645 Film vs. 8 MP DSLRs? Oh no, not another one!

[photom]

I really enjoy my RZII 6X7, but, as you probably know it is not much

of a casual walking around camera. I was thinking about adding a

lower priced 645E and a couple of lenses. I wonder though if the

newer Canon 8 MP DSLRs will provide the same, if not better final

output/resolution, and ability to print up to 20 in. (small

dimension). If these can be had at $1,500+lenses, it is even less

expensive when the scanning time, film and dev. costs are added. I

have already committed to a good film scanner. I do not really want

to buy both and test for myself because of the cost. My gut tells me

the digital route might win out. Any opinions on this specific

comparison? Thanks. (sorry for posting another film vs. digital

question)

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>I wonder though if the newer Canon 8 MP DSLRs will provide the same, if not better

final output/resolution, and ability to print up to 20 in. (small dimension).</I> <P>Well if

you alre talking about the $4500 Canon EOS 1d mark II, maybe. Out of the

significantly smaller sensor used in the recently announced mid market EOS 20D, that is

very doubtful and the tests so far say "no."<P>

With cameras currently on the market (as of today) you need to go to a 12 mp or higher

mp count to get that level of quality. <P>

 

The other way to look at this is that to get a high resolution print at 20" x 24' from 6x4.5

film you'll also need a very high quality scan from a high end dedicated film scanner

(Nikon 9000, Imacon, drum scanner or one of the very high end commercial flatbed

scanners).

[photom]

Elis, thanks for the straight forward answer. Coming from you, I will have to go along with it. I am in no rush to go full blown digital - I am just an amateur. My plan is to make sure I learn the basics first, the old-fashioned way. Since I scan everything (recently purchased Nikon 9000), I am still learning all of the digital angles for editing, color managment, printing, etc. Just curious, what percentage of digital vs. film shoots do you do these days? What type of film equipment do you use? Enjoyed the interview you had with photo.net.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Virtually everything I shoot now is shot on digital unless it is needs to be shot on 4x5 or

6x17cm and then I use film, or if a client requests film. This has been true since about

September 2001. I am still Nikon based but rent or use Canon gear regularly; i also use an

Arca-Swiss 4x5 view camera. I've switched from Balcar to Profoto lighting and from

Minolta to a Sekonic L-558 meter.

 

I miss the end product of shooting film; seeing and handling slides and transparencies ,

and I miss going to talk to the guys at the labs, and I don't like having to go through a

computer to do everything but otherwise I don't miss film at all.

 

I like theat interview too, but it is dated. I'm ready to do a new one.

[jack paradise]

"I wonder though if the newer Canon 8 MP DSLRs will provide the same, if not better final output/resolution, and ability to print up to 20 in. (small dimension)."

 

Well, not quite. Here an ad for the Canon EOS 20D SLR camera.

 

"Wedding/Portrait Photography --- The Canon designed and manufactured CMOS sensor has a maximum resolution of 3504 x 2336 pixels, which is sufficient for very large prints (up to 16 x 24 inches) with fine detail."

 

Since the Canon 20D has the same size CMOS Sensor as the Canon 10D, I fail to see how this camera could produce larger size images. In fact, the pixels on the 20D were made smaller to accomodate 8mp compared to the 6mp of the Canon 10D!

[jimvanson]

I've just started using the Epson 4870 scanner with my 645 negs. The scans are hands down better then a 6mp camera I've shot with BUT what you gotta factor in is time -- scanning negs is really time consuming.<P>Yes you can scan 6 frames at once but then the file is huge. So the time you save scanning is more then equaled by the time your machine sits grinding away as you separate the frames.<P>And so where does my buck go? Time or not to the 645.

[neal_shields]

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2002/swgitfield1.htm

 

Let's see if 35mm is equivalent to 16 meg is medium format equivalent to 8 meg. Works for me.

 

Note: This is objective test data, opinions may and should vary.

