MF film cameras and Nikon D800/E

<p>Any MF film shooters considering the Nikon D800/E?</p>

<p>No.</p>

<p>1. Can't afford it.<br>

2. Can't put film in it.</p>

<p>Yes, if my coolscan 9000 breaks down and I can't get a reasonable replacement. Thankyou Nikon.</p>

<p>I've got the D800E on order. I don't expect it to completely replace MF or LF for me, but there are some things I just can't do with my Hasselblad or Mamiya. For those I have used DX Nikons, but I decided to go for an FX system.</p>

I will likely be replacing my D700 bodies with D800 variants next year. That said, I doubt that any camera with a 24 x

36mm-ish sensor will achieve the resolution of my 6 x 7cm Mamya 7 II cameras.

<p>Medium format Photographers have always looked for that, 'edge,' in picture quality thats why they shoot with medium format. Going, and making things happen through medium format just doesn't happen, there are a variety of techniques that provide the ultimate result for making large prints. It's entirely reasonable to pay attention to the latest tool on the block. The digital platform provides the convenience of instant feedback, and an expedited workflow. I just returned from a Landscape trip with my Pentax 6711, and through sheer blindsided innocence was reminded of how much fun I was having. Is film some how painful for some? I haven't been able to connect as to why spending so much money for the latest, is so urgent particularly with in mind that medium format film image quality can't be beat. All camera's have a button to press. When I press the button, I want to know the best result is possible, thats why I continue to support medium format.</p>

<p>I'm not married to film. If I'd won that $500M lottery the other day, I'd have given away my Mamiya cameras and would be standing at the counter in B&H Photo buying the most resolution-heavy Hasselblad system available.</p>

<p>That not being the case though, making a 16 x 20-inch print, I can scan a piece of 100-speed film with my Nikon LS 8000 scanner, get a 500-plus-megabyte file and even crop with megabytes to burn. If one of the D800 variants allows me to print at 16 x 20 inches and 400 d.p.i., with the same or greater clarity as scanned film, I'll gladly sell my Mamiya kit. I'm just not holding my breath on that being the case.</p>

<p>No but lenses not withstanding I think it will be close in performance to larger format MF. I find that my Canon 5DII is about the same performance as my Mamiya M645 scanned with a Nikon 9000. Obviously there are differences but IQ is very similar level. My Fuji GX680 still outperforms my 5DII by a noticeable amount - I suspect that a camera like the D800 will close this gap. Of course lens performance is still an issue and the Fuji has full front movement with all lenses. That said the D800 does not weigh 10 lbs and is much easier to use.</p>

<p>I don't know if I can completely replace my Hasselblad system, but I'll probably get a D800E in a few months. I always said that 36mp was the threshold worth making the switch.</p>

<p>From what I have seen, 645 is equivalent to about 40Mpx. Right where the D800 is (4Mpx makes no difference). It's like 35mm convenience but with MF resolution. Although if you're hand-holding, kiss some of that resolution good-bye! Not to mention that some slower films give you more than 40Mpx worth of detail. Qualities other than resolution come into play, of course, but that's another matter.</p>

<p>FWIW I am soon to receive a Pentax 645 camera. The first exposures I make with it will be with Portra 400. And I'm starting to think - not now, but for the medium to long term - that I'd rather spend my money on a scanner than another digital camera. Wish me luck. :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Although if you're hand-holding, kiss some of that resolution good-bye!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's irrelevant though as the same would be true if it was film.</p>

Well, in a way I did it. I still got my LF gear going, but MF is sitting in the shelf since I received my D800. I love film, but I don't have the

time required to handle it properly. The D800 let me dig my good old primes out again, and shooting with those on a tripod using life view

is perfect. Results are much better than anything I got out of my V700 so far (maybe my fault, not a MF problem), and workflow fits much

better into my digital dark room. LF is different, this is true film, regardless of resolution LF handels in a way even my D800 can not

substitute.

<p>Logically, from an endpoint of the quality of the final print, then all MF photogs should be looking at it. But, if you still like the process of film, and have confidence in modern scanners continuing, and you haven't $3500 to spare (I'm amazed how many seem to have this kind of spare cash lying around) then no.</p>

<p>I have the Canon 5DmKII and I so much prefer using it and its results to my 'blad 500C/M its ridiculous, but I'm in a minority here.</p>

<i>"Logically, from an endpoint of the quality of the final print, then all MF photogs should be looking at it. "</i><br><br>The logic peculiar to the Digido, that is.<br>Realistically, MF photographers laugh at that.<br>;-)

<blockquote>

<p>But, if you still like the process of film, and have confidence in modern scanners continuing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I love the process of film but have no use for a scanner.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Not to mention that some slower films give you more than 40Mpx worth of detail."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Name one! Or better yet, show us or point us to the evidence.</p>

<p>If you prefer to use film, that's fine. Nobody is twisting your arm to go digital. But please let's not claim that any scanned film (short of large format), which is a <em>digitised</em> second generation copy, can compete with the latest direct digital imaging equipment on resolution.</p>

<p>Karim - I am not sure where you get 40 MP as being the equivalent of 645 film. Sure it can be scanned at that level - indeed my Nikon 9000 gives a scan of almost 58 MP from a 645 film. I find that the resolution and IQ however is much closer to my 21 MP Canon EOS 5DII. There are obviously differences and sensor (or film) size is still a big factor as my 18MP EOS 7D does not compete with the 5DII or 645 on IQ. Unlike Robin I do like film but still take about 90%+ of my shots digitally for ease of use, time saving and cost reasons. For me MF lenses still have they edge over 35mm lenses but the differences are subtle. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Name one! Or better yet, show us or point us to the evidence.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>See URLs below. If the same lens and same camera position were used, 6x4.5 resolves more than merely 40Mpx. If the FOV are the same, it's about 40Mpx, give or take:</p>

