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

<p>Scott, saying that film isn't close to the human eye and that digital is, is just silly.<br>

Film is natively UV-blue sensitive. Digital is natively IR-red. NEITHER is seeing the way the human eye does, IR filters/UV filters or not!</p>

<p>Ed, you shoot up to a thousand images at a wedding! I have some old family wedding albums that were taken by relatives who were professionals. They would shoot at most two rolls of film, and just about every shot was a 'keeper'. They had one shot of each of the important moments of the wedding.</p>

<p>Nowadays weddings are often made much more stressful by the presence of a photographer, and one or two assistants, possibly with a video crew, and then the guests' cameras all flashing all the time.</p>

<p>Maybe there's a market for medium or large format at weddings?</p>

<p>Back to the topic: when I want the best quality I still shoot large or medium format. For a learner, the slower process involved with MF film forces the learning process. When I shoot digital, I find myself becoming rather careless, and I'd hate to learn to be careless!</p>

<p>My 'best' photos have all been MF or LF, the digital remainder are often more like images than photographs.</p>

<p>

<p >Where do you want to go tomorrow? I too have thought about the question posed, and considered how to test it, but to what end? A year from now, the same study could yield a different answer. I believe that although film is still capable of meeting and exceeding needs and expectations, and still has room for further development, its future is limited in comparison to digital. The possibilities for digital photography are vast and limited only practically by what people will want to purchase. Consider what digital imaging (or remote sensing) can already do: Image everything from near IR to far UV (into the dark). Temperature. Through water and some opaque surfaces. Incredible distances (telescopes) and scales (microscopes). Multiple simultaneous images that go way beyond HD. Sequential near-simultaneous images at varying planes of focus. Sensor shifting to obtain multiple views of single physical points. Algorithm development to combine and transform data, and enhance signal-to-noise ratios. Increased processing speeds to allow all of this to occur. I don’t think we will want or need all of this, and I don’t know when it will become commercially viable for general photography, but these are some of the areas where digital photography can go, if we’re willing to pay for it. In my opinion. - Phil</p>

</p>

<p>I should temper my previous comment by saying that I have found it worthwhile to cheaply 'improve' the pixel situation of some images by using my Canon 300D with a longer lens to take multiple images of and around subjects, and then using that rather nice free software called Hugin to stitch the images together.</p>

<p>Theoretically that would be the same as using a more expensive camera with a shorter lens, and since funds are limited, I use the cheapskate solution with Hugin. Of course that would be useless for many situations, but I like landscapes, and in Ireland landscapes don't move too much from minute to minute.</p>

<p>Ultimate quality demands film, however.</p>

<p>Daniel, if the 1Ds Mark IV will be 35MP, then based on recent Canon performance (1Ds2: 16MP, 2005, 1Ds3: 21MP, 2008) we should expect in somewhere between 2013 and 2014 depending on whether you think the increase will be related to linear resolution, or overall MP increases? Alternatively, it will lose even more dynamic range than the 1Ds3 lost to the 1Ds2, due to moving to too-small pixels too fast.</p>

<p>Why do you think the next 1Ds will be 35MP? Because you want it to be that? Repeating the last improvement, we should expect a 26MP camera in 2011.</p>

<p>Without there being an enormous leap in semiconductor/imaging technology, it is my opinion as an Electronics Engineer that the more they cram onto a sensor, the less dynamic range and noise handling ability. Law of diminishing returns - sure it's fun to drive fast but you use more fuel. <br>

Film grain looks 'different' to 'sensor' grain (pixels, per-se)...and until they are producing AFFORDABLE 6x7cm sensors...count me out of the silly-megapixel-race. Film isn't digital, and digital isn't film. Apples and oranges. Like comparing a photograph to a drawing - some may be hard to discern but there's a fundamental difference.</p>

Daniel, I agree. I've found that despite the potential for 35mm to outrelve even my 7D, on print, I'm not seeing it. A family portrait session I did recently involved the printing of a 16x24 (Really, 16x20). With a camera like the 7D, I obtained a color print to my Epson 3800 that exceeded anything I've ever done from 35mm...even drum scanned. Sharper, less noise, etc. That said, it had a different look than from my Contax 645. I liked the film look better, but I happened tocatch the best pose on the 7D. As most of my wedding work is 8x10 and 11x14, resolution and noise aren't an issue be it 35mm or digital above 10mp.

