Hassie versus Canon 5d with 16X20 enlargement

Over the last few years I have had many 16X20 enlargements made from my

Fujicolor negatives or Fujichrome transparencies that I shot with my old 500C/M.

 

Have the current crop of medium level slr's (12mp-such as Canon 5D) reached a

point that they can make equivalent quality 16X20s to Hassie?

 

I saw in an older article that in some cases the resolution of the 12mp

digitals really was not all that close to film (the article cited the seeming

inability of 12mp or similar digitals to clearly resolve the print on the

street signs).

 

Thanks.

Seeing as your acetate analog sensors are approx equivalent to 36 mpixel at 50 lp/mm, and a digital back for your hassy that is close to film quality is approx $35k, I don't think so.

 

In short, no.

I had the Canon 5D a couple of years ago. For portraits, it could probably replace your 500c/m at 16x20. For landscapes, I would say no. I still have my 500c/m, BTW.

This is a somewhat skewed question. I have a Nikon D2x (12.3MP) which can make a 16x20 inch print indistinguishable from a print made with an Hasselblad and Reala, scanned at 4000 ppi (8500x8500 pixels). The Hasselblad would have a clear advantage at larger sizes, to 30x40 inches or perhaps larger. In other words, there are differences but you just won't seem them in a 16x20 inch print, not even with a loupe.

 

Transparencies look good on a light table, but that doesn't translate well to making prints. Velvia and Reala resolve about 80 lp/mm for scenes of average contrast, but Reala has over twice the dynamic range and comparable grain.

Would you use a tripod? That alone is the most important determinant of image quality.

 

Second is what lens and what film do you want to compare?

 

Third is what scanner you use? I personally would use a wet print.

 

Fourth is, are you interested in more than lpm? Mf has advantages in tonality and dynamic range due to the larger film area.

Response to Hassie versus Canon 5d with 16X20 enlargement(Category:Hasselblad)

Ken Rockwell does a pretty good job of explaining some of the film vs digital debate. In one part of his article he basically states that most comparisons are skewed towards digital because they usually use a "cheap consumer scanner to convert the film to digital". It was an interesting read and was more insightful than many debates that I have read.

<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm" target="x" rel="nofollow">Link</a></b>

All I can say is that I made a 20X30 inch print from my Canon 10D (6.3 Megapixel) and it was sharp and grainless--superb. This is a MUCH older digital camera than the current line up and many improvements have been made along the way. I shoot mostly people with the digital.

 

I shoot my Hassy and Mamiyas just for the sheer joy of it--there's just something about medium format that I love...

I dont think that 5D enlargments come anywhere near the print quality of a "wet print" from

a Hasselblad negative. They just dont look the same at all.

This question has been asked ad nauseum and the answer is the same, depends on the quality of the scan. 12 mp can equal 645/6x6 if you're using say a Epson flat bed scanner on some other decent, but not superb, scanner. The best scan is from a drum done professionally, the only trouble is high cost, often up to $1/mb. There's also the time factor of developing and then scanning your originals. That's why so many have switched to DSLR's instead.

 

Here are some comparisons others have done for your perusal so you can judge for yourself:

 

1. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

 

2. http://www.michaelclarkphoto.com/d2xreview.html

 

3. http://www.gnyman.com/Digital%20Cameras%20comparison%20with%20Film.htm

 

4. http://www.diax.nl/pages/start_mamiya_nikon_uk.html

 

5. http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml

 

Have fun.

I think it's inherently problematic to ask this question of other people. There are so many

variables, and personal taste is one of them.

 

1. Are you talking about 'best possible scenario?' Where the film is ISO 50 or 100? And,

Imacon/drum-scanned? If so, there's probably a good chance the film will contain more

information. But, you probably won't see that information except with a loupe and/or

extreme magnification. From what i've seen, digital tends to look sharper, even when

there is more actual information in the film. Film has grain and 'dirt,' while digital files are

very clean.

So, perceptually, almost invariably, my digital pictures appear to be sharper than any of

my film pictures, and that's 5D versus Hasselblad, Pentax 67, Mamiya RZ, etc.

