From 4x5 Film to 36mp Sony A7r

<p>For what it's worth, it all depends on the context. I find the look of the film drastically different…less sharp, more clear. I find it more pleasing to my eye. Your desired print size makes a difference as well. I find 30" prints small. The film works for my specific needs, 30x40, 40x50, etc. I like the process of working with large format, and I feel the print quality and qualities are vastly superior…for me. Digital is cost free when shooting and prints small images beautifully, depending on what you look for in a print.<br>

Best of luck!<br>

Jon<br />www.jonpaulgallery.com<br />www.laketahoephotoworkshops.com</p>

<p>Franz, thank you for the photo. The upper tree branches at the right appear sharp, but the ice coating makes it difficult to see that in any detail. I will assume you have seen it blown up and am glad if the edge quality meets the central quality for that quite wide angle lens (greater than 80 degrees). </p>

<p>Why not try a high resolution digital camera like the D800 or A7R (with a really good lens) first? That way you know what you can expect from it and you can compare the all digital output with your current results. If you like what you see, make the switch. If not, keep shooting film and wait for newer digital technology.</p>

<p>4x5 T-Max 100 scanned on an Imacon clearly out resolves my D800e camera with a good prime lens. I mounted the cameras on the same tripod, shooting under studio flash, and with the digital manually focussed using 100% LV. I made the comparison in the hope that the digital would compete, so I could shoot with my 'handy' D800e, but the results were clear: when it comes to pure resolution, the 4x5 is clearly superior. Whether the difference matters, depends on the image itself, and what you need to do with it.<br /> I think the limit is the lens resolution, rather than the sensor. I used a Rokinon 35mm which is a more than decent lens, with the aperture at f5.6 or f8. It could not resolve the detail my LF wide lenses can. Not even close. Makes sense when you think about trying to cram the same information into a 35mm (FF) sensor, versus a spacious sheet of 4x5 film, which is what? 20 times bigger or something.</p>

<p>How are you coming with it?</p>

<p>Hi Rodeo Joe, <br>

You might be interested to see a comparison between the D800E + Zeiss 25mm with a Mamiya 7 medium format scanned on a flatbed..<br>

<img src="http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/D800E-vs-Mamiya7-including-colour.jpg" alt="" width="1130" height="838" /></p>

If you already have the Canon 17 and 24 tilt-shift lenses then I'll assume that you must already have a decent

Canon DSLR body for them as well... and while the Sony A7/D800 36mp may be a better sensor for

architecture than an older 16 or 24mp sensor, is the performance gain really so amazing that you'd invest in

an entirely new system from a manufacturer who still hasn't produced a usable range of professional quality

lenses and instead forces you to rely upon third party adaptors (that would be Sony)?

 

Won't Canon eventually - like within a year - have a higher resolution DSLR body that can use your fine tilt-

shift lenses fully and properly? Without having to stick a wobbly adapter between lens and sensor, which

seems like a weak link no matter how hopeful you are and even if that fancy adapter costs $$$.

 

And if you are stitching, then why not simply stitch an extra frame or two and you're capturing the same amount of

information as you would from the higher mp sensor?

 

I just hate to see anyone spend money chasing hype. I bet the difference between a Canon 5D2 shot against

an A7r isn't going to mean much in your final results. I can't help but think shooting the Canon body with

those lenses is going to be very much easier, steadier, and possibly even sharper in real world scenarios.

 

As for shooting 4x5 around TO, there is http://www.elevatordigital.ca/film.html and Bob is a great man.

Personally I started shooting only one sheet of many set-ups since my failure rate has dropped with

experience, and I like the discipline of "one sheet per shot". It certainly saves money and sharpens your

shooting muscle.

<p>I have the Sony A7r, Metabones III and use the ef lenses without a problem. The camera is incredible. The adapter works fine. I have to admit the auto focus is quite slow, and struggles at times. I really enjoy focusing manually. The focus peaking in the A7r is superb. I am very happy with this camera. I own a Canon 1d Mark III, and also a 1Ds Mark III. I have not used them much since I bought the Sony. I have not looked back. Quality of Image unsurpassed. Hope this helps...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also...might I suggest basing comparisons of digital vs film output on what one might consider "best practices" for each? In other words, take the weak link of scanning out of the equation altogether...and take your film into a darkroom environment to print - assuming that you know how to do this well enough to make the comparison truly meaningful.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />Absolutely agree. Almost all film vs. digital comparisons are really scanner vs. digital comparisons. The scanner is always going to be the weak link.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Makes sense when you think about trying to cram the same information into a 35mm (FF) sensor, versus a spacious sheet of 4x5 film, which is what? 20 times bigger or something.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>About fifteen times. A 35mm frame is 1.33 square inches.</p>