D2000 vs. Medium Format

[jc5066]

I believe we can put away the argument of Digital Vs. 35mm. With the

D200 and the likes, can we start to compare digital to 6x6?

 

I don't want to hear any of the x amount of pixels blah blah blah. I

want hardcore proof as in a print. Has anyone done a 11x14 or so of both?

[jeffrey moore]

This exact topic was discussed ad nauseum in this thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00F3IL

[ellis_vener_photography]

Okay. First of all tell me how you are goingto prove smething one way or another without actually looking atthe prints themselves? Unless we all agree to meet up somewhere and judge the prints with our own eyes, anything any body posts is purely anecdotal.

 

Secondly, such a comparison is meaningless without context and parameters. Assuming that the cameras ( and which medium format size do you want to compare to the D200: 6x4.5cm, 6x6cm, 6x7cm, 6x8cm or 6x9cm? ) are taking photos of the same subject in the same lighting conditions with as many variables equalized as possible (same ISo sensitivity, lenses ( but no zooms) selected so that the framing of the subject on the short side of the format was as close as possible to the same, you aren't proving anything.

 

Third: the print method and media needs to be the same.

 

Fourth: Parameter #3 means that the film needs to be scanned. What scanner will be used: desktop flatbed (Epson 4990)? Desktop dedicated film scanner (Nikon Coolscan 9000 --and with or without a fluid mount tray)?, High end professional quality flatbed? Imacon Flextight (which quality level)? or drum scanner?

 

Fifth: With the D200: In cameraJpeg or NEF? If JPEG, what camera settings? If NEF, how are you processignthe RAW to a TIFF, PSd or JPEG format?

 

Unless you know and can control all of these things, again all you are getting here or in any other forum is going to be anecdotes that will possibly be colored by emotional feelings of film vs. digital.

 

Two more things:

 

a.) Having shot film from 35mm to 8x10 over twenty years and using digital cameras from 6mp to 22mp -- from 1.6x crop factor DSLRs to "medium format" digital backs for the past five -- different formats make the same subject look different. Part of this is just a matter of lens focal length equivalances for the same angle of view.

 

b.) different media make things look different. Ever shot Velvia 100F, Provia 100F, Astia 100F, E100G, E100GX, E100VS of the same subject? I have. The differences range from subtle to major. Likewise digital looks differnt from film. For one thing, there is no grain!

[peter_white2]

Of course Ellis is correct. But why are you saying that the comparison should be made between an all digital work flow, and a film to digital workflow? Should the comparison be between an all digital workflow and an all chemical or analog work flow?

 

Shouldn't we be comparing the D200 file printed digitally with a color negative printed in a darkroom? Why do you say that the print media needs to be the same?

 

Thanks,

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Why does this matter? Choose your capture medium based on the workflow that you like and the results that you prefer. I've seen stunning digital images. And I've seen stunning MF images. I've also seen awful images produced with both media.

 

Yes, film and digital capture do look different.

[troyammons]

If you want hardcore proof as in prints the only way you will know for sure is to shoot a test between the two. I did this a while back and came to my own conclusions.

 

Too many variables to pin it down to a simple this beats that blanket statement.

 

At 11x14 I dont think it really matters. At 20x24 MF film will still win IMO. Most digital starts to look pretty bad beyond a 150% interpolation.

 

You also have to include things, like film type, film flatness, scanner, lenses, technique etc

 

If you are talking a perfect E100G or velvia drumscan film will win. If you are talking a 400 film drum scan then it will be close to a wash. If you are comparing any film and a Epson scan the D200 will probably win.

 

http://www.diax.nl/pages/start_mamiya_nikon_uk.html#anchor_example1

[mr._smith]

"I want hardcore proof as in a print."

 

You're welcome to do it yourself and please come back with your results. We would like to know what you've found out.

[godfrey]

Jon,

 

We can compare anything to anything else. What matters is what we divine from the

comparison. And that's where all the debate will be ...

 

For my photography, in the print sizes that I tend to make and the subjects I tend to

shoot, my Canon 10D obviated the need for the Hasselblad I was using prior to it. Better or

worse is impossible, but hanging prints from both together it is difficult to tell which

camera made which print. However, I don't customarily make huge prints. The average is

between an 8x10" and an 11x14" in image area.

