Any Digital LF users out there

[jhall]

if so your thoughts on this debate... please

 

http://www.photocamel.com/index.php/topic,726.msg5953.html#msg5953

 

and

 

http://www.photocamel.com/index.php/topic,726.msg5953.html#msg5953

[mikem77]

Ugh. I can see the famed SD10 chromatic aberation, in the example posted on that thread, from a mile away!

[moore_photography]

The people arguing against J Wind are complete idiots. Those are my thoughts. There is no way in hell ANY dslr can stand up with LF digital.

[moore_photography]

Mike, I don't know how you can make such an expert observation. Nowhere do they tell us what camera was used to take the picture of the person holding the print--it could have been taken with a cellphone camera for all we can tell and the aberrations may therefore be inherent to the 2nd generation copy of the print and not to the actual print itself.

[Brian_Edwards]

I agree on the CAs...they seem to be everywhere the bright white meets anything (even remotely) darker than bright white.

[jhall]

Well, I have my own thoughts on DSLR's and thier quality. I quite familiar with 1Ds Mark 11

and it doesn't stand up to the Sinar backs... I find it really hard to believe that a Sigma

could. That dude is claiming it;s better... even printed at 44in (w or L)

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here I have been using an old "obsolete" 35 megapixel 4x5 scan back for many years. For static objects it gives acceptable results. I'm not sure what real "debate" there is. Digital backs have been around for almost a decade now for 4x5 work. This is like getting excited about a 1995 car. The 4x5 camera allows swings and tilts; good for commercial product work. Since the actual effective pixel size is large; one gets little noise and godd results with plain Jane lenses that are decades old.Scan backs are slow; minutes long exposures; and have been around since pro DSLRs were 1.2 Megapixel and cost 7 grand. Some of the older 4x5 scan backs were 60 grand long ago.

[troyammons]

I have tried and tried with the dslr guys but usually to no avail.

 

I know Alf from an internet distance as i am a Sigma user too. The Foveon chip IMO is a good one and actually after using a lot of other dslr cameras I prefer the SD_ cameras. The Camera is mediocre but the chip is superb, but it is rumored that a couple more cameras are on the way and that should shake things up a bit. Still wont be even close to 6x7 or LF though.

 

Alf is a good guy, but he does tend to get a little carried away at times. Yes people are printing SD9/10 files huge, like A0 and 36 x whatever, but what you cant drum into all these guys heads is they are printing at under 1 lp/mm. Sure it has decent edge sharpness, and looks great from a distance but all the tiny detail is missing.

 

No matter how you explain it it does not sink in. IE 2268 x 1512 - 20.7mm x 13.8 and the sd9 resolves 54 lp/mm and works out to a 13.5x enlargement printing at 4 lp/mm. Thats a whopping 11" x 7.3" and 4lp/mm is really where i like to print.

 

Seems like everybody has fogotten about the old enlargement rules !!

 

A SD9 photo printed 36" x 54" is a 66x enlargement. i dont know any 66x enlargements that can compare with a 9x slide film 4x5 drum scan enlargement, no matter how good the dslr pixels are.

 

I think you have to remember that 99% of the digital crowd have never owned or used a LF camera, much less done a wet print and probably never even seen a LF print next to a 35mm print.

 

IMO as far as film goes, a 35mm E100G drumscan is about equal to a sd9 photo or a 6-8mp bayer photo, up to a certain enlargement level, then digital goes sort of plastic looking. You would get that same plastic look if you scanned a 35mm slide to 3000x2000 and interpolated it up to A0, but that same scanned film at 8000dpi is a different story.

 

Yep a lot of these guys and gals (no disrespect to Alf) just dont have a clue really how much detail a 4x5 or a LF back carries. They will argue it to the grave though, or at least until they shoot a LF camera one day and see for themselves.

 

Maybe it will just take an enlargement they can walk into that turns them around.

 

I will say that if there was a high MP 6x7 Foveon chip in a MF back it would blow 4x5 away IMO. At there current pixel pitch that would be about 50mp x 3 layers. I have emailed Foveon several times about MF backs to no avail.

[jhall]

Thanks Troy, some interesting insight(s) there. I've never ~owned~ an enlarger either,

though QUITE familiar with them. To be honest, I haven't shot film in over a year. With 2

Sinar 4x5's and my 20D at hand, well it's just that easy.

 

Fact of the matter I'm relatively "new" to Photography. I've been shooting for years, though

commercially roughly 3 -- and it wasn't until then did I really become friendly with 4x5's.

[troyammons]

I was heavily into developing and enlarging about 20 years ago. It was really enjoyable, but its been a long time. I think now and then I would like to have a 4x5 enlarger for B+W, but it can be frustrating too and it does take a lot of time. Also it is nice to be able to spot, sharpen and adjust photos digitally.

 

Two 4x5 digital backs seems like a dream. Personally I have gone from film to digital and now back to a lot of film again. I guess if I could afford a 40mp D back I would go that route too, but I do still enjoy film, but I am not making my living with it so workflow is not prime importance. I am interested in the art aspect of it more, so if I get 10-20 perfect LF photos a year I am happy. I do still prefer digital for telephoto shooting, wildlife action etc.

