Advantages of MF over 35mm

Ed, got a message" I am ignoring content by this member??" Your original post dropped off at my end too? Is this some kind of moderator thing. I just clicked on the message and your message came up. It says the image you refer to is not sharp. . . .

 

Moderator Note:

 

bob,

 

This conversation appears to me that NO Moderator's action has taken place on it.

 

Selecting the [ignore] function for any member will remove their responses from your view on all threads.

 

You can [unignore] a member by clicking on that function.

 

The [ignore] and [unignore] functions appear in the pop up window when you click on the member’s Avatar.

 

William

Ed, before I just signed in, your posts are there, but once I just signed in, they are gone??? These boats are 1600-2000 hp each and accelerating out of the turn at either end of the straight, they create their own exhaust haze that you might be interpreting as softness. Upside, is as they are accelerating they throw a great rooster tail. I also had difficulty posting another photo and just couldn't get it to load. I did not hit ignore, don't even know where that is. Oh, well no big deal.

Ed, before I just signed in, your posts are there,

but once I just signed in, they are gone???

 

 

 

That is exactly how the "Ignore" function would work.

 

To confirm - ONCE YOU ARE SIGNED IN, then you could click on the Ed Ingold Avatar and then see if the pop up window has the word "Unignore"

 

If "Unignore" appears then click on it and it should change to "Ignore" and that should fix the issue.

 

WW

William, it worked. I don't ever remember clicking it before, but now I know it's there. Thanks.

You're welcome.

Reading the commentary between you and Ed I had always suspected that you inadvertently and accidentally clicked on the "Ignore" button.

It is easy to click on buttons in pop up windows and then not notice that you've made a change, if there is only a very slight change to the view on the screen.

 

WW.

Not to start any flame wars, but how would Tri-X 120 compare to Panatomic-X 35mm?

 

If you assume hand-held shutter speeds, and apertures for the same depth of field, you can use a slower 35mm film for otherwise the same conditions.

I never cared much for Panatomic X. It has much finer grain than Tri-X, but never seems as sharp, and the contrast was low. In part, that may be due to its slow speed, but not completely. Technical Pan would be a better choice for ultimate sharpness, but that wasn't around when I was burning up Tri-X, and I have no experience. It seemed to be the first film in mind when dissing digital.

The trio Tri X (400), Plus X (125), and Panatomic X (32) all produced great results, with grain size declining in the order written. Speed was king, however so Tri X was used and also misused. Using Panatomic X, if you lost the light, you were out of luck. Too much light with Tri X was easily remedied with filters. Plus x was the middle ground. The key feature, though all of the films could be push processed, was required enlargement size. Tri X was not recommended for large prints -- the latter two were. Kodak used to hang enormous prints in Grand Central Station, NYC -- not from the fast films.

I've only shot 1 roll of Pan-X in my life, and that was to test a lot that I was getting ready to sell on Ebay. I still have the negatives around somewhere...I'll have to dig them up.

 

With that said, I regularly do 6x6 Tri-X to 8x10(optical) and although the grain is certainly there, you have to look for it. It's not as "in your face" as a 35mm from 8x10. I have a hard time seeing the grain on an 8x10 print from from FP4+ unless I crop it pretty seriously.

 

Aside from some Tri-X for function testing(and not having a negative that's worth my time to print) I have not done much B&W in 6x7. I'm still relatively new to the format, but have mostly been shooting Provia and Ektar.

 

I did buy a few rolls of Pan F the other day in both 35mm and 120. I haven't shot that film in a while, but it's probably the closest thing to Pan-X that we have now. Assuming I get something worth printing, I'll definitely run off some 8x10s and look at the grain on them.

 

With that said, B&W is probably on hold for me at least for a few weeks as the leaves are starting to change. This is when I burn more Velvia in a 3 weeks than I do in the rest of the year :) . That will be even more true now that I'm reaching for 6x7 more than 6x6 as in the past. Of course, I can balance that out since I also now own a nice ETR system(645) and even have a 645 back for my RB67.

If I have it right, for the same motion blur, you need the same shutter speed for 120 and 35mm.