[lee_shively]

"I miss the end product of shooting film; seeing and handling slides and transparencies , and I miss going to talk to the guys at the labs, and I don't like having to go through a computer to do everything but otherwise I don't miss film at all."

 

Ellis. Otherwise?

[brooks short]

I'm with Ellis on this one. I've been shooting commercial advertising photography for over 20 years with most of that work being done on 4x5 chromes.

 

In 2002 I went digital with a Kodak ProBack 16mp chip. Until the Kodak Back was available the only digital solution was a 6mp DSLR or 6mp MF digital back and the file sizes/resolution was just not enough for a full-page 8.5x11" at 300 dpi.

 

Now 90% or more of my work is digital with either the ProBack or the Kodak SLR14N. I don't miss film at all. And I like the control over my images that digital capture provides.

 

I do not think the 8mp DSLRs will have the same quality of medium format film that the ProBack or SLR14 has. Not only because of the lower resolution of an 8mp chip but also because of the small sensor and pixel size in these smaller chips.

 

The cost of these higher-end digital cameras and backs is pretty high for strictly amateur use so scanning film might be a better option if you are having profesional hi-res scans done of your film.

 

I have found that flatbed scanners which cost around $400-$500 do a pretty good job scanning 4x5 and larger film but only a mediocre job on smaller formats. If you're going to a large 20"x ??" print then a good quality drum scan from a company like West Coast Imaging would be an excellent choice.

[william_yu]

I second the opinions of Ellis and other experts here, even though myself is not doing it as a pro. I have both the Contax 645 and Sony 8 mp digi camera. The 8 mp is good to 11x14 by my standard, while 645 film with my Minolta Multi Pro scanner can do 20x26 if I want to.

[derek_stanton2]

Tom,

If you cannot rent or borrow a DSLR, perhaps you could download the sample images, and

print them.

 

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos20d/eos20d_sample-e.html

 

Personally, my pictures with a D60 a few years ago were always 'sharper' than anything i've

done with 35mm or any of many MF cameras i've owned. But, i don't/haven't printed on a

large scale. You should be aware that digitally captured images scale differently than film

scans, and the stated resolutions don't really reflect what you can do with a DSLR file.

 

Digital compared to Film debates usually involve the finest-grained color transparency

films. But, as i never shoot film with ISOs like Velvia (50/100), it's more relevant for me to

compare digital at 200 / 400 / 800 to the equivalent film emulsions. That's why i tend to

be more impressed by digital files than some others who either shoot or test with tripods,

and in more slow/stable shooting situations.

 

All that said, although i am interested in the new hi-res Canons, and am flirting with the

idea of getting a 20D, i really still prefer the look of film. There are, though, a number of

photographers using digital with great results, although for the kind of shooting i'd do, i

would be required to do a LOT of image processing/alteration. So, for the moment, i'll

stick with the Pentax67, TLR, and R8. Maybe next year, though?

 

What do you shoot, Tom? You speak of a "walking around camera." Do you really expect to

require 20"+ prints from "casual" photo situations? Those you don't really plan?

[jonathan_brewer1]

Brooks, I sent you something, let me know if it bounced/you got it.

[brooks short]

Jonathon,

 

I did receive your email and that's a good idea for a lighting theme. Unfortunately your email is on the ccomputer at work and I'm at home now and I don't have your address here. Send me your email address and I'll get back to you.

[jonathan_brewer1]

Brooks, I don't want to lay it out here, but the address you have listed is bouncing because first word is lifestories NOT lifestorie, the rest of the address is correct, that's why your e-mails have been bouncing.

[daniel_taylor]

You want a "walk around" (i.e. hand held) camera for 20x24" prints, correct? At that size enlargement your hand holding ability vs. the shutter speed for a given photo, as well as focus accuracy in quick shooting situations, will prove far more limiting than the difference between 645 film and a 20D's sensor.

