Canon 20D pic quality similar to film 645 ?

[photo_color]

I know this subject has been touched on before, but as more people

get experience perhaps it may be more sure of just how things

compare. I've read, such as on the Luminous Landscape of how the

full-sensor 16mp (?) Canon camera not only outdoes 645, but

apparently 6x7 as well, at least up to certain print sizes (maybe

13x19 ?).

 

The Canon 20D has half the megapixles and a smaller sensor than the

top of the line Canon, so I would expect at most it would do the

same as 645 film quality, at least to prints 13x19. Although,

perhaps it won't really do as well as a 13x19 analog/optical print

made from 35mm Reala, or Provia 100F? But not having tried a

comparison myself, and not knowing what 'equivalent' or 'better

than' means for others (given others backgrounds and preferences for

lack of grain, subtle tonalities, bold colors, sharpness, etc.), I

really don't have a good idea of what I would see, if I could do a

real comparison (which would be very costly in terms of time and

money for me to go rent or buy both a 645 film camera and the Canon

20D, and have comparison high quality prints made).

 

So, has anyone had actual experience with film 645, or 6x7, and the

Canon 20D ? What are your findings in the comparison ?

 

Thank you!

Dan

[chiswick_john]

With certain subject matter that does not contain fine textured detail a 20D may compete with medium format - smooth tones look great without film grain. However anything with fine textured detail like landscapes with foliage and the 20D just turns it to mush compared to bigger film. Even the 1Ds2 struggles with fine detail like this and from my observations it seems Canon introduces some software smoothing even at the RAW stage to eliminate possible moire and interference artefacts. My own tests of my 20D vs 35mm film showed that the very best slide film with the very best optics and technique can slightly out resolve the 20D but it is slight and in every other area like lack of grain , dynamic range, ease of use, speed of results, high ISO capability etc etc the 20D is significantly better. The 20D is a worthy replacement for 35mm film but serious competitor for med format film it is certainly not.

[gary_woodard]

20d not in the same league as 6x7 or 645 scanned film. Im aftraid you have to

get into canons 8000.00 dollar dslr,

[tom_burke3]

Also the lens makes a difference. The Luminous Landscape people have got some very

very good lenses which they are using on their 20D, eg a number of 'L' zooms, good

primes, or the newer, better-quality EF-S zooms. With these lenses, and excellent

technique, they achieve excellent results. If, on the other hand, you restrict yourself to the

poorer-quality kit lens, the 18-55mm, then you are much less likely to achieve MF quality.

 

One last question: how often will you mount your camera on a tripod? That can be another

key determinant of quality.

[chiswick_john]

The difference between the 18-55 and Canon's top glass is tiny when compared to the difference between medium format film (well scanned or printed) and the 20D.

[beauh44]

I'd have to agree with John. I have a 10D, 20D, 1Ds Mark II and a Hasselblad (6X6). This is entirely subjective and my own opinion, so take it with a grain of salt. For *portraits* that won't get printed larger than somewhere around 11"X17", I'd say yes, a 20D and MF will be pretty darn close. Portraits just don't require super-fine detail to be effective. On the other hand, if you're a landscape photographer, it won't be close - the MF film camera will win every time when examining detail. Now the 1Ds Mark II on the other hand, at 16.7 megapixels, well I do believe it can give MF a run for its money no matter what the subject. Again, just my .02 cent's worth. Good luck!

[troyammons]

Not quite. Aside from the digital benifits like a clean high iso and no grain its more equal to drumscanned clean 24x35mm film like E100G. I did some pretty extensive testing a while back and my conclusion was that a square inch of film is equal to about 5-6 bayer digital megapixels, but that was just my opinion, and it has to be a clean scanning slide film. Looking at it like that 645 is worth about 18-20 mp, depending, but then again film has grain and digital has a higher mtf.

 

Most color negative film is under that. Maybe about 4-5 for the good stuff. iso 800 is even less. Its grainier. Techpan is higher. I have never really broken down techpan into a per inch equiv. but a 35mm shot seems to be about equal to 12-14 mp.