 

I still miss the 903SWC, however. It's just such a neat piece of machinery.

 

Godfrey

[keith_van_hulle1]

Jeez, only a few really get it. All that matters is the end result. Do you think that anybody besides yourselves gives a damn what was used or how? I'm guessing, in most cases here, we're talking fine art prints. Get this, 99% of your buyers wouldn't have clue what you were talking about if you tried to sell them a print based on what camera or lens you own. People have to get over the juvenile need to be the one to say "I Win!" when it comes to digital/film. It's sad.

[jc5066]

"Jeez, only a few really get it. All that matters is the end result"

 

Thank you. I don't care about the technical who-ha (technical term). I don't think this test needs to be scientific either.

 

As far as those who say do it yourself, well buy me a medium format so I can test it. I'm sure there are those out there that have done both. Yes I know one will have a different feel then the other, but would anyone really know the differance?

 

Thought this was a simple question with a simple response required. Guess not.

[godfrey]

It can be a complex question. I gave a simple response given a specific context. I hoped that

was what you were looking for.

 

I'd much rather spend my time doing photography than arguing the merits of pixel this and

percentage that. The more photography I do, the less these arguments mean. ;-)

 

Godfrey

[steve_renwick]

>>Thought this was a simple question with a simple response required. Guess not.<<

 

It is a simple question, but as you painfully see there is not a simple answer. Besides, it comes up around here about every 48 hours or so, which is why everyone groans and goes, "Oh no, NOT AGAIN."

 

This is kind of like going to a physics forum and brightly piping up with, "How can we be sure that nothing can travel faster than light?"

[klix]

I guess I'm very simplistic because I've always believed that what matters is that you use the right tool for the right job.

 

For macros, action and/or telephotos, nothing beats an SLR/DSLR, primarily because of those specialized lenses.

 

For everything else, the larger format the better.

 

KL

[ed_skibeki]

"I don't want to hear any of the x amount of pixels blah blah blah."

 

The atmosphere and tone in the D200 forum at DP Review doesn't migrate well to this one.

[jc5066]

"The atmosphere and tone in the D200 forum at DP Review doesn't migrate well to this one."

 

Then maybe you need to bo back to the DP Review. There was no tone. I was simpley saying I don't want to go into the whole numbers argument or aspect of it.

 

Some of you need to go and shoot more. You're reading way too much into a simple question.

[Ed_Ingold]

Jon,

 

I am satisfied that a D2x is as good as my Hasselblad in a 16x20 inch enlargement. The attachment is a comparison (some months apart) of the same scene, same distance and field of view, taken with an Hasselblad with a 180/4 Sonnar on Reala and a Nikon D2x with a 28-70/2.8 lens.

 

Blah, blah, blah<div></div>

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> I don't care about the technical who-ha (technical term). I don't

think this test needs to be scientific either.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

If you cannot answer the questions about how the test ought to be conducted then

any answer will do. <p>

 

Yes. <p>

 

No. <p>

 

Maybe. <p>

 

Unscientific enough for ya'?

[nikos peri]

" The attachment is a comparison (some months apart) of the same scene, same distance and

field"<p>

OMG you are still harping your months apart comparison! or did you realize nobody really

cared about it. Tell me, do you still have that Hassie?<p>

[Ed_Ingold]

Nikos said, "OMG you are still harping your months apart comparison! or did you realize nobody really cared about it. Tell me, do you still have that Hassie?

 

Actually, yours is the only rude response among several, thank you.

 

Yes, I do still have the Hasselblad and will continue to put mileage on it, at least for landscapes. For most situations, including group shots, I will use the D2x - simply because I get sharper results with it. The Hasselblad can't compete at ISO 400 and higher because of excessive grain, and for anything slower the subjects move too much.

 

I see the same tired arguments in defense of medium format film that were used for 35mm film until very recently. That changed when enough people had a 6MP DSLR to see for themselves. A few more 10MP to 16MP DSLRs will do the same for 120 film.

 

If my example is overused, so be it. There's no point in making (and publishing) endless side-by-side comparisons - I know what I need to do and how to do it. If I can spare someone the expense of investing in dead-end technology, OK. If not, they can still have fun with MF film, for a while anyway.

