Jump to content

Medium format vs digital


Recommended Posts

<p>Many years ago, pre-digital, in the age of 35 mm film, I hungered for a medium format camera but such was financially out of my league. Today, especially with the used market (are prices from a place called National Camera Exchange for real and are they trustworthy?), a Pentax, Mamiya and even a Hasselblad are within my reach. Even new ones from B&H are not that expensive. I've read in this forum that even the best MF struggle to meet the quality of e.g. a Canon 5DII. However, when I look a t a MF photo I'm still impressed with it's incredible sharpness even compared to a 5D. Popular Photography recently had a landscape spread with a 5DII and Pentax 645 and I swear the MF is noticeably sharper. Am I being carried away by emotion or is it worth the extra work to go to MF? I already have Canon stuff so going to a 5D would not be a big step.<br>

I guess the question is, is it sort of firmly established that the 5D and similar really outperform a MF with regard to acuity?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>There is no direct answer to this question. Different people have different needs and expectations. If a new medium format digital camera is within your means, then that's one approach. For others, even a 10-12 MP camera may be enough, even for serious use. On the whole, you can get as good results with a medium format film camera as with a top of the line, 20+ MP DSLR, for 1/3rd the equipment cost.</p>

<p>For a continuing discourse on the relative merits, see <a href="../film-and-processing-forum/00WErk">http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00WErk</a>.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I shoot FF Nikon D700s and Mamiya 7IIs (6x7 cm) film. If I know I'm going to make a print 8x10 inches or smaller, I prefer shooting FF digital. If I know I'm going to make a print 11x14 inches or larger, I'll shoot 6x7 cm medium format and I'll scan the film at 4000 d.p.i. on my Nikon scanner. In other words, for bigger prints, I'd rather have more-than-adequate resolution from a MF film, as opposed to potentially having to up-rez from a FF-35mm-style camera's digital image.</p>

<p>Truth be told, I really like the D700s' metering accuracy, that they capture and store exposure information, that they can be white-balanced and that their images are a little easier to color balance and print from than MF scans. If I won the lottery tomorrow, I'd be done with film altogether and I'd buy $75K MF digital system.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>compare 5616 x 3744 pixels 21.0 MP to a 6x7 camera?</p>

<p> How does 5616 x3774 pixels compare to a 56x68mm image?</p>

<p>Are blonds more fun than brunettes?</p>

<p>what lenses are to be used?</p>

<p>what aspect ratios compared?</p>

<p>how about a WW2 Kodak Medalist that shoot 2x3" negative? ie a 6x9 camera?</p>

<p> With a dumb high end consumer flatbed at real life setting of 2400 dpi one gets a 4800x 7200 pixel image.</p>

<p>Drop my 6x7cm Century Graphic with Xenotar off a building and I am out 170 bucks; drop the canon and I am out 12 x or 20x more. <br>

One solution requires scanning; what is your scanner?</p>

<p>This question will be asked forever and has no answer.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi, Leonard. If you're printing large, medium format still kinda kills digital--although the gap will continue to narrow, no doubt.</p>

<p>Scanning a 6x7 frame on an Epson V750 at 2400 dpi gives me a file roughly 6650 x 5490 pixels. That's approximately 36.5 megapixels. And at that resolution, they are good pixels, as I'm scanning at about the V750's true optical resolution. With a CoolScan 9000, if you can get your hands on one, you could get even larger and probably sharper files that could correspondingly be printed even larger and showing increased detail, so long as you were using a film that could capture very fine detail.</p>

<p>And a drum scan of Astia, one of the highest resolution films there is, would certainly produce a very large, sharp and detailed file. Way beyond the capabilities of any current digital camera.</p>

<p>It all comes down to price--medium format gear is very cheap right now, and a V750 costs a mere fraction what a top-of-the-line DSLR is priced at. You can do pretty well by shooting and scanning your own MF film. (Printing black & white MF film in the darkroom, if you have the capability to do it, is an altogether different and unique incidental pleasure.)</p>

<p>As Eric says, the best of all possible worlds would be medium format digital--the quality of that is amazing. But cost-wise, it's still beyond the means of the vast majority of us. For me, right now, the ultimate in quality is achieved by shooting and scanning MF film. And it will be good for some time to come, as it's going to take some time for either medium format backs to come down to a reasonable price, or 35-mm equivalent DSLRs to achieve the kind of resolution (again, at a reasonable cost) you could get with MF film and even a rather low-end scanner like the V750.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>will a MF camera give me a sharper photo than e.g. the Canon 5dII?</em></p>