 

Also I have drum scanned E100G at different rez settings and looked very closely at edges etc, and drum scanned at 2000 dpi it is almost identical to a bayer digital file for edge sharpness etc. It is fairly quite and generally has a 2 pixel edge.

 

Looking at it like that a 645 shot would be around 16 mp, but I do see more detail going up to 3000 dpi on a super sharp camera like a mamiya 7.

 

A 6x7 2000 dpi E100G scan would be worth about 25mp, but that is a different format.

 

A 6x9 (same format as 645 and 35mm) 2000 dpi E100G scan would be worth about 30mp.

[chiswick_john]

I've scanned 6x6 at 4000dpi on my Nikon 9000 to test it against my Sinar M 22mp back - the sinar was a clear winner in every way. The Sinar doesn't have an AA filter like the Canon DSLR's so it spanks it when it comes to resolving fine irregular detail like grass and foliage.

[mark u]

An important part of the comparison is to choose the angle of view you are interested in. The problem is that shorter focal length lenses are heavily compromised designs by comparsion with normal and telephoto lenses on a 1.6 crop Canon. Even full frame 1Ds (mk I or II) shooters prefer to use Zeiss glass for wider angle landscape work. You can get a clear idea of the impact by looking at Canon's official sample images for the 20D here:

 

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos20d/html/eos20d_sample_2e.html

 

Even though the Lanscape 5 image is shot with the 24-70L lens (not really particularly wide on a 1.6 crop), there is a lot of mush in the foliage and grass detail.

 

Furthermore, as you mentioned, preferences are subjective, and you haven't explained what your subjective preferences are. Some consider the grain free look of Canon images to be superior to anything you can get from film, while others consider that it gives an unrealistic plasticky appearance. Others complain that you just can't quite emulate the look of Velvia RVP digitally. To some degree these preferences are influenced by subject matter choices.

 

You should realise that some of Michael Reichmann's views at Luminous Landscape are considered controversial, rather than being widely supported and uncontentious. I think that few landscape photographers would agree with his conclusions about the 1Ds Mk II. On the other hand, wedding and portrait photographers probably consider a 20D an adequate backup to a 1D Mk II (although the latter has the advantage of larger pixels and a lesser crop factor) whichmight be their weapon of choice. This group is to some degree influenced by the undoubted cost savings that digital shooting provides over MF film for high volume work, which encourages them to promote the cheaper production method - especially since the ratio of large prints sold to images taken is very low, and few customers are prepared to pay the cost premium for film for the sake of a quality difference they don't appreciate. Digital has also allowed a different approach to wedding photography - individual or small group portraits of all the guests are now economic to shoot, whereas in former days the large group shot of all the guests was de rigeur. 8MP and a wide angle lense struggles to resolve such a shot into recognisable faces (which will typically be scrutinised much more closely than a portrait of the bride and groom). MF (especially finer grain B&W) would make a much better job of that task.

 

For long range telephoto work, the advantage of the high density of pixels in a 20D sensor and the crop factor can actually mean that e.g. a distant bird can be imaged over more pixels without resorting to image degrading TCs, and so the camera can even have an advantage over a 1D or 1Ds Mk II. Of course, for this kind of shooting, there are few if any MF lenses that exist - besides, who would want to tote such a lens in the wild?

[photo_color]

Wow - what great informative thought-provoking responses. Thank you, everyone!!

 

I'm coming back to 35mm/medium-format or/and digital from large format. I'm an amateur, interested in the usual variety of things, but an emphasis on landscape and people-included travel shots. The type of quality I'd ideally like is not affordable for me in digital yet(or perhaps in my lifetime..), but with large format I just couldn't respond fast enough to my changes in subject framing/changes in light, and I got fed up with carting all the film holders (8x10) or even contending with quickloads for 4x5. Most of what I plan on doing, if digital esp., could end up on HD DVDs some day in the near future, but I do want to be able to print a few selected items at maybe 13x19 to 20x30, with 'very high quality'- nose to the print. I used to have a Mamiya 7 and Fuji 6x9 rangefinder (I actually prefer the 6x9 aspect ratio). I could take some type of digital camera on trips for the DVD end purpose, and an MF film camera for the few shots that I might want to blow up. But I was hoping that with all this 'buzz' about digital, I could accomplish both w/o going to MF with 22MP back (which I cannot afford, and seems cumbersone anyway).

