Jump to content

(When) Will 35mm DSLR Exceed MF Film Image Quality?


rafall

Recommended Posts

<p>I realise that this topic has been touched on repeatedly since the forum has started but as 2010 is around the corner it is the customary time for predicting the future. I wondered what members thought about the next few years of the best in 35mm DSLR image quality with respect to prints, say up to 30x40" in size viewed on a home or office wall, as compared to what can be achieved from a 6x6 or so traditionally enlarged or scanned (is that 81MP?) and digitially printed film.</p>

<p>Personally, I am slightly more interested in the B&W angle, but color is also of great interest to me.</p>

<p>Happy New Year,<br>

Rafal</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 164
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Alas, the laws of physics don't line up well behind quality results from that much information collected on a sensor that small (35mm). Not without making some serious compromises (and asking a <em>lot</em> of lenses - which already show their flaws at a fraction of that resolution when projecting an image circle in that format).<br /><br />A well exposed, carefully made image from something like a D3x is going to look beautiful at 30x40 in any sort of rational viewing situation. If you can't make a satisfying print using that rig, then it's very possible that moving to medium format will just present the same technique problems in even more glorious detail.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have made 30X40 prints from my Hasselblad 100 ASA film and the same type and size photo with my Fuji S5. I think the 30x40's are identical in quality and detail. So from what I have enlarged, the "35mm" is equal to 120 film in photo quality. Now with that said, I have also used the medium format ditigal, a Hasselblad, and enlarging an image from that camera blows away the "35mm SLR". The larger chip in the medium format has so much better detail and dynamic range that you just can't compare the 2 formats. Truly an amazing difference.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you're talking about scanned film, then yes, a Nikon LS9000 scanning a 6x6 frame gives you 81 MP (and yes you can get film and lenses that do give you that much detail), which is 225 PPI at 40x40, and nothing in 36x24mm can compete with that. (Of course, you also can't see that much detail unless you stick your face in the print, so for most viewing it's not going to make a heck of a lot of difference.)</p>

<p>To get that much information on a digital sensor of that size, and in a useful manner (getting the same per-pixel performance as a 12 MP camera instead of just jacking up the MP numbers like P&S camera makers do) will probably happen in the unforeseeable future but it's going to take a lot of technological advancement. I wouldn't put it in the "next few years" timeframe. For the highest amount of detail, get out your MF camera and get some good B&W film of your choice and have at it.</p>

<p>Since you're interested in B&W, one thing I keep hearing for the next-year-or-two timeframe is a B&W version of the Nikon D90 which will eliminate the Bayer grid and with it the need for an AA filter and therefore be incredibly sharp - and I'm a huge fan of the D90 - but it still won't have the detail of MF film.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To answer a question like this, you really need to very carefully and elaborately define "quality". I think this isn't even possible to do in such a manner that everyone agrees on the conclusions. Ultimately, you need to try both in your workflow with your destination and compare for yourself.</p>

<p>The easy conclusion that digital has surpassed MF with X MP is not all that interesting. Digital falls apart when enlarged too much (I have seen this effect in a print measuring 2x1,5m and costing more than 25000 Euro), whereas film degrades gracefully. Film also has a nicer shoulder when over-exposed, whereas digital can blow out in very unattractive ways. On the other hand, noise/grain sets in much earlier with film.</p>

<p>I do shoot both, and primarily digital, in fact, but I am very aware of the strengths of each, and trying to make conclusions about "better" or "quality" is impossible on a general level. It is a personal preference.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>DigitalPhotoPro Magazine wrote a recent article on this very topic. Of the professional photographers they interviewed, the consensus was that a quality DSLR such as the Canon EOS1 series, or the Nikon D3 have already encroached upon the territory once dominated by MF. It becomes more of an issue of economics in the decision to stay with a MF camera, even a MF using digital backs. <br>

The MF camera makers are losing ground in the R&D area when it comes to the inroads made with sensor technology accomplished by Canon & Nikon. The argument goes that economies of scale are just not their with MF digital cameras. Consumers, both Professional and Amateur are gravitating to DSLR's for that reason. <br>

Most likely, within the next couple of years, Pro-level DSLR's will have closed the gap significantly.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The answer, is that in most cases DSLR technology is already there. The photographers that I have heard about switching back to film have done so because of workflow/business issues or they wanted a particular "look" that they already knew how to get from film. There is also a reverse marketing tool here. Using film makes a wedding/portrait photographer stand out the same way that a digital photographer did years ago.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>My fully functional $50 Rolleiflex Automat (6x6, 1938) and $180 Agfa Billy Record II (6x9, 1952) make the question academic. The quality available in ancient and cheap MF is so excellent that a multi-thousand dollar digital system that just might be roughly equal is uninteresting.</p>

<p>Volume of pictures matters, size of enlargement matters, the "feel" of the medium matters, the joy of the gear matters, etc. I work in technology, and the last thing I want to do with my hobby is turn it into another technological twiddle. To each, his own, though.</p>

<p>When a DSLR can reliably beat MF Velvia, cost <$500, and use my Nikon AIs prime lenses, then I'll jump.</p>

