MF Tonality versus DSLR

[lobalobo]

<p>As an amateur (and not all that experienced one at that) I shoot primarily in three different formats: 4x5 film (Efke 25 B&W and Provia) using a medium-quality 135mm Fuji lens in Graflex press camera; Fuji s6000fd digital bridge camera; and (occasionally on a borrowed) Nikon D40 with a kit zoom lens. I keep holding off on getting a more fully-functional view or field camera because hope springs eternal that I'll win the lottery or otherwise be able to justify buying a MF digital back. I have not even considered a DSLR to replace my Fuji bridge camera, because I can borrow the D40 when I need it, and most of what I shoot digitally now is at my kids' birthday and Halloween parties and the like and more expensive equipment for such events would largely be overkill. Then I began reading about the Nikon D3x, which requires a slightly less fantastic hallucination to imagine affording than, say, a Hasselblad H3D.</p>

<p>Nikon apparently sees the D3x as competition for the MF backs and I wonder about this (like many other posters, I know). I post here specifically to ask questions about whether its possible to extrapolate from a posted head-to-head comparison between the Nikon D3 and a Hasselblad H3DII-22:<br>

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/h3d-1.htm .</p>

<p>This test, even on a monitor (which should mute differences) suggests an enormous superiority of MF system. And yes I know that there might have been a dozen differences between the images that make the test unreliable, but what struck me was that the comparison looked very much like the lower-end comparisons I've done between my Fuji bridge camera and the Nikon D40 (which use the same number of megapixels, by the way: 6). In both sets of comparisons, the far better images were the ones with the larger sensors. (I was initially fooled by the very nice quality of the Fuji bridge camera until I did several side by side comparisons with the Nikon 40D and it's APS-C-sized sensor; even after shooting RAW on both cameras and doing some manipulation, the differences persist, though this could, I suppose, be a result of my limitations in processing RAW files.) Resolution was not a difference on my budget camera comparison and I don't think that resolution has much to do with it the superior quality of the Hasselblad over the Nikon D3 in the test posted above. (This would be true particularly for the image on screen not blown up.) In both sets of comparisons, the larger sensor (perhaps combined with other better components or software) produced an image that seemed richer in tonal distinctions and presence (the latter even in approximately the same plane of depth). To put it simply, if inaccurately, the bridge camera and D3 on the one hand produced images that looked more cartoonish and with less texture than the D40 and the H3D on the other hand.</p>

<p>If I'm right that this effect is one real (and not an artifact of the limited samples I've observed) and two not a product of megapixels (as it could not be in any case for the cheap cameras, which share a megapixel count), then the D3x will not fair significantly better than the D3 in a head-to-head comparison with a full-frame MF back. This, I take it, is essentially the conclusion reached by the following post on Luminous Landscape:<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml</p>

<p>I wonder if others agree, or is the jury still out on whether the Nikon D3x might be only subtly inferior to a MF back? If so, I should stop dreaming of a digital replacement for my large format film and go ahead and buy a view camera and lenses, as $20,000+ is probably eternally out of my price range.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance.</p>

[chrise_boris]

<p>I wouldn't worry too much which format is better but keep on doing your thing. There are possibly billions of digital photographers out there and how many large format photographers? Hopeully not one less. Remember that there will be a lot more computer post processing to be done, even with a D3x, to get your images where you'll like them. You won't likely be able to reproduce your, I guess, beloved Provia colors on digital. And one more thing, all the focus on resolution and pixles and tonality that has been brought upon us with the advent of digital is hardly creating better photos. No, people focus too much on technicalities and forget the craft of photography.</p>

[stp]

<p>I'm afraid I'm not a user with experience with both. Nevertheless, I've been very impressed with the tonality of images posted here that were taken with a Hasselblad; the difference between those and other taken with high-end 35mm-sized sensors is readily apparent on these forum postings. What the Nikon D3x and Canon 1DsMkIII offer is high quality and good tonality (perhaps not quite on par with Hasselblad), and especially versatility in terms of scope of lenses available, capture rate, and similar criteria that may make a lot of difference to folks in the field. I do landscapes, and I think an Hasselblad would be wonderful for most of the photos that I take, but the initial cost is so very high. So I do the best I can with high-end 35mm digital and good scans of even higher quality film.</p>

[lobalobo]

