D2x v. MF?

[marke_gilbert]

Ive been shooting MF for about a year, gradually dropping 35mm. I

primarily shoot portraits, and urban scenes.

<P> A friend just picked up a D2x, and I am seriously impressed-- its

a quantum leap from my only digital experience, a canon 10D.

<P>I have a fairly extensive Hasselblad system, and scan using a Nikon

LS 8000, using Nikon scan 4.

<P> I have to admit, Im seriously tempted by the speed of digital

workflow, and the absence of film costs.

<P> My question is, how will shots from the D2x stand up to 6x6 negs

scanned at 4000 DPI? Im thinking printed to 20x20, or 24x24. I realize

the output of the D2x is "only" 4,288x 2,848 vs. roughly 9,000x 9,000

for MF scans. I also realize there is more to it than just this.

<P> Anyone have real world experience producing large prints from D2x

images? How large can you go with critical sharpness and detail?

<P>Any and all thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

[vivek iyer]

"Any and all thoughts.."

 

I have a few:

 

1. No, you can not compare the performance of the normal lens 80mm f/2.8 Planar vs the yet to be available prime lens for the D2X.

 

2. You can not compare the Distagon shots on 6x6 with the ones produced by zooms on D2X.

 

3. No, you can not compare the Tele shots on D2X with the ones made with a Hassy and Tele-tessars

 

I am unsure if there is any "work flow"at all if you to correct for CA, etc on the images taken with a D2X and most lenses.

 

I have compared the images from my 6.3mpix D70 with 645 shots through Bronica and a Rollei SL66. No match. MF films are hands down winners in trems of sharpness and details. The D2X has better resolution. It still has an APS-C sized sensor.

[neal_shields]

I think that you realize that you have answered your own question.

 

However:

 

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

 

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/Scan8000.html

 

However all is not resolution and "sharpness". Most scanners don't transfer all the dynamic range and detail from the film so a lot of people are going to like the D2 enlargements just as well as scanned medium format.

 

Also keep in mind that most printers are printing to 300 dpi so having more information than that doesn't matter anyway.

 

Buy the camera the economy needs the boost.

[steve_vancosin1]

Scanned is the operative word here. Your scanner is nothing more than a cheap digital camera so even if you MF film had infinite resolution, sharpness, and dynamic range it would still suck compared to the output of the D2x.

[raymond_wong7]

I own a D2X and Hassey H1. D2X images enlarge very well and making a 20x30 print has not been an issue at all. I can print 13X19 at home anything larger has to be sent out to a pro lab. My results for 20x30 have been excellent from the D2X.

 

The reason I am still shooting my medium format has more to do with the look or the signature of the lenses. My H1 lenses have a distinct look that I like very much (this part I guess is personal and will differ from person to person).

 

Digital workflow from the D2X for me is definitely preferred over to the traditional film and scan method.

 

IMHO D2X captures just as much sharpness and detail as my H1 provided I use a lense that is capapble of such.

 

Hope this Helps.

[harvey_edelstein1]

Excuse me but, why not send the H1 image to a pro lab and have it enlarged instead of digitized, surely the H1 must be capable of getting the exposure close enough for a pro lab to adjust for perfect printing and the enlarging lens should give you almost all of the original content and look. You can always request cropping etc.

[ShunCheung]

Marke, is is possible for you to borrow your friend's D2X and run some test shots? To me, the real question is whether the D2X can get the job done for you. If so, does it really matter whether the Hasselblad is "better" or not? And if possible, you might as well check out the Canon 1Ds Mark II also.

 

Moreover, if you shoot a lot portraits, extreme sharpness and a lot of fine details are not necessarily positive characteristics.

[chris m., central florida]

Since you have the D2X and the MF gear at your disposal, why not test it? However, if you were to compare the prints side by side, I think you'd notice subtle differences. You'd need to shoot the same scene, same settings with an equivelent focal length to be able to figure out what's different. In short, I don't think it would be much of an issue of differing image quality. Rather, you would need to choose between the look of film and digital.

 

If anyone ever runs real world tests, I'd love to see examples of the prints posted - with 100% and 200% crops - and even then web presentation won't give us all the details. So far, I'm on the same bandwagon as everyone else - no real world experience outside of seeing the prints from a photographer I know fairly well who is shooting with a D2X and MF, LF gear.