<p>In the mean time, I love film, and I love my old, excellent cameras.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Rafal, there's no such thing as 'exceed MF film image quality'. It's an unquantifiable expression. So I suspect you're asking two questions:</p>

<p>1. When will digital have more resolving power than MF film?</p>

<p>The answer is whenever digital files can capture more pixels than can be digitised from film in scanning. Not sure when that will be, as it depends on whether anyone invests further in scanning technology. But at the moment, I can get files roughly three times the size from 6x7 format on 120 film than I can from a 24 Mp sensor.</p>

<p>2. When will digital look similar or better than MF film?</p>

<p>The answer is it depends on what you mean by 'better'. If you appreciate the look of film then the answer is never. Digital can never be an analog process by definition, hence will never look the same.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Nope, no deep pondering on this. I've already compartmentalized this the same as everything else in my photography. My black and white is very traditionally handled on the Hasselblads and FP4, with some occassional color neg work and everything else is handled modestly on the D200s with good prime lenses and lower ISO speeds 100-400. Occassionally 800ISO with NR on max. My only future addition will be a full frame D700 or whatever model is best when I'm ready to drop the $$. I think some of the results are already pretty close for color neg vs digi with the full frames but the black and white digi does nothing for me, I don't like it. Just my opinion of course, but certainly no sleep lost over this stuff, just whatever tool I feel like using for what.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As I have stated on another post, I regard face detail of a large group (75 plus) as a pretty good benchmark of quality.<br>

A shot of a baby sitting in a field of blue bonnets can be enlarged quite a lot no matter what the original. When I worked in advertising (not as a photographer), guys were blowing early 3mp point and shoot digital up to poster size and declaring it "as good as film". Kind of "declare victory and go home." <br>

It should also be remembered that films are constantly being improved, though maybe that's slacked off.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It might be worth reading the article in Digital Photo Pro <a href="http://www.digitalphotopro.com">www.<strong>digitalphotopro</strong>.com</a>, since all of the photographers interviewed use both film and digital, full-frame cameras and medium format. <br>

Bottom-line: Noise at high ISO is an issue of concern. At certain size enlargement FF digital vs Mf, there is no discernable difference in image quality. It comes down to what the client wants.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>When I looked at Erwin Puts comparisons from from a Leica M6 with a very finegrain B&W film and a Canon 5D, and recently with a Leica M9 digital (18 Mpix with no AA-filter), its clear that there is stil a very long way for digital to catch up. I dont think it is possible for a 24x36 mm Bayer sensor to ever compete with the best B&W films at larger film sizes if the best MF lenses are used.</p>

<p>I think the future for high end 24x36 digital sooner or later will be to capture all RGB colors in each and every pixel location. Sigma are using that technology with small ( 1,7 x crop factor) 4,7 Mpix sensors. Despite some problems, is the result remarkable. I am confident that the large chipmakers are looking at this kind of evolution but I think it will take more than a few years before any will launch a three layer RGB sensor. Maybe Sigma/Foveon have something going on.</p>

<p>It is of course easier to make a B&W sensor. Kodak did make one some years ago. If I remember right it was a 6 Mpix sensor with a quite high crop factor.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I go with Brad's post above. Ok, you can chase the ultimate in digital quality, but there is a huge gulf opening up in the cost of pro-level quality digital cameras (both 35mm FF and especially MF digital) and their corresponding lenses with 'consumer' digital offerings and of course with old film cameras and lenses.<br>

As Brad and others point out, you can still get high quality scanned results from 35mm and MF (and do you want to talk about 5x7 LF and above?).<br>

A fundamental assumption about the 'digital revolution' is that film, scanning and digital back technology for film cameras are all dying. It may happen, who knows, but despite gloomy forebodings, super sharp new film types (Ektar 100) and better scanning solutions are all happening. This could go either way.<br>

This thread was about IQ, but if you need convenience of high ISO digital for low light, fast moving reportage, or for client expectation and turnaround times etc, obviously super digital cameras and matching lenses are the answer - at a price.<br>

But to get top quality images at reasonable cost, digital will take some time to bury our old 6x6 and 6x9 folders, our old 35mm Canon/Leica/Nikon/Olympus lenses, and any of the great MF systems out there, mostly available now at bargain prices. And I have to add, while I love my 5D and its super-zooms for certain times and purposes, the photographic experience can be entirely different if you want it to be when you revert to these classic cameras.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Quality is about the same. How about cost? I have saved (kept) around 7000 exposures with my Nikon d700. That is 583, 120 rolls. At a film and processing cost of $12, that is about $6996. in film costs saved. If my arithmetic is wrong ( I am not good at it) let me know. If it is about right, I have already paid for the camera and all 7 lenses with film savings. Moreover I prefer the freedom of making extra exposures with a digital camera. For me, the real problem with digital is no longer quality or cost, it is about how the pictures are stored. I prefer a large format negative to any other option.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Erwin Puts comparison was slanted toward film. He shot high-contrast targets (film measures better at high contrast, not so good with real-world contrast on small details), on a B&W microfilm, and compared to a color digital system.<br>

