26 Megapixel 40D Compared to 35mm Film

[Landrum Kelly]

My apologies go to the late Dylan Thomas, who used the word "gentle," not "gently."

 

"Do not go gentle into that good night."

 

--Lannie

[gerard_bynre]

Lannie had finished the whole thing rather beautifully with Dylan Thomas. I thought that was perfect. Then another

photographic comedian had to chime in to spoil it all. When will you lot realize that you are not funny...

[henning_serger]

Mauro, thank you for sharing your test results here.

I am currently involved in an intensive test programme about resolution of modern films and sensors. We have not

finished all tests yet. Probably we can publish our results next year.

So far we have found that a lot of modern films have significantly higher resolution than the best digital sensors. The

physical resolution limit of a 22 MP 24x36mm sensor is 80 Lp/mm. We reached it (as well as dpreview for example,

look at the Canon Eos 1 Ds Mk III test there).

With many films we've got resolution values above 100 Lp/mm for system resolution (film + lens). With most of the

modern ISO 100/21° color slide films such resolution is possible (with very good prime lenses even higher resolution

is possible). Even with Fuji Provia 400X we achieved 100 Lp/mm (as well as with Kodaks TMY-2).

With some BW films you can get above 160 Lp/mm system resolution.

We are testing at a very moderate contrast of 1:20.

 

We have achieved all these resolution values not only under the microscope, but also on paper in the traditional wet

darkroom. We are using the Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon N 2,8/50.

With a slide projector using a very good projection lenses (Docter, Zeiss, Leica) we have got so far 100 lp/mm on

screen (much much more than every beamer on the market can deliver).

Our tests ar not finished so far, because we have not reached the resolution limits of some films and lenses (both

projection and printing). Therefore we are testing some films for even higher resolution values. Then we can publish all

of our results.

 

But I want to add some results of other scientific resolution tests made by Carl Zeiss.

Zeiss is clearly emphazising the qualities of film, especially it's superior resolution. Zeiss is the world's most

important optic company. About 99% of their camera optics are made for digital cameras. But nevertheless they

have the courage to tell the truth: film has higher resolution in many cases (of course dependant on the film you are

using).

For example, they achieved 170 Lp/mm with Fuji Velvia, and 180 Lp/mm with Kodak TMX. And the absolute

resolution record with Spur Orthopan UR with 400 Lp/mm.

If they make such strong statements, it is of greatest importance, because they are an absolute reliable source.

Nearly no other optical company has such detailed knowledge, so deep scientific roots and scientific test methods.

But their test results are a bit hidden on their website. Therfore I hope the following links are helpful for you (all

published in their magazine "camera lens news" No. 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, and in their magazin "Innovation: Fotografie

spezial"):

 

http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_17e/$File/cln17e.pdf

 

http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_19_en/$File/CLN19_en.pdf

 

http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b...256f2c0023b06b

 

http://www.zeiss.de/c12567a8003b58b9...257118005d1d20

 

http://www.zeiss.de/c12567a8003b58b9...257118005d1d20

 

http://www.zeiss.de/C12571FF0043275C

/0/7F4268A116C2BC66C1257210003FDFB0/$file/inno_photo_de.pdf

 

( page 10 + 11, article by Dr. Hubert Nasse, senior scientist and chief optic designer, and the pages about the Zeiss

Ikon rangefinder camera)

 

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B...25711B0038D874

 

(furthermore please go to the "virtual tour of the lens production", and then to Foyer 06, "results of unparalled

quality", there is an outstanding picture with the legendary Kodak Ektar 25)

 

I hope these informations are helpful for you. Best Regards, Henning.

[mauro_franic]

You are welcome. I will post the results from Ektar, Velvia 50 and TMX for comparison next week.

[arjun_mehra]

Maybe I ought to read through all the posts, but, regarding the original post, I don't understand how the 40D is somehow a 26 MP camera just because it's mounted on the same tripod as that with which the T-MAX was exposed.

 

Also, to me, the digital shots seem clearer than those taken on the 35mm film. I'm not really sure how this comparison proves its point that the latter is superior...

[mauro_franic]

Arjun, read from the top and go slowly. Pay special attention to the setup explanation. If you still don't understand email me.

[mauro_franic]

To go faster just read only my entries.

[arjun_mehra]

All right, I think I understand. You took a shot with T-Max 100, then, without moving the tripod, you mounted onto it a 40D, and, using the same lens from before, took another picture with that camera. As the 40D has a smaller sensor than 24mm X 36mm, you decided to think of it as a "26 MP camera" (considering what it would have captured had it had a 24X36-size sensor); and, in doing so, you utterly confounded and perplexed a host of readers (I among them).

 

Looking at your work, it does appear as if the 40D is quite superior to T-Max, but, then, the way you set up the experiment, you actually had to enlarge a portion of the shot taken with the latter rather more than you did that taken with the 40D. In my opinion, things would have been more valid (and less confusing) if you'd 1) used a digital camera with a sensor as large as a frame of 35mm film, or 2) moved the 40D back far enough to give it the same field of view as had the T-Max. Of course, matters might still have been uneven, as, in the second case, the performance of the lens could have become an issue: focusing on something nearer, vs. on something farther away, places a different demand on optics.

[rishij]

Mauro -- did you shoot RAW?

 

It bothers me how soft the writing is on that Rose Infusions bottle - for the 40D image. It seems like a lot of the rest of the image is sharp, but the Nutritional Facts 1:1 crop you have of the 40D looks hideously soft. I don't recall ever seeing something that soft coming out of even a Rebel XTi... how do you account for this?

 

Also, beautiful Provia 100 scan... is that 35mm film?

