Digtal vs 8x10 film

<p>Since it was mentioned earlier I thought I would link it for every ones viewing pleasure.<br>

LL D30 v film <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml</a><br>

surprised this is still on the web after 11 years</p>

<p>Right, that's it, I'm off to buy a D30. Anyone know where I can get one?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6160257">David Rohrer</a> , Sep 29, 2011; 01:17 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Since it was mentioned earlier I thought I would link it for every ones viewing pleasure.<br /> LL D30 v film <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml</a><br /> surprised this is still on the web after 11 years</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm surprised as well. As a owner of the D30, and a previous owner of an Imacon 343, all I can say is it's a load of you know what. I've yet to find anyone who thinks at even 8x10 the D30 was better. I produced my own serious of sample prints at 8x10 and 11x14 using a Minolta Scan Dual IV a number of years back. Verdict....no one, and I mean not one person ever took the D30 over the Provia......so it's odd that he had people raving about 13x19 prints. Nice try.</p>

 

<p>Love the Luminous Landscape!<br>

The D30 tested on DPRview showed less than 2 megapixels of detail. Yet he also left comments below the article as "The most approximated look to a D30 file is a 4x5 transparency drum scanned".</p>

<p>Endless amusement. </p>

 

<p>I have an old Nikon D1h does that mean that I get near the look of 4x5 film?</p>

Dave do you have any of the comparison files that you could upload to this thread.

<p>That was many years ago Stuart. But it seems like there is still some interest in this. I may fire up the old D30 and do another shot to show people. I don't use Provia any longer, but I could grab a roll for fun!</p>

<p>I would be interested to see the results. Does not have to be Provia no point buying something that you don't use. I always feel that the most interesting test would be to use both as you would normally use them, rather than set something up specifically as a test just shoot subjects that you would normaly shoot.</p>

<p>I'm 95% a film shooter, but I'm not a digital hater. I still think the test is flawed and works to digital's favor in this case. I don't think the issue is with the scan as much as there is a problem with focus or more specifically, DOF. Tim Parkin touches on this here: http://www.landscapegb.com/2011/10/the-perils-of-testing/. I'm pretty shocked with the Acros results as others have mentioned, but really that's the least of this "test's" problems.<br>

Also It should be mentioned that when we talk about the resolution that film can achieve, we also talk about diffraction. When we say that film reaches 100lp/mm plus, that this is at small apertures and with smaller formats, not the f32 and 8x10 that was used. Scanning the 8x10 at 4000 SPI would not really help in this situation, 2540SPI or so with the drum scanner would have been enough to get everything on the film. That's higher than the 7** whatever they used, but we should still keep in mind that largeformat is not medium format.</p>