[troyammons]

Yep its a tough call and I know how you feel. Personally i would rather shoot high end digital or large format and that is it, but what I can afford digital wise does not have enough pixels for me and LF is too slow a lot of times. I too have owned the M7 (nice camera) and now own a Pentax 67, but by the time you buy all those M7 lenses you could buy a used 1ds. I like the P67, but everytime I pick it up, I feel like I should be shooting 4x5.

 

I think for me, like you, my ultimate setup would be a 1ds mkII or a mf back and my 4x5 or even 8x10 film camera.

 

Maybe in another 10 years MF backs will come down. After looking at those 4x5 slides its hard for me to look at MF.

[scott_eaton]

<I> However anything with fine textured detail like landscapes with foliage and the 20D just turns it to mush compared to bigger film</i><P>Good point - good discussion (so far). John's comment about Canon's stupid AA filter should also be well noted.<P>In a well executed 8x10 portrait I can't tell my Canon 10D from my RB67 loaded with portrait print film. When it comes to properly scanned trannies and detail orientated subject matter like landscapes, the larger film balks at the small dSLR sensors.

[chiswick_john]

The samples I've seen from the Nikon D2X would indicate that it has a much less aggressive AA filter and software and shows an obviously improved rendering of these details when compared to the 1Ds2 - look at the samples on DPreveiw where bits of foliage are presesnt. The trade off is that it has more obvious artefacts with moire on regular fine paterns - perhaps the D2X could be the prefered tool for landscape?

[vivek iyer]

"..perhaps the D2X could be the prefered tool for landscape?"

 

And what kind of lenses (with minimal CA and such annoying factors) are there to make use of this as a "preferred tool"for landscape? Can the D2X sensor be shifted or tilted?

[troyammons]

"..perhaps the D2X could be the prefered tool for landscape?"

And what kind of lenses (with minimal CA and such annoying factors) are there to make use of this as a "preferred tool"for landscape? Can the D2X sensor be shifted or tilted?

 

The perfect tool for landscape photography IMO is still the 4x5 LF camera.

 

As far as lenses, Nikon ED lenses are some of the best.

 

The sensor can not be shifted or tilted, but I believe there are some Nikon tilt/shift lenses, but it still can not compare to a 4x5 camera. Personally I just like film landscapes better than digital landscapes. Also digital B+W is just not up to snuff.

 

On the flip side, if you go nuts like I did and buy a good used LF camera, 3 lenses, film processor, and a drum scanner, you could have probably bought a 1ds or a d2x but I get enjoyment out of fiddling with and processing film.

 

I like digital too though, but I just dont use it much for landscapes anymore except maybe for scouting or prelim shots.

[vivek iyer]

Troy, A recent Biogon 75mm f/4.5 acquisition is in that direction. I have more than 3 excellent lenses for 4x5. Looking for a decent camera to replace the bulky 5x7 I have.

[troyammons]

I have a bulky camera but its nice. I have a Sinar. Heavy to hike with though.

 

The most popular folder for now seems to be a Shen hao and they are light.

 

The Toho rail camera is a pretty amazing little rail camera, but no graflok back and it is a little limited, but the small one with a little trimming comes in under 3#. I like this camera, but i cant see giving up my Sinar for it and it is not cheap.

 

I am working on a stripped down version of a Sinar with just basic movements for hiking.

 

I am also working on a handheld Sinar hack with a Helical focus mount. Here is what it looks like so far.<div></div>

[vivek iyer]

The Sinar hack looks nice. Yes, Shen ho are light and versatile. I saw a Sylvestri set in my neighborhood shop. It is heavy but compact. A real beauty. A whole lot more money than I can afford to spend at the moment :(