 

For the same depth of field, you need a smaller aperture.

 

So, everything else equal, you want a faster film for 120, but maybe not as much as

from ISO 32 to 400.

 

Contrast is an interesting consideration. You can correct that at printing

(or scanning), or with different development timing and EI values.

 

Years ago, I used to use Panatomic-X with Diafine, at the suggested EI of 250.

It did work well enough, but maybe others would have worked better.

 

But continuing the question, is Panatomic-X grain good enough for the large prints

that one might make from 120 Tri-X?

 

Then again, one could use 120 Panatomic-X and make really big prints.

glen_h

Do you have Panatomic-X ?

AFAIK it has been out of production for a while.

 

These are all I could find for fine grain 120 film

• Ilford Pan-F (ISO-50)
  
• Rollei RPX 25
  

If by "really big" prints you mean 16"x20", or even 20"x24", Tri-X is more than up to the job. The grain is tight and has high acuity. This is also true using ISO 400 color negative film. I have done this many times from scans made with a Nikon LS-8000. In my darkroom days, grain wasn't a problem for a rather practical reason. It is nearly impossible to achieve grain-sharp focusing in an optical enlargement. In addition to a glass carrier, you need a vacuum platen for the paper. Otherwise the uneven surface of the paper, held only by the edges, exceeds the DOF of the enlarger. Imperfections in the enlarger lens are magnified as well.

 

I have scanned B&W negatives taken with a Rolleiflex (Schneider Xenotar 75/3.5), and on close examination they aren't all that sharp at the edges, even using a tripod. "Things aren't as good as they used to be, and never were" - Will Rodgers.

BTW, doesn't a condenser head change the appearance of grain vs. a diffusion head?

 

I print everything up to 2x3 sheets on a Besseler 23 with a standard condenser head, but I seem to recall that those tend to make grain a bit more prominent than diffusion.

Update...6x7 can't even challenge digital now that Nikon's D850 is on the market. 6x7 was a close tie for years. Forget 35mm other than nostalgia.

As far as the difference...go back to photography 101. Bigger (as in negative size) is always better. Has a higher potential for sharpness and greater color saturation. It's why professionals still use 4x5 & 8x10 film. I'm a pro and no one that I personally know uses film. I'm the only nut in their circles who still plays with it. But that is all I do, play with it.

Looking at the boat photo, nice capture, but no DOF, not sharp, even a bottom end DSLR would blow it away.

Update...6x7 can't even challenge digital now that Nikon's D850 is on the market.

 

I know first hand that it's already difficult extract all the detail that the D800/810 is capable of catching. Aside from having rock solid technique, you need to use the best of the best lenses at their optimum settings.

 

The D850 will only amplify these issues.

 

6x7 film has more than 4x the area of 35mm film or FX sensors. It's a fair bit more forgiving in terms of lens quality.

(snip)

 

6x7 film has more than 4x the area of 35mm film or FX sensors. It's a fair bit more forgiving in terms of lens quality.

 

As well as I know it, this is why 35mm is at all popular. At some point, it became reasonable to make the smaller lenses needed for 35mm at much higher quality, though for still reasonable prices, than the lenses usually used for medium format. (That is, the once popular models with simpler lenses.)

glen_h

Do you have Panatomic-X ?

AFAIK it has been out of production for a while.

 

These are all I could find for fine grain 120 film

• Ilford Pan-F (ISO-50)
  
• Rollei RPX 25
  

 

I have enough to last me a while, especially as I am not using it fast at all.

 

I have two unopened 100 foot rolls, some 24 and 36 exposure rolls, and some 120 rolls.

(I only have cameras like the Isolette to use 120 with, though. No 120 SLRs.)

 

They are somewhat old, but Panatomic-X seems to last a while.

 

I recently used a 24 exposure roll in a Canon IID2, which loads Leica style.

Conveniently, it had the full tongue, unlike the newer films.

(Now, all I need it to get around to developing it.)

