(When) Will 35mm DSLR Exceed MF Film Image Quality?

[philip_wilson]

<p>My experience is similar to Carsten's - my Canon 5D2 with top quality glass is almost identical in performance to Mamiya 645 using Velvia scanned on my Nikon 9000 (although the scanned image is a much larger file size). When I compare the Fuji Gx680 to the Canon I find the Fuji is clearly the better performer. Does this mean that I use the Fuji, the Mamiya, the Canon DSLRs (or even my EOS film, FD film or Contax G series film) at the expense of the others? No I like to mix it up and I find that there is something about the MF process that can lead to good shots as you slow down and take more care. In addition the Fuji GX680 makes every lens tilt / shift.</p>

[j_marrs]

<p>I use medium format film and 35mm film cameras. Just bought my first digital SLR camera Pentax KX. So I plan to have a shoot out and find out which is better. I also have the Nikon 9000 film scanner with glass carrier and fluid mounting system. I had a professional take some b&w and color portraits using the Nikon D300. My brother and sister just love her work, but I don't. I know what quality b&w looks like because I shoot film and work in a lab, and this woman's b&w from her D300 look like sh...t. Even her color shots have that television look in the highlights. But to the layman, who has never worked with film, the D300 looks fantastic to them. To me, they look overly sharpened, plastic like, and like they're taken off an HD TV screen. There is a tonal quality to film that is hard to see in digital. That may be different in the $37,000 MF digital. But I was not pleased with the HD TV look of 35mm digital SLR. I mainly want the digital as a tool for low light and high ISO work.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>

<blockquote>

<p>When I made the final selection, every shot I wanted from that sequence was on film, shot on the Voigtlaender. They had a character and beauty that the Nikon couldn't match, despite being taken with one of the best Nikkor lenses available, and on an exemplary DSLR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Would you care to share any details as to how you processed the Nikon files? A lot of different "looks" can be coaxed out of a RAW file. Film is beautiful, but it's less flexible in terms of the number of ways that you can render the final output.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>MF can be used in a far wider set of conditions that you suggest. In fact, some of the best fast action photography I've seen has been shot on MF. Ever seen Nick Brandt's wildlife photography, for example? He shot it all on a Pentax 67, and his work is astonishingly good - witness two books and worldwide exhibitions.</p>

</blockquote>

</p>

<p>Lots of people have published books and held well-received exhibitions with photos from 35mm cameras. That doesn't mean that a 20+ MP digital camera wouldn't provide better resolution. The two concepts aren't related in the slightest.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>I've tested my 7D using the map test devised by Les Sarile (http://www.fototime.com/inv/E0D372FC8001820).</p>

<p>Here it is against the two top 35mm performers, Tech Pan on a 4000 dpi scanner, and Velvia 50 on a 5400 dpi scanner:<br>

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/4b81ff164b.jpg</p>

<p>Here it is against the top MF sample, Velvia scanned on a Howtek:<br>

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/8e317d4a8e.jpg</p>

<p>The 7D does very well against the 35mm films. I think it's safe to say that it out resolves Velvia 50 and matches Tech Pan, at least for detail at this contrast level.</p>

<p>The MF scan out resolves the 7D, which isn't much of a surprise given the large difference in sensor and film size. It's actually surprising that the 7D does so well by comparison given the relatively small sensor. A 40" print is pretty big and I think at that size you would notice that MF has higher quality. But at the same time I don't think anyone would complain about a 16x24 or 20x30 7D print. These print sizes are well within the range of current top of the line DSLRs.</p>

<p>Many factors play into final print quality. For this reason I believe it when somebody claims their 5D2 produces sharper images than their 6x7 scans, but I also believe those who say the opposite. It depends greatly on subject, lens, technique, film, RAW settings, etc, etc, and things are close enough that variables can throw the contest to either side.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Note regarding my last post: on my browser the MF/7D sample needs to be zoomed in quite a bit. It should be 1185 pixels high, but it doesn't display that way in FireFox unless I use the page zoom command (View >> Zoom >> Zoom In).</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>In the process of taking a large space with stuff in it (subject) and turning it into a large print, it is reduced in size in camera and then blown up big again in printing.<br>

This reduction in image size at the film or sensor is the weak point in the process and the smaller this area is, the worse the problem is.<br>

