans of 6x7 chromes produced by well-regarded labs. I would say that the detail is a similar to a D700 image, but a file from a 20+ MP camera (5DmkII in my case) shows considerably more detail when properly captured and processed. Again, if you can tell me how to get even MORE detailed images out of my Pentax 67 II, I'd love to hear the secret. I already use mirror lock-up, fine-grained film, a heavy Gitzo tripod and custom quick-release plates to maximize stability and resolution.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Dan, I agree with you completely. I also have the 5D2 and plenty of professionally scanned 6x7 slides and the sharpness and detail from the 5D2 files beats every one of them. Even if it is possible to get better scanning results from 6x7, you have to ask yourself is it really worth carrying all that extra gear, with all the expense of film for any marginal advantage that <em>may</em> be attainable.</p>

<p>The reason I shoot with film has nothing to do with reoslution, MTF curves, dynamic range, etc, etc.....it has to do with the fact that film looks diferent than a digital image....and I like it.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>This is one of the most often used arguments in the film vs digital debate. It is a flawed theory. You can keep scanning film at higher resolutions year after year. You can capture as many pixels as you like but all you'll be doing is filling your hard drive faster than before.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Jamie, that's true in broad terms. I'm aware of the limitations of the theory, and if you read what I wrote carefully you'd notice my comments are on the same lines. There will always be a point where digital capture exceeds what can be obtained from scanning, as long as there are no changes in film or scanner design. But exactly where that point is though depends on the format. There's a world of difference between the limits of data that can be reasonably extracted from 35mm, 6x6 and 6x17, for example. </p>

<p>As an aside, not sure it's true that films won't get better. I believe they're already getting better. Kodak Ektar, for example, is superlative when scanned and grain does not become intrusive unless scanned well beyond 8000 dpi. I can enlarge a frame of Ektar much further than an equivalent frame of Portra, for example. I also wouldn't use a V750 flatbed as any arbiter of scanning quality - as you're aware, there are limits to what it can resolve not to mention inconsistent flatness and severe limitations in focus adjustment, all of which restrict potential quality.</p>

<p>FWIW, I haven't seen anything from my own digital work (with D700 and Imacon CFVII) that can surpass a 6x7 frame that has been scanned well in a fluid mount on a drum scanner.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Why- when a 35mm DSLR sensor is BIGGER than MF film!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with this.<br /> I think digital technology has reached a quality plateau such that the quality of one type is similar to an identical size of the other. e.g. 24x 36mm film is equal to a 35mm frame. When a 6x7cm sensor exists it will probably equal a 6x7cm frame of film.<br /> It's not down to clever technology and software any more - both mediums have probably reached the limits imposed by the laws of physics.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>-All- of us who have actually compared 35mm color film to 35mm digital think that under almost all conditions, digital captures more detail.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps replace -All- with -Some-</p>

<p>

<p>The answer to the OP’s question is a good case of "it depends". Which MF, 645, 6x6, 6x9 or something else? A 30 x 40 inch print is pretty big but how close will people be viewing it. What is the subject that is being photographed, is it static or moving and how long of a lens is needed.<br>

　<br>

If we take the best that MF can do, slow film with a stopped down lens using a tripod with a static subject and a 6x9 camera and a good scanner, then 35mm digital has a ways to go. But change any of those items on the list and things can be very different.<br>

　<br>

I think 645 cameras are not going to give you anything that a good 35mm digit can’t<br>

　<br>

If a faster film is use then even a 6x7 MF camera can start to suffer.<br>

　<br>

If I need to shooting moving subjects with a longer lens handheld, which in my case I often do, then there is no way MF can come close to what I am getting.<br>

　<br>

If the MF camera is loaded with ISO 100 film and has to shoot at f/2.8 while I shoot at iso 400 and f/5.6 the MF camera is going to be at a huge disadvantage. And if I am shooting at f/2.8 and ISO 1600 there is not much the MF can do to even get the shot, and don’t tell my about tripods because most often the subject is moving more then the camera.</p>

<p>If the print is not going to be close then any resolution past 6-8 MP is not going to affect the perceived quality of the image.<br>

　<br>

There are going to be cases where something like a 6x7 MF camera is going to produce a noticeable better print then a 35mm digital, but each photographer has to ask the question how often everything will be just right for that to happen.<br>

　<br>

Now if you just like the look of film then none of the above matters, or if you have a good MF film camera but not a digital you might not be in a hurry to dump the MF gear.</p>

</p>

<p>Good grief. Rafal this topic HAS been touched on over and over and over ad nauseam. I wish people would concentrate a little more on their photography, and a little less on technical specs and googahs. The greatest photographers in the history of the human race took excellent <strong><em>SOULFUL</em></strong> photographs using cameras that in many cases didn't even have a coupled rangefinder, and no high resolution LCD screens to preview their shots. How did they ever manage to do it? Im stumped!</p>

<p>Take photographs with whatever camera you like, whether a P&S, rangefinder, SLR, medium format or whatever. Maybe concentrate on "seeing" something, putting some "feeling" into your pics and forget about megapixels, iso 12,500 performance and try to be a better photographer. If your photographs don't have soul, don't have heart, then it just doesn't matter what you take those photographs with.</p>

<p>The one thing that does my heart good is knowing that the "real" photographers will continue to take excellent soulful photographs with whatever camera they have and the "wannabees" will continue to prattle on about the HD video capability, and technological nonsense. There is one inescapable, undeniable fact that has remained constant since photography was born. <strong>IT'S NOT THE CAMERA, IT'S THE PHOTOGRAPHER.</strong> Happy New Year!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is one inescapable, undeniable fact that has remained constant since photography was born. <strong>IT'S NOT THE CAMERA, IT'S THE PHOTOGRAPHER.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is truth in this perspective, but there are also limits. Skill and taste are the most important elements of any image making process, but that doesn't mean that we can trade our Nikons and Hasselblads and view cameras in for drugstore disposables and still create images of the same quality. The gear DOES have an impact.</p>

<p>Scott, there's so much wrong with your response (4:15pm) that I don't even know where to begin.</p>

<p>Let's just say that a couple of weeks ago I shot a series of low-light, handheld shots on a Voigtlaender 667, using Neopan 1600. Max aperture was f3.8. Shutter speed was around 1/60. The subject was a bride getting ready before her wedding. I also shot with a D700 using an 85 1.4, mostly to ensure a margin of error in case of processing problems with the film, and used a range of ISO values to ensure optimum shutter speed.</p>

<p>The D700 images were excellent - no question. I'd happily enlarge any of them to 30". But the 667 images were stellar. When I made the final selection, every shot I wanted from that sequence was on film, shot on the Voigtlaender. They had a character and beauty that the Nikon couldn't match, despite being taken with one of the best Nikkor lenses available, and on an exemplary DSLR.</p>

<p>MF can be used in a far wider set of conditions that you suggest. In fact, some of the best fast action photography I've seen has been shot on MF. Ever seen Nick Brandt's wildlife photography, for example? He shot it all on a Pentax 67, and his work is astonishingly good - witness two books and worldwide exhibitions.</p>