I bid low on this, but it gives you an idea about the demand:

 

15 Rolls Kodak Panatomic-X 32 for B&W Prints 24 Exp ea = 360 Exposures 1988 | eBay

Some old posts elsewhere on Photo.net said that kodak killed Panatomic - X at the same time it released TMax 100 and considered the latter to be a suitable replacement. Apparently the production of Panatomic X involved cadmium and it was dropped for that reason.

For all of you "dreaming" of Pan-X, get some Rollei Retro80s. IMHO it has all the features you "dream" of. Bill

As well as I know it, this is why 35mm is at all popular. At some point, it became reasonable to make the smaller lenses needed for 35mm at much higher quality, though for still reasonable prices, than the lenses usually used for medium format. (That is, the once popular models with simpler lenses.)

 

Yes, I don't think that there can be much doubt that lenses for the 35mm range of formats are likely the best mass market optics around.

 

There's also the fact that 35mm and APS-C are something of a "sweet spot" as far angle of view goes. With both of them, it's possible to make reasonably fast super-teles that folks can actually afford and that don't require a truck to move around. With 35mm more so than APS-C, we can get really good wide angle lenses that-practically speaking-can't be duplicated in larger formats thanks to the back focus issue. I just bought a 14-24 2.8 full frame lens, and also have a 12-24mm APS-C(DX) lens. In 6x6, you won't find anything shorter than the 38mm Hasselblad, which gives a 73º horizontal angle of view, or about 24mm in 35mm terms. The more common 40mm lenses is more like a 26mm. The widest 6x7 lens I know of is a 45mm Pentax, which has a horizontal equivalent of 23mm or so(76º). If you can find a 75mm lens that will cover 4x5 and combine it with a set of bag bellows and a camera body that will let you focus to infinity, you're at about a 21mm equivalent, but really 90mm, or ~26mm, is more realistic.

 

Still, though, these ultra high resolution cameras are really starting to show us deficiencies that have always been there in lenses historically regarded as excellent. 30mp+ cameras like the Nikon D800 series, Canon 5D range, and the Sony A7R series can show you things that you MIGHT have only seen on Tech Pan under a microscope.

 

Taking full advantage of what my D800 can do requires me to do everything right and use good lenses at their optimum settings. Higher pixel density sensors(such as now found on all APS-C Nikons and the D850) will tax the limits even more.

 

I think we're about to run into a brick wall where we CAN'T coax any more resolution out of a lens that covers a 35mm frame. There are fundamental laws of physics and optics at play with this.

 

With that out of the way, that once again brings us back to medium format. In terms of absolute resolving power, I doubt you'd find any MF lens that can beat the 35mm or APS-C wonder lenses. Still, when you're dealing with a larger image area, resolving fewer lp/mm becomes less significant(once again, over 4x the area in 6x7, 3x in 645). There are still details I can see a 6x7 transparency that aren't visible on a D800 image taken right next to it.

 

With the previously mentioned optical limitations, I'm skeptical of just much of a difference going from 36mp to 46mp will make. One thing for sure-you'd better have top quality glass and have it parked on a tripod to squeeze all that out. I suspect that 6x7 will be more forgiving.

Yes, I don't think that there can be much doubt that lenses for the 35mm range of formats are likely the best mass market optics around.

 

(snip)

 

Still, though, these ultra high resolution cameras are really starting to show us deficiencies that have always been there in lenses historically regarded as excellent. 30mp+ cameras like the Nikon D800 series, Canon 5D range, and the Sony A7R series can show you things that you MIGHT have only seen on Tech Pan under a microscope.

 

(snip)

 

I now have a D700, bought used (but not too used), up from a D200 (also bought used).

 

I suspect that the D700 is good enough for just about everything I need it for, mostly family pictures and touring scenery.

 

I also don't have the lenses that you would like for the D800, but again are good enough.

 

Most recently, I had a Vivitar 19-35 zoom on it, which I took on a Segway tour.

It is manual focus, but with enough depth-of-field that I don't have to be exact.

(Not so easy to focus while driving the Segway.)

 

After that, I had a discount from Shutterfly, so I sent some prints to the tour guide, up to 11x14.

I think we're about to run into a brick wall where we CAN'T coax any more resolution out of a lens that covers a 35mm frame. There are fundamental laws of physics and optics at play with this.