[mikem77]

Jeremy,

 

It says right at the bottom that the picture (of the picture) was also captured with a Sigma SD10. Can't you see the lousy purple fringing on the edges?

 

--Mike

[troyammons]

That particular lens is bad about fringing. I have used a lot of Sigma lenses, some worse than others, but that 18-50 for some reason really exacerbates purple fringing. Some have CA but no fringing.

 

The real problem I see, is that in a fairly good lens that might exhibit some minor CA or fringing, like maybe 1 pixel wide, you would never see it printed at a normal size but blow it up to king size and its huge.

 

I have been bitching about Sigma lenses from the start. Just talking EX lenses mind you. A few are stellar, a lot are average, and a few are dogs. What even makes this situation worse is what will they do when the pixel count goes up on the next Foveon chip, and puts more demands on the lenses. I have said all along they need a group of super pro lenses that are up to par with Nikon and Pentax ED and canon L.

[justinblack]

Personally, I am sick of the film v. digital debate in general. Mostly, it seems to eminate

from DSLR users who have invested heavily in equipment that they need to constantly

justify to themselves. This reminds me of people who feel the need to prostlytize their

religion to others to reassure themselves that they're a part of the "right" club. Why can't

they simply be happy with their personal decision and commitment? I participated in a

panel discussion last year where a photographer who had proudly gone all DSLR expressed

frustration that his clients still wanted film. His frustration seemed strange to me

considering the issue of market forces (i.e. sellers should deliver what their buyers want),

but he couldn't even accept that maybe he should pick up a film body to supplement his

rig. That said, OF COURSE DSLRs have their place and are capable of making excellent,

worthy images. However, one simply can't compare SLRs to view cameras. They are

different tools with different strengths, and one can't truly substitute for the other. I do

landscape work almost exclusively, so until someone makes a self contained digital back

the size and weight of a Fuji Quickload holder that matches the quality of a 4x5 drumscan,

I'll stick with film. And, I'll certainly take a 350MB Tango drumscan from 4x5 Velvia made

with my 1997 vintage field camera and 80s & 90s vintage lenses over a RAW file from a

EOS 1Ds Mk II (Version 4.3, Category B, Subsection 19, Family: Camera, Genus:

Obsolesentia, Species: Nonpanacaea) any day! :)

[jhall]

Justin, I agree with you -- the film digital debate is fight fit for cats and dogs. However,

this debate was Digital VS. digital... ie. 4X5 back Vs. DSLR.

[scott_davis5]

that's still apples vs. oranges. A scan back for 4x5 operates under very different conditions than does a DSLR. Just as I wouldn't take my 8x10 Calumet C1 out to do sports photography, I wouldn't use a scanning back on a 4x5 to shoot anything that moves, unless I really wanted to make an issue out of discontinuities in the image from where my subject moved during the scan. Also, I wouldn't photograph serious architecture with a DSLR - I'd either shoot film with a 4x5 and scan, or I'd shoot with a scanning back.

[jhall]

Scott, I believe you are preaching to the choir, your points are duelly noted, although

already embraced.

 

They 'real debate' here was whether the Sigma SD10 can produce images suitable (or

comparable to LF digital) for Extra Large printing.

[troyammons]

Back to the original posters question, sort of. I have never used a LF or MF digital back, but i have shot a lot of MF and LF film and I do own a SD9 and I have done a lot of looking and comparing.

 

It is a 3.4 foveon MP vs 22 bayer MP in this case which is rediculous. A 3.4mp foveon chip is roughly equal to 7-8 bayer mp, or 2 to 1, so it would take a

10-12mp x 3 foveon chip to roughly equal that particular back. It would take a 20mp x 3 foveon chip to equal the new 40mp backs coming out.

 

Possibly interesting to someone out there. As I understand it the original Foveon prototype chip was 16mp x 3 and full frame 35mm. that would be nice.

 

I did a series of comparisons a while back and from that, I deduced that an E100G 35mm film drum scan was very close to the SD9/10, but the big problem I see with all digital files enlarged too far is the plastic look it developes. In that case you might be better off starting with a high dpi film scan or higher mp digital. I still have not really figured out where the actualy break point is for that plastic look in print. It depends so much on sharpness, and the type of subject, but generally I think its around 200-300% max interpolation for me. 400% is too much for me unless it was something really smooth. If its a teacup you could probably go very large, but most natural subject matter like landscape looks plastic early and just falls apart.

 

To me it just makes no sense to try to print an aps size digital file as big as a wall. I would not try it with APS film or even 35mm film, unless it was B+W microfilm and maybe a Leica.

 

4x5 film or even better 8x10 is the ticket for that or a high MP back.

 

Maybe i will do another print comparison one day, just to dial into a break point.

 

Here is what I got out of one of my film to SD9 comparisons, and although its not the OP question it does show that plastic look pretty well and that is one thing that the 22mp back would not have printed at 20x30.

 

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/image/36610309

 

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/image/36610308

[wayne_m._departha]

>>Personally, I am sick of the film v. digital debate in general. <<

 

I guess it's possible to be sick of it if you've been immersed in digital for several years. I'm far from jaded, though, being still in film largely, so discussions like this interest me.