<p>No.<br>

By asking this you do not understand the basic premises of photography.<br>

And the opposite: not.</p>

<p>How many sports photos are shooting action sports with medium format? Virtually zero.</p>

<p>It's about technique aqnd equipment. Not one or the other in isolation. Since the real, in-depth answers are above already, I've thus reached my typing limit! ;-)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't know anything about them, honestly. Have you tried keh.com, though? They are well-known for having good prices, a conservative rating system, quick and dependable shipping, and a very liberal return policy in case you're dissatisfied with an item.</p>

<p>I've built up my medium format system (a Mamiya RB67 Pro-S with four lenses, extension tubes, a prism and a variety of backs) exclusively through them. And I've spent well less than $1000 doing it.</p>

<p>Compare their prices. If NCE is any lower I'd be very surprised. And with KEH, you know that everything else is going to be satisfactory as well. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't know anything about them, honestly. Have you tried keh.com, though? They are well-known for having good prices, a conservative rating system, quick and dependable shipping, and a very liberal return policy in case you're dissatisfied with an item.</p>

<p>I've built up my medium format system (a Mamiya RB67 Pro-S with four lenses, extension tubes, a prism and a variety of backs) exclusively through them. And I've spent well less than $1000 doing it.</p>

<p>Compare their prices. If NCE is any lower I'd be very surprised. And with KEH, you know that everything else is going to be satisfactory as well. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>One solution requires scanning; what is your scanner?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not necessarily.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>..I am still waiting for the response to the blond vs. brunette question</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In English it's <em>blond</em> when referring to males and <em>blonde</em> for females.</p>

<p><br /></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Re: "How many sports photos are shooting action sports with medium format? Virtually zero.<br /> It's about technique aqnd equipment. "</p>

<p>Ken; thats some hat a fib and really quite shocking and FUNNY; since MF was once the *main* film format used to shoot sports. The TLR was marketed as pure sports radial machine; used to shoot sports. It was the Canon EOS of its day. MF was the main camera used in sports at one time.</p>

<p>****A better statement might be to say today in 2010 MF is rarely used anymore to shoot sports.</p>

<p>MF is what I shot in high school for sports; the TLR was quick; fast; and no damn delay like many of todays lessor digitals. The other camera we used was the only main slr available; and Exakta VX where once one fired off a shot; one could not see a damn thing until one recocked the mighty left hand wind Exakta about 270 degrees.</p>

<p>Here today I still use MF for sports; in sailing/racing the dumb 6x9 Muskova shoots a giant negative and the rig only cost 65 bucks; the Century Graphic with its Xenotar shoots a fine 6x7 negative; it was built in 1966. There is not much money tied up in these; thus for more risky stuff I perfer a camera costing 1/40 to 1/15 what a hot 2.5 to 3 grand dlsr.</p>

<p>In bad rough weather one has less to loose with a great MF camera; it lost you buy another on ebay.</p>

<p>In hockey I have shot 100's of rolls of asa 1250 Kodak Royal-X eons ago; I just got some Ilford 3200 in 120 for the playoffs.</p>

<p>Ken; in a few decades somebody will say " How many sports photos are shooting action sports with a DSLR? Virtually zero." and you can agree or point out once it "was sort of normal"! :)</p>

<p>A drum scan off a 6x7 negative holds alot of info; using a dslr is way easier!</p>

<p>When I grew up most all of the sports images in camera magazines were shot with MF; or even LF too; with some 35mm.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Leonard; a DIRECT horrible (often flakey) chain/ link in the film MF scheme for landscapes is what scanner?</p>

<p>With a home flatbed many folks just use a giant 4x5 negative or 6x9 MF negative to have a lot of film real estate.<br>

With a dinky 6x4.5 cm format; having a drum scan might be required to match a high end canon dlsr; a flatbed might be a bit hokey.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>STEVE RE:"Not necessarily.<br>

</p>

<blockquote >

<p >..I am still waiting for the response to the blond vs. brunette question</p>

</blockquote>

<p >In English it's <em >blond</em> when referring to males and <em >blonde</em> for females.</p>

*****Back in 1957 the grammar police had their knickers in a knot when Clarol brought out "“<em >Is it true blondes have more fun</em>?” advert; since the product being sold was HAIR color; not women; thus your counterpart thought it should be blond; not blondes; since Clarol was hawking blond hair color and not females.