 

2. Once you start using higher rated films (ISO), film grain increases at a greater rate than

does digital noise at higher digital ISOs. So, ISO 400 on a good, modern digital camera is

going to be cleaner than ISO 400 film.

 

3. What are you shooting? At what apertures? I primarily shoot people. With not a lot of

DOF. If you shoot landscapes and/or architecture, you probably have different criteria.

 

4. Megapixels and file sizes don't tell the whole story. You can up-rez a digital file more

easily than a film scan.

 

5. You can always add simulated film grain to more closely approximate the look you get

from MF film. It's not exact, but it helps. AlienSkin Exposure, and TrueGrain are pretty

nice.

 

6. Yes, you can easily get fantastic 16x20s with a digital SLR. I find it easier to get better

quality results from digital than from film. But, i still prefer the look of film. There are

times, though, when i've shot something a while ago, processed it the way i like it, and

then later i'm unable to recall with what camera i shot it - the 5D or the Hasselblad.

What bothers me the most about most of these "tests" is that many of the people use zoom lenses. When you're comparing medium format, 35mm, or digital I think a prime lens stopped down 2 stops should be the lens that's used. A zoom lens is not the pinacle of sharpness. If it was then all manufacturers would stop making primes.

 

I remember when I purchased my Hasselblad 120mm lens. I compared it extensively with my 85mm Nikkor f/1.8 and I found that the Hasselblad lens, even at infinity (not suppose to be as sharp since it's a macro lens) was as sharp as the 85mm Nikkor. Both performed best 2 or 3 stops down. In the subsequent slides I was able to pick up individual bricks on a building that was about 1.5 - 2 miles away. Pretty impressive. I would do the same test with a digial SLR if I had one, but I only have a Canon SD950 for digital. I guess I can try the same test with that, but what will it prove? The Canon will still be a zoom competing with a prime lenses and I'm sure it'll get trounced.

 

So my point is I would rather see tests done with prime lenses than with zooms.

I did the test and at a Mamiya 6x7 camera is still a lot sharper than a 12mp dslr.

http://www.diax.nl/pages/start_mamiya_nikon_uk.html

 

I am planning a comparision between a Mamiya 7 and a 24 mp camera.

 

But can you see the difference between 12mp and a 6x7 in a (digital) print? The answer is yes. Even with a small print like 16x20. The Mamiya 7 print is really incredible sharp. When you put the print at 10-15 inch from your eyes it looks as if you are at the place the photo was taken. There is so much detail on the photo. When you focus on a particualr detail in the print you can imagine you are there.

 

Probably there is a certain point in sharpness when the brain is tricked and 'thinks' something is real.

 

On location i cannot see more setail than i see on the print. I really checked it, with the print in my hand. So in fact This mamiya 7 is as sharp as your eyes (with a 65 mm lens).

 

The nikon d2x print look quite different, diffuse, softer maybe. But it also looks good. But for really sharp, big prints a Mamiya 7 is a lot better. They were both printed with a frontier 550.

 

The big difference in quality didn;t show until i found a printer which was really sharp. In this case a Frontier 550, which is really very sharp. With a lambda printer i could hardly seee a difference. The same with older frontiers which were not so sharp. This was something i didnot expect. All the prof. print on a lambda printer, but clearly this isnot so sharp as they think.

 

About primes and people who make a 'test'. First my 'test' was very serious, i don't know what to do to upgrade to test.....

second, primes are not as good as everybody thinks. There are enough tests on the internet to show that. Especially the older wideangle designs are not so very sharp.

But to be sure i tested the zoomlens i used and found very good sharpness with this lens. I don't think a primes would be much sharper.

 

In practise it is not so simple to use a prime. The mamiya 7 has only primes. So when i use a 65 the best lens for the dslr would be probably a 1.4 50mm. (very sharp) But angle of the 65 (which is in fact a 35) and a 50mm differ too much. To compensate for that you need a lot of room.

 

lifeis not simple.

 

Still; digital is almost perfect and with a good stich you can make beautifull landscapes. But a mamiya 6x7 medium format camera is also a joy to work with. Very sharp and for the really good photo's you make a good (drum) scan an make a big enlargement.

