Tmax 400 vs G10

[mjferron]

<p>See this a full sized image image on Tmax 400. Looks great but if you take a tiny corner it's not going to look so good. Do you understand how this works?</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Ok here it is.</p><div></div>

[larrydressler]

<p>I thought I left this conversation. Just leave it alone and shoot what you want to do what you want.. the time we spend fighting here could be spent better.</p>

<p>Larry</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Agree with Larry. Let's just enjoy the shots.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Michael, can you post the unsharpened film image crop for us please?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Michael, looking at the unsharpened scan can pinpoint the problem. At 100% please. Straight from the scanner with no processing.</p>

 

[mjferron]

<p>Dave this shot has no levels adjustment or sharpening.</p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Thanks Michael. It looks a tad better and I can read the numbers but still not what I expected.</p>

<p>Do you have a way to look at the film on a microscope and verify if the bottleneck is the scanner or the film?</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Actually both images look more natural in the second photo. Sorry Mauro I don't own a microscope. The shot is sharp and it's in line with another test I did in the past. Maybe a better scanner would improve things a bit but I don't think the improvements will be earth shattering.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>I think I would do better with a Nikkormat FTN and a 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor P with the mirror locked up. You might also have done better by simply printing the negative and then scanning it with a good flatbed. Very nice work can be done with either a G10 or a film camera with b&w film. All of the tests we see here are interpretations of what film can do after the film is scanned and the scan is then viewed on a monitor. A more carefully done test with the negative printed in the traditional way would show different results.</p>

[david_manning1]

<p>I love film of all kinds and my Nikon F6 is my favorite camera. That being said, if I want vibrant color and unlimited depth-of-field, I have not seen a scanned 35mm slide yet that will out-resolve my G10. I really think it's that good.</p>

<p>Now, the G10's optical finder is only 80%, it's much slower, doesn't meter as well, and isn't weatherproofed, but it DOES fit into an outer pocket pretty easily and is usually with me, whereas the F6 is at home waiting to go out on photo jaunts.</p>

<p>So, they are totally different pieces of equipment. My opinion is that the perfect "do everything" camera has not been invented yet. The flip side (and a positive), is that it gives me more excuses to buy numerous cameras that each have a different strength.</p>

<p>Enjoy them all! Don't get wrapped up in the minutae and shoot shoot shoot. By the way, I happen to think that the G10 at 400ISO looks like my Tri-X when the digital shot is converted with care. The Tri-X, of course, does this effortlessly, but I have to spend a bit of time in the dark with some chemistry to appreciate it.</p>

<p>By the way, the motion picture guys use these differences to help tell their story. So, if you're in the city, embrace film and grain, or shoot fast with some sensor noise! If you're in the country, pump up the vibrancy, using whatever method is appropriate for the capture. Point is, use the best tool...</p>

<p> </p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Thanks for the unsharpened version. I've been meaning to try TMY2 for a bit. I guess I'll have to put it through the paces and compare.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Michael, this is the best 40x microscope you can get for the money for the light table:<br>

http://www.amazon.com/Carson-8x20mm-Monocular-Magnifier-Microscope/dp/B0011WYMAU/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1235492891&sr=8-21<br>

Just $27.</p>

[nealcurrie]

<p>I can't comment on TMY-2, but I have printed pictures in my darkroom taken with TMX that outresolve what my Nikon 9000 can see, which will outresolve a K/M scan dual 4. They weren't test shots but real pictures I took out in the field. Real World.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>I find the same with Acros....which is about the same as TMX. With it, fine details like grass and leaves hold together that don't in my 40D. That said, there was more detail in print from my old Nikon 9000 (which I never should have sold!!!!) then there was/is in my Scan Dual IV. Visible in 12x18 and 14x21 print.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Agree, there is at least twice the data on my TMX under the microscope than my Coolscan captures.<br>

Dave, never asked you why you sold the 9000?</p>

 

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>I was going to look at the Sony A900 as a replacement for MF. I had purchased the Epson V700 with a 4x5 fluid mount holder. I figured if I wanted 35mm scanned, I'd use my old Scan Dual IV.....and for 4x5, the Epson. I (wrongly) figured that for the odd time I used MF, I'd just use the Epson. In the end, after selling unfortunately, I decided I liked the 9000 scans of 35mm and MF much better. The funds from selling the 9000 went to my Bessa R2a, 35mm Voigtlander f1.7 Ultron, and towards the Pentax K20D. </p>

<p>I'm not sure I'm gonna purchase another scanner for now though. The Epson gives me very good 16x20 from MF....which really is the largest I ever printed from MF on a normal basis. Any larger and I always made sure I had the original on 4x5 film. 4x5 on the Epson is far better than MF on the Nikon. </p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Sounds like a sad story (sniff sniff). I can hear the violin...</p>