 

<br />

The grammer :) police wanted it changed to blond. Others thought that they purposely injected this error to get folks to talk about the advert.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Re National Camera - I live in Minnesota, and have bought a lot of gear including medium format (and large format) items from them. I've found them to be reputable and good to deal with. They generally have a return policy on used equipment. Check with them about that before you buy.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For landscapes, yes, you can beat the sharpness/detail of a good DSLR with medium format film. To do this, you need a good camera with very good lenses, good technique and a good scanner. I'd bypass 645 formats - the cameras are nice and small and less expensive but the point of this exercise is to get really big negs. 6x6 or larger would be better. To dip your toe in, you might find a good 6x6 TLR (Mamiyas, Yashicas and Rolleis are all excellent) or for a bit more of the more, something in a Mamiya RB/RZ or Pentax 6x7. The shooting isn't as fast as with a DSLR but the landscapes aren't going anywhere. Tripods are important. Get the exposure down. Ektar 100, overexposed slightly, is a good landscape film and easy to get processed.</p>

<p>You can get scans done at the shop (but as another user learned in a thread on the subject, don't ask for no corrections because Ektar is designed for a digitally color corrected process) or scan. With a flatbed scanner you can see sharpness/detail in the same class as a good DSLR, but with a Nikon or a drum scan done at a pro lab you'll end up with an image you can measure in feet instead of inches.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Leonard - I have the Canon 7D which I consider nearly equal to the 5D mkII at low to mid ISO.</p>

<p>Using Les Sarile's map test (http://www.fototime.com/inv/E0D372FC8001820), here is a crop from a 7D single frame shot of the map vs. a Howtek scan of MF Velvia 6x7.</p>

<p>If you were to print these crops at 334 ppi, they would appear the same as if you printed the full scan and 7D shot of the map to 27" x 40". I've done this on an Epson R800 and the 7D crop appears cleaner while the film scan crop is a bit sharper and has a bit more fine detail. However, the differences are small enough that I don't think it would matter for most subject matter. Also, I think the gap in sharpness/contrast could be closed a bit with further processing.</p>

<p>That's a pretty big print with a test target that is fairly challenging, but also closer to real world shooting than a B&W test chart. (It presents both color and low contrast details.)</p>

<p>This test result is consistent with my experience with the 7D. With a challenging subject, such as a landscape, I feel I get excellent 24" prints and very good 30" prints. If I know I will need to print larger than that, I shoot and stitch 3 frames. I feel the 7D gives me better IQ than any of the 35mm films. While a single frame shot does not contain the same absolute level of detail as a good MF scan, it's surprisingly close for print sizes up to about 24". I feel that a 3 frame stitch gives me IQ superior to a good MF scan.</p>

<p>Of course sharpness is going to depend on many variables, both at the time of the shot and in post processing. I think the minimum scanner for good MF film scans would be a CoolScan, and that's something you need to consider. Either you'll have to buy a CoolScan or pay to have your best shots scanned on a CoolScan, Imacon, or drum scanner. Post processing is important with digital files, and I always apply some sharpening via Smart Sharpen, along with local contrast enhancement using USM, to my 7D files to bring out their best.</p>

<p>Note: I was participating in the thread Edward linked to, but I dropped out because I felt like I had made my point, provided samples to back it up, and was just getting into a never ending debate.</p><div>00WHJh-237765584.thumb.jpg.4d1fce0771e72ce3f0caa8461f324bfa.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Seems to me that you're not quite with the potential complexities of what you're asking.</p>

 

<ul>

<li>At what point are you comparing the 5D and a MF camera? If your answer is "as prints" then you have to work out how you're going to scan the MF neg or transparency, There are scanner choice issues here and htere are scanning technique issues as well as file creation issues and IMO a scanned file is likely to need a bit more work than a file from a digital camera. </li>