 

I do not own the D2X. But I've viewed 20X20 and 20X30 prints made using files from the D2X/50mm f1.4 combination (no interpolation software used), and I think it's very comparable to prints made using a MF film camera with a sharp 80mm lens. That's good enough for me and certainly good enough for my clients so I have no need to be a knitpicker about it. The D2X will be our next camera purchase unless Nikon hits the market with a decent 8MP camera with an expanded dynamic range. My only comparison point is from D70 RAW files, which blow 35mm away and come very close to MF quality for prints up to 11X14.

 

As always, lots of speculation. I'll shut up now :-).

[raymond_wong7]

Harvey, I think you may have misunderstood me. I send anything larger than 13x19 to pro

labs cause I cannot print any larger on my Epson 2200. But my major reason for digitizing

is I do a lotta photoshop work on the print and some times changing the overall look so

much it no longer looks like the original photo. Yes I guess I could have shot the original

with all the filters and effect but I very much like working in photoshop with the original

and producing half a dozen or more versions of the same photo with different looks. Most

of my clients cannot tell between a D2X Image or a Medium Format Image.

 

For me personally I am still shooting medium format cause I like the charactheristics of the

lenses I have. I like the slighlty smoother contrast of my H1 lenses over my quite

unforgiving Nikkor lenses.

 

As a matter of fact I shoot more portraits with my H1 setup and do I lot more product

shots with my digital setup. Digital workflow is certainly more cost effective for me then

film and if my Nikkor lenses looked the same as my H1 lenses I would give up film all

together but at last nothing is perfect or there be a D200 for a third of the price of the

D2X that would be full frame : )

[harvey_edelstein1]

Your further explaination makes your motives clear. I have read many Blad users question Fuji lenses vs. their series v zeiss lenses. I am glad to hear that the H1 lenses are holding up well. Would it not be possible for a digital back on the H1 to maintain the lenses look with the digital workflow advantages? I am sure that the up front cost of a MF digital back is not a cost cutter but maybe it could eliminate a separate digital system. The D2x is also big and heavy I am not sure it's more compact than the H1.

[ilkka_nissila]

But with lenses (esp. tele) the D2X would be much more compact.

[raymond_wong7]

Harvey, you hit the nail right on the head....I am moving towards a full digital outfit and would very much love to have a H1D or add the Imacon back to my H1. At present the cost is still a constraint I don't shoot enough weddings presently to warrant the purchase but hopefully that will all change in the near future. As for using one system I'm not sure that will ever happen I have Nikkor glass as long as 600mm and I don't see myself toting my H1 with their longest lense being a 300mm (180mm in 35mm equivalent) on a upcomming trip to Africa next year. So it comes down to which system for what job, and that kinda brings us back to this whole forum topic. Tools for the job...we all have to decide what works best for us and right now its the two systems for me. Since we are on the topic of systems and which for what I'll finish off with the following photo attachement just to add more confusion..." To XPAN or Not XPAN that is the Question" : ))<div></div>

[aaron l]

Don't forget the cost of a D2X system. $5,000 camera, $2,500 in lenses at least, $500 CF cards + card reader, $100 Nikon Capture, $2,500 new computer/laptop + memory as your current computer will likely choke on the D2X files....let's see, what else? No recuring film costs but entry cost is brutal.

 

Nikon's scanner can't hold a candle to what you can get out of a drum scan and a Chromira or some other fancy printing machine.

 

I like the instant gratification, feedback, in the field error adjustment and ability to hold tons of images. Then again, what you shoot may require a more contemplative approach. If I want to go all out, then my Mamiya RZ or 4x5 come out to play. They haven't in a while, though...

[ilkka_nissila]

Aaron, Marke already has Nikon lenses so no need to upgrade them, except adding maybe a new wide angle such as the 14 or the 12-24. So that would be about $1000 cost for the lenses.

 

The D2X files may be big but if Marke routinely scans medium format at 4000 ppi, the files from that are much much bigger, and so he's likely to have the computer horsepower to more than match what is needed for a D2X. I'm going to buy one even though I have an X31 laptop with only 768 MB RAM. Having a film scanning background should make Nikon Capture seem blazingly fast in comparison. (That's how I feel about it.)

[harvey_edelstein1]

Raymond, the H1 has a lens that covers 89 degrees diagonal. The Xpan + 30mm f5.6 lens is better if you prefer the pano look. Xpan would be at least another $5k for the equivalent of an 19mm on a 35mm format. To cover the same scene on the D2x would mean a $1000 dollars for a 12-24 F4.0 zoom. On the HI I would spend $3000 for the 35mm F3.5 which covers 89 degrees and crop for the pano look.