Lens design is a lot easier now that it doesn't require teams of engineers with logarithm tables. We also have more glass choices, better coatings and aspherical grinding or precision casting.

 

Camera shake has the most impact on sharpness, in the absence of IS or a tripod. At the nominal 1/F shutter speed, camera shake reduces the effective resolution to about 6 MP. IS alone produces significant loss of sharpness when using a tripod. It is advisable to turn it off. IS is unstable in the absence of camera shake. In some situations, I've seen the image crawl toward one edge then back again. The Sony A7R did not have an electronic first shutter, and never produced the sharpness one would expect from a non-AA, 36 MP sensor. Mirror-shake was so great in my Hasselblad, I always raised the mirror first. Even the focal plane shutter produced visible shake compared to the lens shutter, even with a 16 MP sensor (4080x4080 pixels).

 

The next barrier you reach is probably due to diffraction, which is proportional to the numerical aperture (e.g., f/16 = f/16, regardless of the focal length). With a high-resolution sensor (24 MP and up), diffraction causes resolution to decrease at f/5.6 or f/8. It also depends on the net magnification (e.g., to an 8x10" print), so a smaller sensor is more sensitive to diffraction. The so-called "diffraction limit" was much higher for film, f/16 or f/22, because film acuity is much less than digital - it was there but you couldn't see it. MTF curves are created without any media at all, based on a virtual image through a microscope.

 

Going from 36 MP to 45 MP is hardly worth selling your children, much less your soul. The resolution factor is only 1.13x. Even 24 MP to 42 MP is only 1.3x. More important is the presence or absence of an anti-aliasing filter, which can only partially be recovered by sharpening.

Going from 36 MP to 45 MP is hardly worth selling your children, much less your soul. The resolution factor is only 1.13x. Even 24 MP to 42 MP is only 1.3x. More important is the presence or absence of an anti-aliasing filter, which can only partially be recovered by sharpening.

 

I just bought a DCS 14/n, which is very much a problem child but is also notable for not having an AA filter over its full frame sensor. As I don't have an AA-less sensor, I'll be interested in comparing them.

 

BTW, I've made the same observation as you regarding focal plane shutters vs. leaf shutters in medium and large format. I sold my Bronica S2A outfit(and it was a beauty, too) because I just never could get images out of it as sharp as I could a much lighter Rolleiflex or even SQ-A. I have a few barrel lenses and lenses with dead shutters that I've used in my Speed Graphic, but they are significantly less sharp when using the focal plane shutter vs. old tricks like long exposures via the lens cap.

 

I have a colleague who has been using an A7R for years, and the shutter is his biggest complaint about it also. I understand that the A7RII is supposed to be a lot better in this regard.

 

I do have a couple of older Nikons that get crazy high shutter speeds via an electronic shutter(something that I think went away with CMOS detectors) and they would be interesting to compare also. I want to say that my D70 or maybe my D80 is my highest resolution camera that can do this.

The A7Rii has both an electronic first shutter and completely electronic operation, which is silent (you can hear the diaphragm close). Using the silent shutter limits the bit depth to 12 (v 14) bits, and is subject to rolling shutter effects and minor artifacts in some situations. The most significant difference is the addition of in-body image stabilization (IBIS), which nearly eliminates the need for tripods, including daylight landscapes.

 

Despite the lack of an AA filter, I have not experienced Moire with the A7Rii. If it were to occur, it would be where detail is on the same order as the pixel spacing, which is very fine indeed. Furthermore the Moire patterns would be very small. Even the weave of fabric is not likely to result in visible Moire. At the other end of the scale, Hasselblad 16 MP back exhibits annoying Moire with fabric, fences, brick walls and corrugated metal. It's great for landscapes, though.The sharper the lens and the better your technique, the more likely the occurrence of Moire.

 

The Nikon D1x had an electronic shutter in addition to the mechanical shutter, which never actually closed to a slit like most focal plane shutters. It was fully open at 1/250, and the electronic shutter took over at higher speeds. If you bypassed the flash shoe, you could use an electronic flash at any speed, even when the "shutter" was shorter than the flash duration.