<li>Next issue, does it matter? First because sharpness is not the only criterion behind the quality of a photograph. In many cases you could get a great print from either source. For some subjects the different frame shapes of the MF and dslr will be as important a determinant ot "quality" as absolute sharpness. We can make this very complex if you want by assuming that we have to crop one or both originals to form a comparable aspect ratio. For a very large print, I would expect to get a better print from a perfectly scanned and beautifully handled file from a MF original than from a 5D. Does that matter? well probably not much because most prints won't be at or beyond the optimum for the 5D , and most scans from a MF original won't be perfect so the picture will be muddied. </li>

<li>And you have to take into account whether both of the cameras could get the photograph. I mean 100ISO vs 100ISO , both on a tripod, is one thing. But what happens if you can't use a tripod? What happens if the subject is a great distance away and you need lenses that will get you in closest. What happens if your dof is compromised by the use of MF lenses? What happens if you need to set up fast, or if you need a high ISO to get the shot/freeze the subject ? What happens if you don't feel you can carry a full MF system around all day- my 5D with three L zooms weighs half as much as my Bronica bag where I need 6 lenses to give me the framing I'm looking for all the time? What happens if the exposure is very complex and whereas you can see whether you've got it with a dslr, with the MF you don't know for certain. In all therse circumstances, which system will give you a sharper picture? </li>

</ul>

<p>If you're going to be photographing newsprint in well-lit conditions from a range of ten feet on a tripod and making very large prints that people will view from fairly close then you have your answer. But this isn't what I do and I do hope its not what you do either. You need to get the camera system that fits best with the sort of pictures you want to make, for in the final analysis great originals make great prints. This might mean that you really need both. </p>

<p>After all this I would absolutely encourage you to try a MF system. Its a different photographic sensation altogether and using one for some years made a big difference to my photographs. It will cost you little and it might make a big difference. Just don't try and justify it on a complex variable like sharpness is all. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To figure out the ppi settings to simulate different print sizes, multiply the 7D's resolution by 2.58, then divide by the inches you want (width or height). (2.58 is the multiplier I had to use to resize the 7D crop to the MF crop pixel dimensions.)</p>

<p>Examples:</p>

<p>* To simulate a print width of 40" - (5184 x 2.58) / 40 = 334 ppi</p>

<p>* To simulate a print height of 20" - (3456 x 2.58) / 20 = 446 ppi</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The levels/exposure difference in the single frame comparison reduces the apparent IQ in my opinion. Here's a new copy with some additional work on the 7D side. I adjusted levels and applied a bit more sharpening and LCE. I think this sample would fair even better in a print test. Though there are some artifacts at screen magnification, in print I don't think they would show up.</p>

<p>Of course one could also do some work on the film side (noise reduction, sharpening, etc.). Point is there's certainly a MF advantage versus a single frame from a top tier DSLR, but it's not as large as people think in print. So your budget (for a scanner) and your regular print sizes might make your decision for you. Along with that consider whether or not stitching will work for you.</p><div>00WHKe-237771584.thumb.jpg.bd0946fa6044f194b5d07169976c5631.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ah...one last note: the artifacts in version 2 are greatly reduced by taking the original 7D crop, resizing, and then applying one pass of LCE and one pass of sharpening, instead of the multiple passes that version has been through. Now I wish I had done that before posting. Oh well...you get the idea. I can provide more samples if you're interested.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Before I got my 35 megapixel scan back in 1997 for 4x5 I use to shoot artwork with 4x5" LF or sometimes a 6x9cm camera and then have it drum scanned.<br>

In that era a pro flatbed as about 1200 to 1600 dpi.<br>

Many times the issue was NEVER about resolution that folks get their knickers in a knot over; it was colors; the "texture" of the artwork; the time frame. It often did NOT matter what method was used.<br>

Once customers got use to a quicker digital capture; many could no longer wait.</p>

<p>The lab got senile and then flaky (lost ruined film) then died. Now I almost never use film for artwork; unless required. </p>

<p>All the calculations about resolution often do not matter.</p>

<p>THE DOF one gets in a outdoor or tabletop is going to be different with a 35mm dlsr versus a big film 6x7 camera</p>

<p> A real screwy thing is on the LF board when folks ask about a starter LF camera for landscapes; one has to but a flak jacket on if a simple graflex/graphic/crown is mentioned. the "movement police" all parachute in; like every landscape shot requires movements. Strangely movements are not mentioned on this thread as a "must" for landscapes!</p>

<p>The aspect ratio is not mentioned much here either; some MF/LF folks use 6cm x super long cm formats for wide prints and use a wide angle lens. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...