[franklin_polk]

I think photo.net needs a filter that blocks any threads that involve film vs digital. At this point its a waste of badwidth. (and yes, I know my post is contributing to this) Different mediiums for DIFFERENT PEOPLE. I still think that nothing can match the look of well developed Tech Pan, and digital IR can't really be duplicated, and thats just my personal opinion.

[nikos peri]

If you find that rude Edward, you're a little susceptible. What I find... <i>interesting</i> shall

we say, is the self-comforting need to convince <i>others</i> that your own choice is best.

You are evangelising, what with your references to "dead-end" technology and other various

tests. Your D2x or my D2x, or your 500 or my Swc can ALL do things others can't. Get the

shot in the manner that best serves your image purpose-could be a cell phone cam, could be

a pinhole. Your side-by-side test is irrelevant in that sense.

[Ed_Ingold]

The original question was, in part, "I don't want to hear any of the x amount of pixels blah blah blah. I want hardcore proof as in a print. Has anyone done a 11x14 or so of both?"

 

I expressed my opinion and posted a valid comparison. You disagree, so post your results. Put up or shut up!

[nikos peri]

Sure sign of evangelism... defensiveness. Firstly, if you were to keep to the OP's actual

request, your neg scans are irrelevant as are you pixel posts. HAVE YOU DONE A PRINT?

And your comparison shared here is, forgive me, irrelevant. As would mine, as short of

sending you or him a print, it's a screen image of a neg scan. Of course, a tiny bit more

relevant would be a print scan, but still...<p>

Secondly, try to read again Ed and you may discover that I said either or any tool, and it is

just that, will get you the goods. I like grain for example. Delta 3200 will get me the

results. Hell, it worked for Newton and I don't think his images are thrown into the bin

because the D200 is now here? I like smooth saturation 4x5" RVP - Joe Cornish isn't out of

business because of a DsMKII. A recent thread here showed well that Galen Rowell

managed nicely with 35mm. And some dude is shooting the Olympics with a D2x wwhile

another had a Speed Graphic on the US campaign trail... Who cares about side by side res

tests? <p>

In other words, it's a wonderful asset to speak six languages, but if you have nothing to

say it's all a terrible waste.

[troyammons]

Yes i have printed both at 11x14 and that is really a waste of time considering there will be little discernible difference at that level.

 

You cant talk about enlargement of two totally different systems without talking about enlargement rules and pixels and scanning and processing and blah blah.

 

The old rule lp/mm at print level is largely ignored these days but still applies. Usually 4lp/mm is a good spot to print for a 20" view distance. If you know how much your camera system/lenses/ scanner/ enlarger or whatever is resolving, its simple math.

 

If you dont want to do a test yourself, then I guess you could take my word for it from the tests I did a while back.

 

My results were that drumscanned medium format E100g is worth about 5-6 bayer mp per sq inch. 400 film is worth about 3-4 bayer mp per square inch. Those numbers might go up in a Leica or on a rare occasion with MF. Even more with techpan.

 

So then it is just simple math again.

 

The D200 is 10 mp and 6x6 MF film has 5 square inches so it carries 25mp of resolution of the D200. But then you are comparing 2 different formats which makes no sense IMO.

 

If you crop a 6x6 to a 2x3 format then you end up with 17.5mp vs 10 mp.

[jillhardin]

Jon, I shoot family portraits that are enlarged to 20x30 or higher. When I upgraded from my 35mm system (in order to get better enlargements), I debated whether or not to buy medium format film or digital SLR. My greatest concern was getting quality enlargements 16x20 and up,(and staying within my $5000 budget). I scan all of my film images for the type of photography I do. AFter test driving a Pentax 645, I ended up buying a Canon 5D. Comparing the results, the 5D enlargements (20x30)are MUCH better than the scanned (25MB) 645s. The grain is still almost non existent in the 5D, flesh tones look much smoother. I am absolutely amazed at the 5D. This is my real life test. I'm not going to drum scan every film image, so that was not part of the comparison. I was skeptical of digital until I saw the results for myself! Not sure how to post a good comparison, but I'll work on it!