D700 resolution, tonal range

I use Leica M 35mm with the best lenses and shoot only Tri-x 400 and HP5. I scan the results and am extremely

happy with resolution and tonality (and grain).

I'm thinking about a D700, but also a Canon 5D11 and Sony A900.

My question is only for those who use digital, convert to B&W, and have experience with the above films.

How does the D700 compare with regard to resolution and tonality? How about dynamic range?

I've seen Jeff Ascough's work with the new Canon and I'm impressed at the general look he's managed, taking

natural light candids and using filmic post-processing. Unfortunately there are no large raw files available for

me to play with, and anyway, as yet I have no raw converter, only CS 2. I've downloaded and converted a number of

files available on the web, but the subject matter of the files is so different to what I take, that makes it

difficult to compare.

I have absolutely no interest in colour and would rather not hear from anyone who only has colour experience. I

also have no interest in slow, fine grain B&W films.

If you want the traditional black and white film look, why not just shoot the real thing? Artificially making digital look like film

seems silly and contrived to me. It's like the people can't let go of the past and somehow want the new stuff to

look like the old by adding the artifacts of the old process. Digital has a whole new look. Use it to its advantage.

I find the D3 and D700 to be excellent for black and white photography. I don't, however, try to mimic the look of film. I

think doing black and which conversions in Capture NX2, the digital images look fabulous. If I want my pictures to look like

film, I shoot film and scan it. Currently I shoot ATP1.1 in 35mm and Delta 100 (dr5-1 process) in 6x7 - pretty low grain

stuff, but high contrast.

I never, ever, liked the truly grainy (>400) black and white or color film.

To add: D700/D3 is like infinitesimally fine grain film but with a cutoff in detail at the antialias filter point. Since you can

choose the color weighting yourself, you can alter the look of the final image liberally. I never felt the tonality with DX based

black and white was "full", but the FX cameras do have "it". Not 6x7 tonality, but that wasn't fair to expect.

The lack of processing artifacts, dust etc. is just wonderful. If you like your images to look perfect. I don't always want that and out come

my film cameras.

Robert, I may not strictly meet your criteria but i'll have a go. I bought a D700 recently for 12x16 exhibition quality prints, mainly B&W but also some colour (the devil's work). I previously used 6x6 Hasselblad and XP2.

My comparisons are as follows; dymanic range is the big winner, the range of contrast that the D700 can capture is just stupid compared to film and you can reasonably expect to print much of this to inkjet paper if you want to. Add to this the high degree of control through NX2 software and the process end to end is great. Resoloution at 12x16 is flawless and well within the capability of the camera, NX2 and Epson 2880 workflow.

Tonality (when compared to MF) is the loser, and in general the output on inkject is hard to compare directly with with MF wet prints. They are just DIFFERENT. I could go on for ages trying to compare the two but in general i think the D700 wins for me. The hard part is keeping the slider controls at sensible levels so that the prints don't look too forced or contrived.

I have some RAW files if you wish to drop me an email.

Regards, Tony

Basically I think the nicest thing about FX black and white is that you can go wild with the controls (curves & color filter

weighting) and the image integrity is retained. So you can truly make the image look the way you want it to look.

Dynamic range: if you shoot NEFs ( nikon raw) and process well I use Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2.1) there is about 12 stops of real world dynamic range to exploit in the D700 and D3.

You'll get better results out of any of the cameras than you will out of any 35mm scan (unless you are getting really first rate drum scans made. One thing to keep in mind that a major if rarely talked about difference between film based photogrpahy and digital sensor based photography is that if you shoot 'raw' to a large extent you are the media manufacturer as well as the processing lab. To get the best quality results you have to embrace that idea and learn the skills.

No question about it the Canon EOS 5D Mark 2 has nearly twice the "pixel" density of the D3 or the D700.

I guess the real question regarding resolution will be: how large do you regularly print?

Interesting. I too bought a D700 recently (having decided that full frame was what I want, to shoot with primes again instead of primarily zoom lenses on DX), and I know I would like more resolution. It is similar to when I was shooting 35mm black and white in college when I was 18 years old. And then when I was given a Rolleicord, and made my first print, I immediately knew I liked the extra tonality and resolution offered by medium format. Doubling the pixel density from 12 to 24 mega pixels would hopefully offer more than just higher resolution, but a greater tonal range too, as in the jump from 35 to medium format.

My question is, how many mega pixels will we need to finally out-resolve the lenses, and are we there yet with 12mp? 24mp?

With digital capture, the sensor size largely determines the tonality (given equal technology), whereas the resolution of the image (not the

sensor) is an

independent property (related to pixel count). With film, tonality and resolution of the image (not the film) go hand in hand with film size,

since you

would just extend the same material to a larger area, just like making an FX sensor by stitching two D300 sensors (well, FX is slightly

larger than that, but ...)

Actually increasing pixel density is likely to make tonality somewhat worse as the quality of the electronics that can be

crammed into a small space may have inferior performance in terms of the final signal quality. However, newer

technology may on the other hand improve the performance, reducing this problem over time.

Nikon didn't make their FX cameras 12 MP just out of the blue, or only to tease us. The resulting cameras are very

practical and the results often make my heart pound with delight.

How many MP will FX max out at? I suspect somewhere between 30 and 40 megapixels will basically squeeze the juice out of even the

best lenses. And those lenses most people use - well, 12 MP is enough to show blurry edges on a lot of lenses.

<i>Actually increasing pixel density</i>

<p>

... while keeping sensor size constant.

Thanks for the excellent replies, even from those playing with the devil's work. I have never printed larger than 20x16, and since I'm now printing with A3+ printer 19x13 is the norm. That's not to say I won't go bigger, but if I do it will be rare enough.

Ilkka, I didn't actually say that I wanted to reproduce the Tri-x 400 look, I just said I liked Jeff Ascough's images. However, what I will say is that for me, the medium grain of the film (it is certainly not at all rough), keeps open spaces alive, and in some instances, like in skies or still water, granulation really contributes to the aesthetic. More a positive appreciation than any desire for a retro look. I do worry about being stuck with what I see sometimes as a sterile digital look.

FWIW, two days ago I was chatting with a very well known spanish fine art photographer, her b&w prints are hanged

in the best galleries and museums. One of my favourites.

I asked about her current gear (just a single FM2 in another interview years ago) and told me that she`s still shooting

film with two Nikons, but willing to go digital because she was tired of mixing chemicals and other issues. Kodak

stopped the production of her favourite developers time ago. I know she sells a lot, spare prints, books and

corporative assignments.

She have already bought a DSLR which likes and found very interesting to work with but didn`t start to produce prints

because she still didn`t found any printing material to substitute argentic fiber based papers. Believe me, she knows

how to take out every bit from a Nikkor and a film. She`s a wet printing specialist. It seems to me that she wants to

go digital but found the obstacle on printers and printing materials.

It`s also funny to see that her best work has been (and still is) made with "humble", non top-of-the-line Nikon

cameras.

"I do worry about being stuck with what I see sometimes as a sterile digital look."

If you usually work with film, you`ll miss that look soon, but after an introductory period with digital you`ll start to take the best of it and will see film as another, simply different, aesthetic tool. Sometimes granulation is good on that skies or water, and sometimes an absolutely flat texture is preferable... just two tools for two different purposes.