<p>Thanks Chirse and Stephen for the responses. I agree with most of what each of you says. In particular, Chrise said: "And one more thing, all the focus on resolution and pixles and tonality that has been brought upon us with the advent of digital is hardly creating better photos. No, people focus too much on technicalities and forget the craft of photography." I agree completely. But I do fantasize about taking a camera in a small backpack to dunes on the ocean near my house and shooting 30 or 40 photos in the hour or so after dawn, maybe even some handheld, and coming home with shots of the quality eqaul to 4x5 film. On a MF digital back this is possible, and I might do even better than I could with a LF camera, as autofocus, while not always desirable, sure is a handy option, as the possibilty of depth of field at a reasonably fast shutter speed. There is the cost, of course, but if money were no object, like Stephen, I think I'd have a MF digital back. I probably never will have such equipment, and based on what I presume and at least the first two responses to my post here, even if I could scrape together $5,000+ for a 35mm DSLR, I think I won't.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I have a D2x and an Hasselblad CFV back. The CFV has significantly better image quality with regard to resolution and dynamic range (12 stops vs 8 stops). This is due, in part, to the large pixel size of the CFV (9 microns) compared to the D2x (6 microns). A 22MP back has the same pixel size as the CFV, but has a larger sensor.</p>

<p>The D3x has the same pixel size as the D2x, but better color and lower noise characteristics. It has greater resolution, primarily due to the larger sensor. The dynamic range (per DPReview) is marginally greater (8.6 stops vs 8 stops).</p>

<p>Medium format digital has a different look than small format digital. It looks sharper, smoother and is particularly good at rendering subtle surface textures (e.g., black leather). Shadow detail, in color, rivals (or exceeds) that of medium format Tri-X film. Much of this is subjective - you really have to try it to see. More on this subject at <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml</a>.</p>

<p>On the other hand, a D3x (or DSLR in general) is a lot easier to set up and use, has a much higher useful ISO range and faster lenses. Small-format DSLRs are well protected against mist or light rain, whereas MF cameras have practically zero weather protection. Zoom lenses are practically unknown in the MF world, and high-speed photography is limited to about 1.5 fps.</p>

[lobalobo]

<p>Thanks, Edward. I had seen the Luminous Landscape item you link. (In fact I provide the very same link in my original post.) I appreciate your opinion and no doubt a 35mm DSLR has its advantages. For me, though, the farthest I could possibly stretch to replace 4x5 film is about $5,000, which might one day buy me a used D3x (or sooner, I suppose, the Canon equivalent); but I take it that this would not be the same sort of substitute a MF back would be. (Not surprisingly, or no one would be able to sell MF Backs.) And for me, for the things I would use a DSLR for, even $5,000 is way more than I could possibly justify spending. When my kids play soccer or put on a Halloween costume, the difference in image quality between a $5,000, or even $1,000 DSLR, and my $275 bridge camera will be too subtle to matter to the consumers of thes pictures: family and friends looking at 4x6 Snapfish prints in the mail or a Picasa slide show on their laptops.)</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>It is hard to make any extrapolations, but it can be said that with comparable technology, the larger format wins. There larger surface can be translated to higher resolution, better dynamic range and better color reproduction. But of course only when the technology in two formats are comparable. Keep in mind also that focal lengths and magnification ratios tend to go up when moving to larger formats, changing the depth of field. This may or may not be desirable.<br>

As for what to buy, if you don't have the money right now, don't worry too much about it. Things develop so fast that no one can completely accurately predict what will happen in five years time.</p>

[lad_lueck]

<p>Most of the image difference at the krockwell site is due to the Tone Curve applied by the RAW conversion software. A good deal of the rest of the difference is due to the MF back lacking an AA filter, which gives 'sharper' (more accutance) individual pixels.<br>

It seems that 35mm digicam software has a very steep curve in the midtones. You can control that steepness (and should) if you care about your image quality.<br>

Another huge factor is color response. It seems that the MF backs have color filters that are optimized for correct color response, whereas the smaller formats give up some of that, to allow more photons thru, for lower noise-per-pixel. You can negate some of that with custom color calibration such as the Calibrate tab in Adobe Camera Raw aka ACR.</p>

[lobalobo]

<p>Regarding Lad's post, what I find most interesting about the Rockwell comparison is that the Nikon D3 and H3DII-22 have sensors with roughly the same pixel density. All else equal, then, the differences between the two images would be in the higher pixel count over the same field of view. But viewed on a small monitor, the differences can't be based on pixel-count-driven resolution, and so all else must not be equal. The AA filter is, of course, a factor, and I wondered what else can't be fixed by adjusting the RAW image from the 35mm camera; tonality came to mind, thus the title of my original post. So I am now curious how much of the D3 inferiority in image could be adjusted with curves. Lad says much. In my limited experience, with limited skill, and limited software, I can't get a bridge-camera image to look like an entry-level DSLR image--not even close--even for small prints. Now this may be because of all the limitations I am subject to that a more skilled and better equipped post-processor is not; or it may be that in my cheap-camera comparison, there is a difference in pixel density, which is not true of the D3 versus 22mp HD3 comparison. But I am curious.</p>