You already have 6x7, and you're going to drag that out with a tripod, remote release, and mirror lockup for 24" prints that are critical, right? If I'm understanding your current equipment and needs correctly, get the 20D. It is far better suited for "walk around" rapid shooting situations and it can produce good 16x20 and 20x24 prints.

 

And when you need *great* prints at those sizes, drag out your 6x7 with all the related equipment.

 

The digital doesn't win out because of superior image quality at such large print sizes vs. 645 (though it's closer than most would care to admit), it wins out because you have 6x7 and need a different kind of camera for a different purpose.

[lee_frost]

MF neg. film + good old fashioned enlarger [cheap second-hand now]+ good paper = excellent alternative to digital or ink-jet for high quality color prints of any size.

 

Nothing cheap [or labor saving] about this new technology being served up.

 

Perhaps we are getting conned by fashion and the retailers/new Tec. print services etc. ?

[supapong_chan]

Hi everyone,

 

I am actually not new to this forum, for I have been reading thousands of Q&A's in this forum this is my first correspondence. Tom, I am also an amateur using everything from APS SLR, 35 mm SLR, 645 MF SLR 6x6 SLR and several digital cam from 2 to 6 MP SLR. I only satisfy by the output from MF SLR. Until recently when I visited a small photogear shop operated by a "pro" and there I saw a 20x30 in. pic hanging on a wall. It was a fahion pic. The owner (the pro) said he took that photo using his Canon 300D with 50/1.8 Mk II at f/8 with a mono head and a freshnel len creating a full length photo of a model with a vignette surrounding her. And he had the pic print from a lab in TIFF mode. Guys I was shocked. It was so sharp you can even take a close look (1 foot) and see no grain and can perceive very beautiful skin tone. The best largest pic I can make using my MF was never bigger than 16x20. With my D60 with the same 50/1.8 Mk II lens I never have any print larger than A4 from my Epson 830 which begin to deteriorate if I printed from 6MP JPEG file, but it was much better if I print using TIFF mode converted from RAW file.

I have to rethink about blowing up pictures from my 6MP DSLR. But I swear I'll never stop taking picture with the MF cameras I owned.

Just wanted to tell everyone 'bout what I have seen.

[john_brewton]

Tom, I seem to be facing the same problem. Have investigated everything related to MF and larger mp digital I can get my hands on. I suppose one of the most disturbing things is all the MF gear on eBay being sold because the owner is "going digital". I will probably wait for the digital thing to settle down - almost every test of a digital indicates that something is lacking in the specifications of that particular model. Having owned my share of digital and not being too impressed compared with what I can produce with my Leicas, I will probably purchase another (gulp!) DSLR in the future. I suppose the bottom line is that the DSLR new and MF used w/an extra lens would cost around the same amount of initial outlay, but when you add a better flatbed scanner and larger Epsom printer into the mix for MF, well that's too big a bite into the old wallet.

[k._rivkin]

A couple of weeks ago I asked a similar question.

 

The problem, like with this thread, that most of the people give advices based on educated guess rather then knowledge.

 

So I've read the thread and still have no idea how 645 will really stack up against MF, cause specific comparison is still not available.

[kelly_flanigan1]