Why is it that all these "reviews" only seem to concrentrte on sharpness. To my eye there is

an entirely different aesthetic between film and digital - DOF is different, Bokeh is

different, 3D is differnet, etc. etc. etc. To my mind a wet printed Hasselblad image has a

beauty that has not yet been surpassed by any digital camera, nor is it likely to be.

What keeps bothering me whenever it pops up is the use of the word "prime" to indicate something that is not a zoom lens. (It used to be very widespread once, but luckily has become rather rare the last years.)<br><br>That is incorrect: a "prime", short for "primary", is the lens a secondary (what else? ;-)) lens - like a close-up diopter, or a wide angle converter - is attached to, or that is put on a tele- or macro-converter. In short: the main taking lens.<br><br>The correct way to refer to lenses that are not zomm lenses, i.e. have a nonchangeable, fixed focal lengths, is as lenses that have fixed focal lengths.<br><br>Just a minor niggle, yet i thought i'd mention it, lest the mis-use of the word "prime" takes flight again. ;-)

Hary,

Thanks for your extensive testing and posting it on the web. At least for me, I really appreciate when people take the time to do that. Your pictures definitely revealed quite a bit in terms of sharpness and detail. I'm going on a cruise later this year and I decided that the Hasselblad was coming with me instead of the Nikons. I'll probably miss a few shots, but that's okay. I know I'll like the quality of what I get from the slides more. Plus I'll still have my compact digital camera for snapshots.

Some thoughts....Maybe a perfect match.

 

1) Mamiya 6x7 with 100 asa film for landscape, black and white, portraits.

2) Sigma DP1 compact for all the wideangle snapshots. Sharp, nice colors.

 

analog on a holiday.

No battery disasters, no charging. No problems with CF cards.

But.. a lot of work with the filmrolls

 

The look of 6x7 slides is so incredible. It is more difficult to make a good shot with analog, that is the nice part of it. A Mamiya 7 is really sharp, the lenses are incredible. The difference with a 4x5 camera is not too much, but less weight.

 

Slides, you can easily store them away for years and only scan the best. When scanning technology improves or better scan techniques becomes cheaper it is always possible to do a new, better scan.

 

Have anice holiday.

I agree with everyone else that this question is probably hammered to death but doesn't negate the validity of the question.

 

I find myself moving away from dSLRs and into Medium Format. I currently own a Canon 1D Mk II and some really nice 'L' Glass, some zooms, some primes. Curiosity grabbed hold of me last fall and I bought a Mamiya rb67 used on craigslist for $200. 2 lenses, body, waist-level-finder, etc. All you need basically.

 

I shot a few rolls of b&w film through it, and I was hooked on Medium Format from that moment on. The size, the clarity, the range, the reality that digital doesn't give you. I'm going backwards From digital to Film and I'm loving it.

 

For me, each is a tool. The MF teaches me patience, to look and think through the view finder. To question what am I doing? Is it worth it? How's the composition? Exposure? Did I meter? Did I meter correctly? Do I need to buy a new meter to meter correctly? Digital doesn't teach you patience at all. With digital I find I make more stupid mistakes like incorrect shutter speed or ISO. I forget something each time.

 

While the final result or output is important, can a MF system compare to say a full frame dSLR? From my backwards perspective I feel the answer is no. That comes from mostly an aesthetics point of view. Use, handling, viewing, composing, etc. In many ways I am finding my 1DmkII comes up short to the RB67 in simplicity. I love the size and view through the RB67, the dSLRs have dim, dark viewfinders. Something I didn't understand until I went to Medium Format.

 

All that being said, I will continue to shoot digital AND now film, the medium format is an experience and education. The digital just gives me quicker results.

 

Life is good!

To cut a long story short:

 

The difference between top grade 35 mm based DSLR cameras and high grade MF digital is about the same as the difference between 35 mm film and MF film cameras.

This means a Canon 5D is no game for a MF camera using film.

The 5D delivers very good images but nothing to even begin to compare with MF format. Forget about pixel count etc.

Ahhhh....... no. And no by a factor of 10.

 

Just make a landscape print of the 5D at 16x20 and look at the small details turning into a tetris game. My 6x7 scans on the CS 9000 print at 40" wide print superb at 300 true dpi.