<p>In sum, I know that medium format backs offer high resolution at low pixel density, which does nice things for noise and dynamic range, and of course I understand the depth-of-field differences in format size (a pain for me usually, when shooting 4x5, but a sweet spot in my view, with MF). And then there is the matter of the AA filter, which I don't mean to minimize. (Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?) I would just be curious about the results of a serious test along the lines of what Rockwell tried, one that would try to control for all but sensor quality (independent of the ability to produce very large prints), and with results that a viewer could subjectively evaluate (unlike the number spit out by DxO).</p>

[lad_lueck]

<p>Lobalobo said: In my limited experience, with limited skill, and limited software, I can't get a bridge-camera image to look like an entry-level DSLR image--not even close--even for small prints. Now this may be because of all the limitations I am subject to that a more skilled and better equipped post-processor is not; or it may be that in my cheap-camera comparison, there is a difference in pixel density, which is not true of the D3 versus 22mp HD3 comparison. But I am curious.<br>

--------------------------------------------------------------<br>

If by 'bridge camera' you mean 'smaller than a DSLR', I agree with you. I get vastly different tones from my Canon G9 than I do from my 1Ds and 'L' glass. I think that's because Canon is doing something funky in-camera (even on RAW images).<br>

The CMOS/CCD's are supposed to be *linear*, period. That means any differences are due to noise, color filter, AA filter, and post-processing. We know that Nikon does "NR" on the RAW data, and that Canon does sharpening on the xxD models. They certainly could be doing tone-mapping.<br>

I found out just how hard it is to get accurate and pleasing colors out of my 1Ds. It took me 2 *years* to get it calibrated. And the calibration ended up being by eyeball, not shooting a color chart, because that's what was needed to get where I wanted to go.<br>

Learning to sharpen, with my custom action, took 3 years of experimentation.<br>

I suspect getting tone curves that give the same emotional feel as 100 years of film development will take some time, as well.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>I have extensive experience in the use of 35mm DSLRs and MF Digital solutions. Canon 1DsMKIII, Nikon D3/D700 and a trial of a D3X, plus the Sony A900 with Zeiss lenses ( that I secured rather than the Nikon D3X I tried out.) On the MF side, a Hasselblad CFV-II, H3D-II/31 and H3D-II/39 ... plus a Leaf Aptus 75s I used prior to the Hasselblads.</p>

<p>Functionality of the 35 DSLRs is the reason to own them ... the higher meg versions provide that functionality with a reasonable boost in resolution. These are "Horses for Courses" systems for specific applications requiring that functionality (speed, burst depth, huge range of specific application lenses and different focal lengths especially at the long end), plus high ISO capabilities.</p>

<p>The fairly common element of all these 35mm DSLRs is the sensor is a CMOS type ... which helps provide all that digital functionality ... but often requires filters to accomplish it ... with an impact on image quality in some ares. It's the trade off made to accomplish some of the needed traits we want from a 35MM DSLR ... like high ISO performance.</p>

<p>On the other hand, MFD digital solutions are primarily CCD sensors with minimal or even optional filtration. Very often the true native ISO of these backs is 50 or 100 and anything beyond that is a compromise ... a compromise more recently mitigated by some pretty hefty advancements in sensor design, firmware and software solutions, so that these backs have become far more useful than in past ... but nowhere the ISO functionality of something like a Nikon D700.</p>

<p>However, for just pure IQ ... color, perceptual depth, clarity, tonal gradations and micro detail ... nothing in the 35mm DSLR pantheon can yet challenge these backs ... and maybe never will. All aspects being equal in terms of processing skill, the MFD IQ is visibly superior by most every measure. Also, the trade offs of functionality are made up by the modular nature of the MFD systems ... with the backs being adaptable to a wide range of technical field cameras and studio view cameras and their attendant Digital APO optics that are unequalled in resolving power and make fuller use of the massive resolution some of these backs are capable of. The difference between MF SLR digital and the same MF back used on a view camera sporting Schneider or Rodenstock APO digital lenses is also visible and obvious ... but for that you give up even more speed and convenience.</p>

<p>Horses for courses. Pick your horse. </p>