There is more than sharpness; pixels; and the endless comparisons of film versus digital confusion by the public.<BR><BR> Sometimes both will yield a sent shot for an XX by YY size print.<BR><BR> With a 6x7cm film camera the DOF will be alot less; usually; than a high end digital P&S or DSLR; with a smaller aperature being normallly used.<BR><BR> The digital shots we get to print seem to have this "all in focus look"; which is great for a court case crime scene poster; but poor sometimes for a product shot or portrait.<BR><BR> I am afraid the public is so engrossed with these film versus digital discussions; that basic photography stuff is being lost; ie lighting; or how to isolate a subject thru selective focus. <BR><BR>Here I use film since the 1950's; and digital for over a decade; and view discussions like this as always interesting. I got a 4x5 digital scan back many years ago; because the local lab stopped developing it; plus the workflow is quicker for shooting artwork. <BR><BR>In repairing optical items; cars; cameras; a small 1.3 megapixel P&S is often used; since the DOF is huge; and one can document "the operation" with ease. Here I want the "all in focus look". Very few if any of this is printed; some goes to the web; others are just saved in folders; for future sticky repairs. Sometimes one of these images are worth alot; if one didnt document how a dinky cam or spring goes back!<BR><BR>Questions like this are interesting too; because for court case posters; and general stuff for the public is almost never as good as a to 645 Film or 8 MP DSLR. Once we had a chap "Mr Zeiss" supply us some aerial tranys shot with a Hasselblad; of the crash scene area. He must have used too long a shutter speed; maybe to get the lens at the sharper aperture? :) The scans were poor; due to photographer error of not understanding aerial photography and ground/shutter speeds. (Mr Zeiss; hates digital)..........The other side of the lawsuit supplied tack sharp 4x6" prints; from a 35mm camera; for their aerial shots. The 27x40" posters were any order of magnitude better looking than the blured Hasselbald 27x40 posters; from direct trany scans. Here; the blured image distroyed an advantage to the larger film size.<BR><BR>Tom; you should go to a 8 MP DSLR dealer; and get an image to print; and see the results yourself. Also maybe somebody here could send you a CD of one of their images to print.

[lee_frost]

I ventured into Digital and wasn't impressed with any aspect of it.

 

I think film vs. digital is an Apples and Oranges thing. It just depends on usage. As an example, for press photography Digital is way ahead and the cost issue isn't an issue at all as the [expensive] Camera bodies can be dumped every couple of years to take advantage of the rapid technology.

 

Print quality for most work is becoming a non-issue too, but cost and obsolescence is a very big issue for armature/semi-pro use. Especially MF.

What's new now will be yesterday's dog in a couple of years and we will want the new Tec. too.

 

I now use a film Cameras/Darkroom exclusively, but I am not a Pro., so I can see an attraction re: digital work-flow, but for non-pro use I see massive cost issues as everything [camera, printer, software, scanner] is electronic and has a very poor time/value obsolescence built in just like computer gear and any other electronics.

 

Six months after I bought my Digital Camera [Canon] it was selling at retailers for $500 less than I paid for it and it was still a current model. Second-hand value....peanuts.

 

Digital cameras that where worth up $8k not many years ago have been quickly outdated and are close to worthless if you want to upgrade.

 

Everything on digital cameras [or digital anything] gets upgraded very rapidly, not just a few new features here and there. This will continue well into the future.

 

There are also long term storage problems and reading problems that might be an issue in the future [the floppy reader is almost gone]. Future PC port/socket/platform compatibility with old technology is another issue if cost is to be taken into consideration.

 

Costs should include some thoughts and questions such as: What will this Camera, printer, software, scanner etc. be worth in 5yrs.?

Will I still be happy using it when the new stuff in even a couple of years, will make it look like it belongs in an Ark ?

 

Film is alive and well, and will not disappear. Being 'panicked' into dumping well thought out [over many, many years] film cameras might not be so bright. Taking advantage of the current low prices, might very well be. I can see a turn around in film gear prices when the real cost of digital strikes home in the armature market.

 

What is 'bright', is the flashing lights of the massive 'you need it now' selling blitz of the Digital onslaught.

 

If money is no object and you can keep up, go for it. You wont take better pictures though.

[joseph_albert]

I think a couple of folks above hit the nail on the head. it

really doesn't matter which is better-- when you need huge enlargements, you already have a fine camera for that purpose.

 

So often photographers obsess on resolution and enlargeability,

instead of what type of camera is best for the type of photography

being done.

 

My strategy is that I've sold the bulk of my 35mm gear, keeping

two lenses that I'll use with some digital body, and a Nikon FG that

I'll sell when I acquire a digital body. I'm also hanging onto

a 3-lens mamiya TLR outfit for shooting film-- this is a system I

can keep for posterity as a film system without tying up alot of

$ in it, but still produce top notch results.