-All- of us who have actually compared 35mm color film to 35mm digital think that under almost all conditions, digital captures more detail.<br>

I will leave the perceived 'beauty' of film's tone/characteristic curve, and color interpretation to the individual photographer, while pointing out that digital can replicate those characteristics given the proper post-production tools and knowledge.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The issue of cost is all relative. Maybe someone who shoots a lot of photos can same money in the long run with digital. But, for someone like me, it would take many years for a high dollar digital to same me money over using 120 black and white. And, as I've mentioned many times, comparing digital to 35 film, would put the results in digital's favor. Since only 110 and 16 are smaller than 35. Heck, 828 is bigger than 35!</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I saw some show on TV about a movie made with a bunch of high-tech stuff; they went on to hypothesize that 3D movies would be the next big thing. Then, there was another article that mentioned living magazines; these were thin electronic films used as paper, but showed video. We're all passe' because we're 2D!</p>

<p>"I love ya, baby, but you always were two dimensional."</p>

<p>Right about the time that it's obvious that rich people can make a ton of money with even higher technologies; that'll happen right after 2D DSLR imaging has milked most of the gravy out of the market. When the <strong>profit power</strong> in that is gone, they'll line up the next technology, and give it to the masses.</p>

<p>Somewhere in there, maybe real soon, the DSLR will peak out at slightly in excess of what we've been using all along. Then we'll get fed something else to scrabble over. This keeps the steps of the maximum of what we expect ever-increasing, but at a very small overall progress. This way they don't have to break their backs with coming up with something genuinely new. Then, with each new layer of technology distributed, we'll have plenty more expense to justify the newness.</p>

<p>It maybe a nihilistic view of the marketplace, but it's mine.</p>

<p>I prefer the films as it is.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"All generalizations, with the possible exception of this one, are false." paraphrasing Kurt Godel.<br>

It's interesting reading all these opinions.<br>

Reverting to my scientific background, I would suggest that the experimental conditions could greatly affect the outcome of a film vs. digital format.<br>

First, we have to control variables, so it should be for the same size "sensor" e.g. 24X36 mm or 2-1/4 sq (57.15 mm sq), etc. Digital sensor resolution is the next variable, and while one might think the higher resolution the better, it depends on the light level of the test for noise, so let's use the range of sensors available, 12, 18, 24 MP. Then we get into ISO. With the intrinsic sensitivity of a digital sensor somewhere around ISO 200-400, depending on the pixel size, comparison to a similar film will make for a fair comparison. At lower ISO film shines while digital sensors are working below their normal operating range. So let's repeat the test, at ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, 12800 (I guess we can stop now, unless there is a film I don't know that can go that high.)<br>

Next, use the same optics, preferably a top quality prime optic at mid F-stop to ensure best performance.<br>

Take pictures of resolution/dynamic range targets, process images and compare resolution and dynamic range.<br>

Now we get into another variable that's difficult to control - processing of film/prints and image processing for the digital image. (I'm assuming the film is inspected optically - not scanned, as that adds another set of uncontrolled variables! Since it's a "who's best comparison, I guess anything goes. (I'll come back to this later.)<br>

Sounds pretty straightforward to me. Why hasn't it been done? I'll bet the labs at the major camera, sensor and film manufacturers do this quite often, but, strangely, I've never seen a controlled comparison. DXO? Kodak? Canon? Nikon? Fuji? Leitz? Come on, guys, share what you know!<br>

But let's return to the issue of image processing. A pro is not sending film to the drugstore for processing, even if it's being printed optically, not digitally. Massaging negatives and prints in the darkroom the way we did it 50 years ago (dodging or burning-in, etc. somewhat amateurishly, compared to a Adams or Weston, of course) allowed us to manipulate the print to get better results - often much better. An expert at digital processing, back to the software engineers creating the programs for conversion of raw data from the sensor up to the manipulation in a image processing program (DXO, Photoshop, etc.), resizing using sophisticated digital processing and finally color adjustments, will obviously do a lot to enhance the comparison. I suspect that digital signal processing is as important to digital image quality as is the sensor. Anybody from the industry care to comment?<br>

So once we do the lab tests - over the full range of digital sensor resolution and film ISO, we'd have a better basis for our opinions. <br>

But wait, why not also take ten photographers to the same location, use different equipment - film and digital - take the same photo, print big prints the same size and let 100 people view them and judge them subjectively. Sounds like a photo contest to me! Sponsors interested?<br>

Regards,<br>

Jim</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>unfortunately when these magazines/websites reveiw film vs digital, they can only measure to a given standard such as resolution. for black and white work, you'd have to be compltetely ignorant to think that a 35mm digicam could match the 'look' of mf film,. i couldn't give a rats arse if someone wants to count vertical and horizontal pixels, and the sharpness of each one. measure all you like. resolution has nothing to do with a great image, and besides, the only way you can print images from a digicam is digitally. </p>

<p>only when digital can match the dynamic range of film, especially b&w, should we even start to compare the two. digicam fanboys, come back and try again in a few years.</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...