[francois_p._garnier]

<p>From my test experience there ar the following problems with this test:</p>

<p>1. It is not a digital vs. film comparison, but a digital vs. digital comparison. A scanner is a kind of digital camera. This scanner (digital camera) here has a rather limited resolution of only 3200 ppi, which means significantly less than 70 Lp/mm resolving power. Furthermore most of these amateur scanners can't fully achieve the resolution values of their official data sheets. So in real world the resolution is probably slightly under 3200 ppi (less than 60 Lp/mm). But TMY-2 is able to achieve resolution of more than 100 Lp/mm (I have no problem to get that with my 50 Nikkor primes).</p>

<p>2. 1/125 shutter speed even on a tripod is not fast enough to achieve the best resolution, especially if you don't use MLU. Faster shutter speeds and MLU give 20-30% higher resolution. I have tested it.</p>

<p>3. To fully exploit the potential of modern films and sensors you need absolutely exact focusing. Depth of field does not help you at all! What exact focusing means can be seen under a microscope. Only slight focusing errors can result in dramatically different resolution values. I've got tests where my resolution figures varies from 60 to 120 Lp/mm! Because of differences in focusing. And all shot with f8! Focusing errors are the most underestimatet problem in all these tests made by people with no test experience. We have no really exact focusing systems, neither AF nor MF. You have to use focus bracketing for exact test results.</p>

<p>4. I've done lots of tests with Kodaks new T-Max 400. Incredible stuff. Especially concerning resolution and fineness of grain. I achieved more than 100 Lp/mm resolution with my 50 prime lenses. Object contrast was moderate 4 stops (about 1:16). The lines of the 100 Lp/mm structure are so clear, that you immediately see that the resolution is even higher (100 Lp/mm was the finest structure on the chart). A digital sensor must have 35 MP to achive a resolution of 100 Lp/mm.<br>

For 100 LP/mm you need a very good drum scanner. I use my Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon for enlarging in my darkroom. No problem at all with this optical jewel to print 160 Lp/mm onto paper, I have tested this with Rollei ATP negatives (outstanding film).<br>

Friends of mine have achieved similar results. Zeiss has achieved 120 Lp/mm with TMY 1. Look at their website to the publication "camera lens news" No 17,19, 20, 24. And the article about MTF in their last camera lens news of Dr. Nasse, chief optic designer at Zeiss. He proved that TMX is able of resolution values of more than 160 Lp/mm (see the diagramm on page 11). That confirms former tests at Zeiss made by K. Mueller (published in the camera lens news as well).</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>In my resolution test of the new TMAX 400 I measured 220 lines per mm with the microscope. That is 40MP of actual resolution. Also the tones are nothing short of fantastic.<br>

Grain is not only the smallest I've seen for a 400 film but also very attractive.<br>

Tones (shades of gray) are superb.<br>

The G10 only tested at 10MP by DPreview. <br /> I would try Xtol 1:1 at 75F for 7 miinutes Richard. And then look at it directly under a microscope.</p>

<p>I will not post samples to avoid yet another upset to a thread.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Michael, please let us know what you see when you look at your film under the microscope.</p>

<p>Or send me the film and I'll scan it for you.</p>

[craig_sander]

<p>I second what Francois posted.<br>

These "digital vs film" tests and debates can never really prove anything definatively.<br>

The camera bodies are different. The lenses are different. The sensors are different. The scanner used for the films are different. The software used to scan is different.<br>

There are way too many variables and there is no way of comparing the two without having to consider those factors.</p>

 

[mjferron]

<p>Francois and Craig I also agree there are far too many variables that could change the outcome in another test. In practical, real world situations either camera above will make a wonderful 8x10 or 8x12 which is most often as big as I personally print anyway.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Michael, I think that sums it up very well. Most people want more and more resolution, yet when I actually see what these people print, it often goes no further than 8x10, or 10x15. At most, prints from the overwhelming number of these resolution seekers never reach even 16x24. As most would consider a 240dpi print at 16x24 to be more than adequately detailed, that is reached by todays good gear. In fact, considering most prints never go beyond 12x18, any current DSLR in the 15mp range, any fine grained 35mm film well scanned, any MF or LF camera will all produce adequate results.</p>

<p>For me, the main reason I shoot MF and LF is because many of the prints I produce are 16x24, 24x30, 30x40.....and for that, current DSLRs run out of steam in the larger sizes.</p>

<p> </p>

[mjferron]

<p>Dave I've never liked pushing 35mm too far. No matter how much detail you may have. Over 10x15 and that's the territory of larger formats. Subject matter comes in to play as well but in general if you buy a quart of paint for the ceiling that really needed a gallon then things are going to be spread pretty thin.</p>