<p>Liam; look at the trend in processors;and recording heads/sliders on disc drives. Both are smaller is size versus say 10 to 13 years ago. The first P6 of the series; CPU was a 150Mhz PPro; its die is about 17.6mm; area thus about 310mm **2 back in the fall of 1995; 0.6 micron process. Pentium II went from a 14.2mm die to a 10.2mm die. A more modern P6 grandson is the Cedar Mill cpu; it has only a 81 sq mm area with 65 nanomete process. each new generation of disc drive has smaller heads; a 4 decade old trend. Thus I ponder if there will EVER be an affordable 6x7 cm digtal sensor; or is just like a dream like Detroit will bring back the straight-8 engine.? It is possible for a 6x7cm sensor from a techncial standpoint; but there is no market to spread across the fully custom design. Thus one can always dream of low cost MF sensors; but next year or decade folks will still probably be waiting. I mention all this becuase the dream of a low cost MF sensor is about 1 1/2 decades old now. There is no volume sales to drop prices ; like common consumer P&S cameras; LCD TV's, refrigerators; or toasters.</p>

 

<p><em>Why do you think the next 1Ds will be 35MP? Because you want it to be that? Repeating the last improvement, we should expect a 26MP camera in 2011.</em></p>

<p>I could be wrong on that prediction of course. But the rumor mill suggests 30+ MP in 2010 (I've seen 32 and 35 rumors, the point being 30 MP class). The density achieved in the 7D suggests that Canon could go that high and still hold the line on DR and noise. Over 30 MP still wouldn't be as dense as the 7D sensor, and the 7D sensor pulls nearly 10 stops DR and does pretty well on noise.</p>

<p>I'm also guessing Canon will want to out muscle the competition's 25 MP sensors, and do so by a noticeable margin. Looking at their recent history (APS-C 10>15>18; APS-H 10>16; 5D 35mm 12>21) it appears that they're making a concentrated effort to take the MP crown in each segment.</p>

<p>We will see if I'm right or not.</p>

 

<p>Liam and others, I would submit that semiconductor/imaging sensor technolgy not only will address noise handling issues but will exceed it. As Philip Alvarez hints in his post, the possibilities are limitless. Its just a matter of time when DSLR FF sensors will not need to rely on a Bayer filter. <br>

If Michael Belifor's "<em>The Department of Mad Scientists: How DARPA Is Remaking Our World</em>" is any indication of what has and what may be achieved, then the possiblity exists.<br>

Film will always have a place. Hollywood is a good example. But then there are motions pictures such as James Cameron's "Avatar - that make you wanna go Hmm ...</p>

<p>Oh that's true - the really fast development from late 90s to mid 2000s in processors. <br>

This is the advent of Nanotech, and I'm really interested to see what's going to come along. One point to note though is that CPUs don't have to worry about ISO handling...but then to counter, there are heat and crosstalk issues.<br>

it's always going to be subjective so I think it's dangerous to fight either corner too strongly. I have a 35mm FF DSLR (5D Mk1), and starting into medium format film...I have no want or need for million million megapixel DSLRs yet, everything's what you make it/want it to be. </p>

<p>Oh that's true - the really fast development from late 90s to mid 2000s in processors. <br>

This is the advent of Nanotech, and I'm really interested to see what's going to come along. One point to note though is that CPUs don't have to worry about ISO handling...but then to counter, there are heat and crosstalk issues.<br>

it's always going to be subjective so I think it's dangerous to fight either corner too strongly. I have a 35mm FF DSLR (5D Mk1), and starting into medium format film...I have no want or need for million million megapixel DSLRs yet, everything's what you make it/want it to be. </p>

<p>Daniel, maybe your guess/hope is right, and maybe Canon will actually debut a 30+ sensor in the 1Ds Mark IV. I hope not for Canon's sake, to be honest. The last few iterations released to compete with Nikon's D3/D3x have been getting more desperate, with less dynamic range in the 1Ds Mark III than in the Mark II, with a more transparent colour array, i.e. higher ISO at the cost of colour accuracy, and more aggressive noise reduction, i.e. more smearing of real detail, earlier. In fact, it seems that every aspect of the latest Canons got a boost in most or all areas, *except* image quality. The 7D is not a good benchmark for FF performance. almost 10 stops of DR is very poor compared to the nearly 13 of the D3x, for example.</p>