 

And while we're on the subject, since you seem to be quite good (understatement) at Nikon LS-9000 scans -- do you find the LS-5000 gives you sharper scans of 35mm using the motorized feeder? For the LS-9000 & 35mm film, do you use a glass holder and/or wet mounting?

 

Thanks! Cool comparison.

Rishi

[kelly_flanigan1]

<i>you decided to think of it as a "26 MP camera" (considering what it would have captured had it had a 24X36-size sensor); and, in doing so, you utterly confounded and perplexed a host of readers (I among them).</i><BR><BR>What if I took the results from a 1x1.5" negative and equated them to our old process camera that shoots a 24x36" negative! Then I would have 24 squared the resolution; ie a cool gain of 576! Thus a simple 10 megapixel number for full frame would be 5760 megapixels!

[duncan_murray1]

Hi Mauro,

 

Thanks so much for the comparison, I think it is well thought-out, and valid. It's a shame you can't post the photomicrographs.

 

I've been hooked on film ever since I got my first optical 20x30" enlargement from fuji superia 100 film. I remember at the time warning a friend of mine (who was requesting the enlargement) that he may well be disappointed with the results, as 35mm film wasn't meant to be enlarged to that degree, but when it arrvied, myself and my photographing buddies were in total awe of the detail presented. (My friend was pleased too, but I think he was more happy with the way the colours and overall image had turned out, as opposed to my fascination at the detail to be found in sculptures I'd photographed in the background).

 

Then digital came along, and it seemed that everyone had agreed, beyond doubt, that digital had out-resolved film. I remember when the D1 came out, and that apparently was 'comparable to scanned film' (a quote which can still be found on a well known camera review website), while being much cleaner and sharper. So it was no wonder than when we got 6mp, 35mm film was truly kicked aside. Clarkvision and thom hogan's conclusions pretty much cemented the belief.

 

But I had that shadow of doubt the whole time. The great thing about digital was being able to download the original file to see just how good it was - and I wasn't convinced they were anywhere near my 30x20 print. So when it came round to upgrading my camera I went for a pro manual focus 35mm body, and really enjoyed being able to take full-frame, high resolution images, with much the less the cost and much less the weight of a Canon 1ds. I've now upgraded to a Nikon F6, so unfortunately I cannot claim the second point so much anymore.

 

All this renewed interest in film is great - Ken Rockwell, yourself, and others seeing the positive aspects of film. This is great news for me, as it means more people are going to be trying out Fuji's and Kodak's films, and they will continue to develop the emulsions, hopefully keeping in check with advances in digital.

 

Thanks again for your effort.

 

Duncan.

[mauro_franic]

<p>Rishi, "<br>

Mauro -- did you shoot RAW?<br>

It bothers me how soft the writing is on that Rose Infusions bottle - for the 40D image. It seems like a lot of the rest of the image is sharp, but the Nutritional Facts 1:1 crop you have of the 40D looks hideously soft. I don't recall ever seeing something that soft coming out of even a Rebel XTi... how do you account for this?"</p>

<p>I always soot RAW.  Digital cameral have significantly decreased resolution on the red channel.</p>

<p>"And while we're on the subject, since you seem to be quite good (understatement) at Nikon LS-9000 scans -- do you find the LS-5000 gives you sharper scans of 35mm using the motorized feeder? For the LS-9000 & 35mm film, do you use a glass holder and/or wet mounting?"</p>

<p>I use a glass holder.  The 9000 scan are a tad softer than the 5000 but there is no significant difference in resolution.  On the 9000 you may need to sharpen a bit more yet the grain will be less visible.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Thank you Duncan.</p>

<p>If you shoot color negative, the new Ektar 100 has very fine grain, wide latitude and it outresolves the new 24MP Sony A900.  It can also be developed at Costco for $1.5 in 30 minutes.</p>

<p> </p>

[rishij]

<p>Given that the Canon 40D pixel pitch is considerably smaller than that exhibited by Full Frame cameras, I don't think you, Mauro, can compare these results to a '26 megapixel camera'.</p>

<p>A camera with a larger pixel pitch should perform significantly better.</p>

<p>See:<br>

<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm</a></p>

<p>I know it's, like, heresy, to quote Ken Rockwell... but he has a point.<br>

-Rishi</p>

 

[mauro_franic]

<p>No Rishi. A 26MP full frame will have the same pixel pitch than the 40D.</p>

[rishij]

<p>Yeah I just figured that out. Sorry. I musta been tired or something.<br>

-Rishi :)</p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p>I have to get myself one of those 26 megapixel Tripods for my 40D. :) (sorry couldn't resist.)</p>

[timothygrayphoto]

<p>This is absolutely ridiculous. If you want to convince someone, either put a print in their hand or don't show 'em anything at all. This type of pseudo-scientific pixel peeping crap is exactly why I don't spend time on places like Luminous Landscape or Dpreview anymore.<br>

FWIW, I've shot the same subject using a Nikon FE2 fitted with Ektar 100, a Canon 40D set to ISO 100, and both a Mamiya RB67 and Mamiya 7 fitted with TMax 100. Guess what? There are definite, noticable differences in how each setup reproduces the image.<br>

Is one better? Yes, of course. Which one? It depends entirely on which metric is most important to you, based on your needs (or your client's). Sharpness? The Mamiya 7 hands down. Resolution? Either the RB67 or the 7. Grain? The Nikon + Ektar combo is something to behold, but altogether different from either Mamiya + TMax combo. Speed? The Canon, of course.<br>

In the end, you have to do your own tests to determine what works best for you. And part of those tests includes making a print, no questions asked. Do it yourself or have a lab do it, doesn't matter. But if you continue to base things on what you see on a monitor, I don't care whether you have a $200 Wal-Mart special or a $3000 calibrated Eizo, you're missing the point entirely.</p>