<p>http://tsjanik.blogspot.com.au/search/label/1%29645D%20crop%20%202%29%20full%20image%203%29%20645N%20crop</p>

<p>http://tsjanik.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/blog-post_2775.html</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I find that the resolution and IQ however is much closer to my 21 MP Canon EOS 5DII.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't. :-P In fact I find that DSLR on par with 8-perf (i.e. 35mm) Ektar 100 (and not massively better than Kodak 500T at EI 3200):</p>

<p>http://www.twinlenslife.com/2011/01/digital-vs-film-canon-5d-mark-ii-vs.html</p>

<p>6x4.5 will be better still.</p>

<p>And an equivalent test (which is not well understood, judging by the comments, but it is legitimate):</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00RV7N</p>

<p>So, out of all the 35mm-based DSLRs, unless you're shooting a D800, you won't be out-resolving 35mm. And unless you're shooting 6x4.5 film, you won't be outresolving the D800, Leica S2 or Pentax 645D. And we're just talking about resolution, here.</p>

We have been told that digital betters film, in all formats, ever since the first 2 MP cameras were thrown upon us, and that mantra has been recited continuously ever since. No surprise that we hear it here again.<br>One day, it will be true. No doubt about it. But when?<br>The D800 and machines of its kind will definitely not be the ones to look for. Look at the Big Formats instead. Size counts, also in the Digiworld.

Q.G., I don't shoot any 35mm film. My D700 FF bodies simply produce higher resolution than any 35mm film I would

shoot and scan in my Nikon LS 8000 scanner at 4,000 d.p.i. This digital advantage becomes more pronounced at higher

ISOs.

 

 

To me, the question isn't whether a 24x36mm piece of film will resolve as well as a 24x36mm sensor- it won't. The

question is whether a 24x36mm sensor will ever be produced that will resolve as well as a 56x66mm piece of film. I

doubt it- but we'll see as the D800 variants get put through their paces.

<p>Karim, Thanks for your hard work in proving the case. <br>

Q.G., Good question, When? Maybe not! Expense? How much more money can people spend on this digital experiment? Velvia 50, 120, is $5.69 a roll at Samy's.<br /> </p>

<p>Karim's hard work? I don't think so! Linking to a couple of sites that have a film bias is hardly hard work. LOOK at the evidence of your own eyes, and in your own pictures. Not at some half-baked spurious stuff on the web, where not even the same lens has been used in "direct comparisons", nor any indication of reproduction scale or rigorous methodology given. Some of those pictures don't even appear to be in focus!</p>

<p>Can a Minox or a frame of 16mm cine film show as much detail as a little 6mm x 8mm sensor sized 8 or 10 Mp compact camera - no! Definitely not. Can a 35mm frame routinely deliver the same IQ as a 14 to 16 Mp DX DSLR - no, it can't. The debate here is not about how badly some people can use a 4 year old DSLR to make it look worse than film, but about a newly-developed full-frame high-resolution DSLR competing with the IQ of MF film. To my eyes that competition was won ages ago by the sheer cleanliness and better colour depth of digital. Now the resolution crown will probably get easily taken as well.</p>

<p>Below is a photomicrograph I took of film dye clouds ("grain" if you like) from a typical 100 ISO colour film. Each little fried-egg-like splodge of dye is 2 to 3 microns across - not much smaller than the 5 micron photosite pitch of the D800. You can see that the individual dye clouds tend to clump together in small groups, making each clump at least 6 microns across. This, together with the random nature of the dye clumping, make it a physical impossibility to capture or clearly see detail above around 80 cycles/millimetre. The D800 has a theoretical resolution limit of just over 100 cycles/mm.</p>

<p>Resolution aside, there is no way that those crude single-colour dye blobs can show 16 million different colour shades in the same area that a single digital pixel can. You'd need to sample and average an area of film quite a few millimetres square to get anywhere near to that amount of colour information. But some of you have quite clearly made your minds up and closed them. So I'll just leave it there - with the proof staring you in the face that your precious film is clearly a lot more "digital" than you'd like it to be.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>there is no way that those crude single-colour dye blobs can show 16 million different colour shades in the same area that a single digital pixel can. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>A single digital (sensor) pixel only represents one colour.</p>

<p>Do any of you digital users make prints over 8x10?<br>

I've been a photographer for 40 years, and shot pro for about half of that. Mostly medium format and 4x5 film. So my requirements are high. I experimented with digital about 10 years ago adn decided i was too early. I didn't like the noisy, low DR prints.<br>

Today I've changed careers, have a hectic work schedule as a busy telecom professional, and don’t have lots of time to shoot. Photography is a hobby. My goal is prints I can hang on my wall, not satisfying clients. <br>

My questions is, based on this simple math, are you folks getting quality prints bigger than 8x12? At 300 DPI (that's what my labs specs are for the photographic prints I buy) it looks like I need a 20 megapixel camera to make a 12x18. Simple math:<br>

http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php<br>

I'm shooting 35mm Ektar 100. (great stuff. We never shot 35 in the studio and I'm amazed by this film) I get 12x18's I'm very happy with pretty easily. Could I get them with a 16 megapixel prosumer camera?</p>

<p>I'm thinking about picking up a MF to make bigger prints. But I keep looking at my 12x18's from my little Contax and smile</p>

 

<p>Not me. This is from a 645 400 ISO color neg, flatbed scan. Though the D800 is going to look cleaner @100% on a computer screen I know it can't give me the smooth creamy highlights that print film can. BTW this is shot with $450 dollars worth of camera and lens.</p><div></div>