<p>Anyway, whatever the next Canon, Nikon and Sony FF pro cameras will be, they will almost certainly reach MF film in resolution, only. DR will probably be better than film in a technical sense, but what happens at the limit will still be quite a lot less attractive than with film. As in the past, there will always be good reasons to go with film, just like there are good reasons to go with digital.</p>

<p>With the 24x36mm film frame; one has the limits of the lens too. Sensor density increases cannot go on forever; one has the wavelength of light to consider. At some point there is more a thing with *marketing* than performance issues. One could place a 100 megapixel sensor in a 35mm 24x36mm camera and it would NEVER really matter.<br>

<br />Alot of consumer items sold *mush* into a *zone* of specs based on practical limits. Power tools today are all dancing in the 18, 24 or 36 volt range; ALOT are in the 18 volt range.<br>

<br />Look at CPU's; eons ago there was this MHZ/GHZ race. One had 100Mhz in 1995; One had 200Mhz in 1996, one had 500Mhz in 1999; One had 1 Ghz CPU's in 2000; 2 ghz in 2001; 3 Ghz in 2002. Now nobody talks about clock speeds anymore! Thus we speed up the bus speed; we do several events per clock cycle; we add dual and quad <a href="mailto:cores@!">cores!</a> With some applications the extra cores are not used; and the clock speed can be the limit with number crunching programs. Thus newer programs try/strive to split the programs stuff into several cores; since the clock speed has hit a brick wall.</p>

<p>A 2x3" MF sized cropped out section out of my 50 megapixels 4x5" back's 7x10cm image would still be a about 28 megapixels;and a WW2 era Kodak Medalist's lens would be overkill.</p>

<p>Since MF can be a 2x3" frame; the question asked is when a digital sensor that ONE QUARTER IN SURFACE AREA will be equal. Ie a 35mm film frame is 24x36mm; ie about 1x1.5 inches.<br>

<br />In like manner one might ask when a P&S digitals dinky sensor equals a 24x36mm film frame; ie a digital sensor that would be 12x18mm; one QUARTER in surface area. The 4/3's format is 13.5x18mm; 13.5 x17.3mm etc; ie close.<br>

<br />SO do folks here believe 4/3's digital has ellipsed full frame 35mm film?</p>

<p><!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

<p>Film is better than digital at ISOs up to 200! I called the people at Westcoastimaging, on of the best printing and drum scanning services in the country. The lab technician who see's all the latest digital camera files and the film scanned files, told me that by far, medium format film blows digital away! Now, who would be a better expert than a lab tech at a reputable printing company? Large format film must really make digital look amateur.<br>

I know why pro's use digital. It saves them $$$$. No film to buy. You make more money in the long run. Who wouldn't use it? It's fine for small format prints, which is what most consumers are happy with. Pro's get a better low ISO image from weddings and low light photography. Digital also has built in computer processors so that even Uncle Borat can take great pictures. Digital allows everyone to take great pictures since one doesn't have to learn about F stops and such. Your average Joe doesn't have the same photographic standards as us photo enthusiasts. There are plenty of examples of high end digital files being compared to medium and large format films. The film scans always hold more detail, dynamic range, and tonal qualities! Kenrockwell has a lot of examples.<br>

kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm</p>

<p > </p>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>it is my opinion as an Electronics Engineer that the more they cram onto a sensor, the less dynamic range and noise handling ability. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>As another electronics engineer, I agree. Technology and clever software will not win in a fight with the laws of physics.</p>

<p>Steve, precisely what I was getting at. There IS a fundamental issue with cramming things onto smaller and smaller die when nanotechnology isn't keeping up per-se. We don't know what's in the atom, so let's not try to make things that small until we do, guys ;)</p>

<p>The digital Vs film debate goes on and on and on and on and on<br>

Does it realy matter what is better<br>

Does resolution realy mean any thing when you need an elctron microscope to see it<br>

an award winning photograph is just that and what was used to capture it is totaly irevelent and in 99.9% most people dont give a rats ass what was used .<br>

I have seen images in photography competitions where the winning photo was taken with a $50 holga ande yet photos taken with $30K hasselbalds never got a place or mention .<br>

If it is BIG prints you want I just have not realy seen any thing that compaires to Tmax 100 developed in FX 39 , and I have done wall size prints from a 6x6 negative with this .of course there is grain but film grain is not a bad look where as digital grain will allways look like shit .<br>