 

The main uncertainty I see is how the issue of different sensor

sizes will shake out. I have believed for 5-6 years that ultimately,

medium format and even large format quality will be produced with

24x36 ie 35mm format sensors using optics designed for 35mm.

Apparently, that day is already here, or very close. I think the

2/3 size sensors will be an amateur format and used professionally

for situations where convenience of equipment is more important than

ultimate quality. But until the dust settles on this one, I'm

avoiding purchase of any expensive lenses that only cover the smaller,

2/3 size sensors (like the nikon DX lenses). You can always use a

lens with 35mm coverage with a smaller sensor but not the other

way around. Beyond this restriction, I don't really sweat the

future of film either way. I plan to continue shooting it for

artistic purposes, and I like to have family pics archived on

slides (currently Astia).

 

What would you prefer for archiving an image for, say 50 years?

do you think CD's and DVD's will still be readable then?

 

Cheers,

 

Joseph Albert

[sfe]

I have been a Nikon D-100 user for about a year now and have found that the 35mm format may be the digitial format of choise. The current 6 meg chip will go to 14 meg at full size (24 by 36 mm). If the three layer chips works out, we will have about a 128 megapixel file (128 pix/mm) and give you about a 36 by 42 inch picture at 300 dpi. The increase in output with smaller pixels, three layer technology and full 35 mm size chip, we will have about 212 megapixels and be able to produce a 40 by 60 inch picture at 300 dpi. This is within the relm of current technology.

 

So, as I see things a 35 mm full frame digital will give a quality large formant print equal to or better that medium format film in not to distant future.

 

With the cost of the larger chip to make a medium format digital at 6 cm by 4.5 cm, 6 cm or 7 cm medium format digitals will be out of the price range of most users. I'm betting on the 35 mm format will win the day for most of us.

[gary_yeowell]

Steve, what 3 layer chip? Tom, I know you were asking about 8 MP DSLR's but I have spent the last 2 weeks having demo's on three 22MP 645 ish backs from Imacon, Phase one and Leaf for use on either my Hasselblad or Contax 645. Each dealer allowed me the freedom to shoot in a real shooting environment which for me means outside with all manner of lighting conditions as I primarily shoot travel. The last dealer produced some A2 prints from an Epson 9600 (I think) printer from a disk of images of around 60MB per image from each back. Without going into the subtle differences between each model, which is evident, I have come away with some concrete conclusions and at this point none of the dealers will be getting my business. Before I discuss my findings I would like to say that at the moment the stock agency I work for ask for a 48mb file as a minimum submission requirement, be it digitally captured or scanned film, they will also take film which they drum scan in house, the latter is what I submit, but have followed with interest the advances of the new breed of untethered /semi untetherd backs. My findings with the backs were pretty much the same from model to model, each having pros and cons in use and output but essentially giving very similar performance.

All the backs failed to reproduce brightly lit diagonal subjects especially backlit without stairstepping. All failed to reproduce foliage (especially backlit) with any realism, instead looking like blocks of colour with peculiar fringing around edges of leaves and highlight detail was easily lost, shadow detail also showed more noise than expected. The overall feel of the prints are very sterile, etched and sharp with incredible detail but lacking realism, instead looking like cardboard cutouts of life. I expected somewhat more at ?20k and know that my Hasselblad with some 160 Portra would produce a far more satisfying result (I know as I did some at the same time) let alone what my Mamiya 7 could do. Lastly I know some will say that for publication everthing gets digitised but even film scanned still looks like film. Before I get flamed for my comments, histograms were observed and settings were optimised.

[john_brewton]

Gary, thank you for your insights. They are revealing and helpful to those of us who still haven't made up our minds. I'll probably be a fence sitter on this for some time - unless the deal of the century in a really good MF setup comes along for less than a grand.