[marke_gilbert]

Ilkka,

<P>Youre right, I routinely scan at 4000dpi, and use files around 150 to 250 megabytes. I run with 2GB of ram, and it is a bit slow, but certainly usable.

[patricks]

for me the main issue is in the workflow as well as handling/interface. a DSRL would allow you to shoot LOTS more images, bracket when needed, and move around much more feely.

 

a SLR MF like a hasselblad, while able to produce stunning negs/slides, esp. in mono, forces you to work in a different manner.

 

unless you get paid plenty for each session and you shoot beaucoup film, I don't see the immediate ROI in switching out your Hasselblad gear for a Nikon DSLR. The main points again will be workflow, end-to-end control and handling/shooting style.

[raymond_wong7]

Hey Harvey... I was just throwing the XPan into the mix I actually already have one and the Pic I posted is from my Xpan of my 3 children : ) But I gotta say since my D2X I have shot very little with the XPAN or the H1. Again its all preference and what works.

[philippartridge]

<blockquote>Scanned is the operative word here. Your scanner is nothing more than a cheap digital camera so even if you MF film had infinite resolution, sharpness, and dynamic range it would still suck compared to the output of the D2x.</blockquote>

<p>No, that is grossly incorrect and misleading. 'Scanners' come in several categories, from high end PMT drum scanners to dinky toys like the one the image above appears to have originated from, though skill levels clearly come into it. It is now in vogue for digi-guys to use language like 'blows away 35mm' and similar without ever providing scan information. And as if a tiny 72dpi image on a low res monitor gives one any idea...sheesh. Drum scanners are capable of resolving grain on the finest grained chrome film, not that grain is very apparent in larger format film. So drums can give you digitised images that are faithful to what you see on a light table, re D-range, res, shadow detail, the lot.</p>

<p> Now, if you use a flatbed to scan a 35mm slide, any 35mm based digicam will look even better - the effect is like smearing vaseline over your digicam's lens, and you would not do that, would you?</p>

<p>A high res 6x6 drum scan (the professional way to do it) makes large digicam sourced prints, say 20x20, look well, less than wonderful by comparison, on the criterion of detail rendition. I won't dwell on the marvellous micro contrast of the Zeiss MF lenses, and the depth and impact of MF film, or the smooth, 'plastic' look produced by interpolation of digicam images - a 20x20 print will require some severe cropping of a 35mm aspect ratio image, you will be effectively be using 142dpi on the short side (2848 pixels) by my calcs. Don't get too close to prints of using this resolution unless you fancy pixelation or what may be called digi-mush...readers may find this comment by <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00B1IJ">Troy Ammons</a> useful in this context:</p>

 

<blockquote>I recently compared a digital 6mp camera to scanned 35mm film and up to 8x10 - 12x18 the digital print had more snap, but beyond that film beat it, and beat it, and kept on beating it as I went up. Digital is clean but it can carry only so much detail, plus you are interpolating to death. If you shoot 4x5 you know how much detail it carries, a ton as long as the film is flat. As far as the 1ds equals MF, its close, but I still think 690 is way ahead. In my last test run I figured clean 35mm film was worth about 7-9 mp, so you can interpolate that up. Techpan would be more. Maybe about 12-18 mp, The 1dsmkII should be almost a dead match for sharp drumscanned 645. 690 would be double that. A super sharp 690 photo drumscanned at 3000 dpi would be 6,750 x 10,000 or 67 mp.</blockquote>

<p>To the poster of the question, try a good sharpener like Photokit or Focalblade, get a Lightjet or Chromira print from a good tripod-shot chrome scanned on your 8000 scanner (BTW, a fine scanner), then do a comparison with a shop's best digital print off <i>any</i> current 35mm based digital camera, and see for yourself..it sure beats wading through the stuff posted in this thread. Of course subject matter is critical - if you only shoot portraits or weddings, anything will do, just don't try high magnification enlargements of anything in nature.. </p>

[alex_hosking]

Sharpening Images a lot just makes them look crappy if you ask me, especially close up, I see it on pro prints from a local studio, these days they use Digital SLRs they then sharpen the image up and then enlarge the image to about A3, looks alright from a distance, but they look rubish close up if you ask me, especially since they use and inkjet rather than a lightjet printer, I just don't understand the opsetion with inkjet printers, when lab prints from lightjet printers look so much better! Anyway at A3 its not a patch on a 6x7 shot thats been drum scanned, they have a cheak to be asking the price they are asking if you ask me (ﾣ600).