I also like digital and have a $100 10MP P&S that gives me great photos and I have a lot of fun with this small and cheap piece of gear and I have fooled a lot of people into thinking I was using a top end DSLR .<br>

Its how you take the shot that is important not what you take it with<br>

All the resolution in the world is not going to make you a better photographer</p>

<p>True. It's not the camera that makes the photographer just like it's not the brush that makes the artist. But a great brush in the hands of a great artist, makes fantastic art! </p>

<p>Another fundamental flaw in saying that APS-C or FF sensors will ever outresolve MF has nothing to do with the sensors themselves, but the lenses.<br /><br />I forget where I heard this from, but the actual resolving power a 35mm lens is capable of, tops out at around 20MP (This is an expensive prime, of course). The lens is the weak link in the system, not the sensor.<br>

So there has already been a brick wall in the system for some time now, that resolution nuts were griping about back when Tech Pan and modified microfilms were all the rage.</p>

<p>I can count on my two hands the number of times I've seen primes used on DSLRs, anyway. Same thing for the tripods and the F/stops used. Shooting wide open severely cuts into your resolving power on the lens. You have to shoot stopped-down 2- to 2-1/2 stops to get optimal resolution out of a lens.<br>

So, as usual, people are worrying about all of the things in the system (the ones that, ironically enough, are the priciest) that do the least to form technically high-quality images, and are worrying about the feature-benefits that the salesman at the store sold them on: ISO (glad to see someone else on this thread knows that there is no such thing as 12,800 just like there's no 128 either), megapixels, and lens focal length, either one way or the other.<br>

Both the F/stop used, the glass, and the ISO will subtract from the number of megapixels you get, even with a 24MP body. Then people talk about MP but shoot everything in JPEG or JPEG basic, and resave the files as JPEGs more than once. Divide your megapixel count by two if you are guilty of this.</p>

<p>These are the things that will get you actual better resolution: <br>

ISO setting (I think 200 is the best on most cameras), the lower the better with film<br>

Shooting in RAW / shooting ISO 50 slide film when at all possible<br>

Shooting on a tripod/monopod when at all possible, bracing against something or getting down on one knee if not<br>

Shooting with a prime, when at all possible<br>

Stopping down 2-1/2 stops when at all possible; there is a wonderful invention called a flash that will help you get to the proper F/stop almost every time, again, when at all possible.</p>

<p>It's hard not to get cynical towards the end of a stream of these post, having heard the same sort of stuff in person about MP this, software that, from a person that couldn't check off a single item on my list, nor even knows these simple ways to get you a technically higher-quality picture.</p>

<p>Now these are the things that I personally worry about when taking pictures, but in terms of making a salable picture or a work of fine art, they matter almost NOTHING at all; when they interfere with my ability to take the best picture, composition wise, I discard things on the list. The clients don't care, nor does the subject what equipment you are using, unless they've picked up some "superstitions" from past photographers. Often when a client says they want one thing, they are actually talking about something else, and using the wrong terminology. </p>

<p>Maybe digital has surpassed MF. Don't know. But, I do know that for me, if it has, it comes at a high cost. Don't shoot enough to save money by switching to a digital camera. As they say in the boating world. "A yacht is an expensive way to go third class."</p>

<p>The work of Nick Brandt was mentioned. There is no question in my mind that his photos would have looked entirely different--and less dramatic-- without the grain (although I suppose he could have gotten grain via software). I also think Salgado's work would lack his characteristic look without the grain of Tri-X. </p>

 

<p>Oh well, people make judgments based on experience and pick the tool they think it is best for their application.<br /> <br /> A self-convincing trend that a 35mm DSLR has matched 6x7 film for even landscapes has been endless from the 10MP cameras to today's 20MP ones. [[[ To put it in perspective, this is similar to comparing 35mm Velvia to a 2MP - 4MP crop sensor DSLR; ...yes that silly ]]]<br /> <br /> Due to miss information, many (even professional photographers I know) have taken very expensive trips for lanscape photography with their DSLRs only.<br /> <br /> I am just glad 10 year from now I can go back to my library of 6x7 Velvia and TMAX for those special shots instead of a 10+MP DSLR capture.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Still, digital cameras are great tools when convenience is needed. Here it is with my blackberry yesterday hiking in Utah:</p><div></div>