It doesn't really matter what the recording medium is now, they are both good, but the larger you can make it, the better the result will be (better being a subjective term). This is why an 8x10 contact print from film will always have more detail than an 8x10 printed from a 35mm negative.</p>

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>Lots of people have published books and held well-received exhibitions with photos from 35mm cameras. That doesn't mean that a 20+ MP digital camera wouldn't provide better resolution. The two concepts aren't related in the slightest.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't disagree, Dan. But you've taken my remarks out of context and drawn some incorrect conclusions. I was not making a comment on resolution; only on handling.</p>

<p>If you'd read them in the appropriate context as a response to Scott Wilson you'd see I was addressing his point that MF can't be used handheld - specifically, his assertion: "If I need to shooting moving subjects with a longer lens handheld, which in my case I often do, then there is no way MF can come close to what I am getting."</p>

<p>Nick Brandt is only one example plucked from the air but he illustrates the point. The fact is there are lots of MF users who use their cameras exactly like it was 35mm, and gain better quality from scanned files, with less grain, more signal to noise in scanning, and enhanced enlargement potential. Not to say one could not achieve equivalent sized files from digital (clearly one could) but they certainly would not look the same. Fixating on resolution is a one-dimensional argument.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_jennings2]

<p>What is the sound of one pixel clapping?</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>The fact is there are lots of MF users who use their cameras exactly like it was 35mm</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed. And to go one step further there are all of those 1930s to 1950s press photographers who hand held their Speed Graphics to get all sorts of shots including sports and other 'action' shots.</p>

[swilson]

<p>

<p>With regards to shooting with long lenses handheld I often shoot with a 300mm lens + 1.4 extender on a 1.6x cropped sensor. To get the same field of view with a 6.7 camera you would need a 1568mm lens, I don’t think many people would be shooting handheld with that kind of lens. What more I often am shooting at f/8 to get enough DOF for the image, with a MF camera you would have to shoot at around f/30 to get the same DOF. I just don’t see that happening with a MF camera. <br>

 

<p>Oh and the photo has to be in color, the newspaper is not going to publish a B/W photos in the sport section.</p>

</p>

</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

With printing for the public; I have pro customers who are convinced that their Canon 5D records more details than their old 6x7 camera; ie rb67.

 

One person; lets call him "Mr67" long ago totally poo pooed anything digital. We had 24x36 posters in the shop made from 1.3 megapixel cameras back when a pro camera was this size. When cameras got so say 3 megapixels; a 24x36" color poster for courtcase or wall was even overkill. With each improvement of camera MR67 poo pooed digital all the. For court case images he still shot 6x7 and we scanned it; then made the big posters. Then MR67 got a Canon 5D and now his brain is wired that digital is better than film; ie says a Canon 5D toatally blows away a 6x7 fiom shot. It probably *does* for his application; since his old 6x7 shots often had little DOF. ie an indoor shot of as store's accident/fall woule be shot in the past with the 6x7 under low light; and thus the lens was open and one had little DOF. The smaller 5D solved his dof issue.

 

The same customer has gone from digital is total crap; to film is obsolete and worse in about a 10 year time frame. 10 years ago he did not know a jpeg from a tripod socket; or what a memory card is; now it is like he invented digital; an expert in all fields. Part of the folks wanting to know mf/lf/35mm versus number of pixels is to justify the new tool; justify to wife or accountant.

 

Here for me being an early user of digital cameras in the early 1990's; it is interesting to see customers preach that xyz digital is better than ABC film.</p>

 

 

Here many customers seem to get better images with the dinky P&S digital and 35mm dlsr jsut because they get better DOF or chip out the duds

[mauro_franic]

<p>Particular to the OP's question interested in Black and White, there is not as 35mm DSLR today that comes even close to just 35mm film. Not in resolution and not in tonal information. Much less in the visual experience of B&W grain vs Digital pixels when enlarged. (just compare a 30x40 print from 100MP-8000dpi scans of 35mm film to a 20MP DSLR).<br>

<br /> Every photographer I know that currently shoot B&W films (like TMAX in Xtol) and shares the same lenses he uses with his 35mm digital understands this. If there is a photographer here that uses B&W film and a DSLR with the same lenses and disagrees I would love to here his/her experience.<br /> <br /> Flatbed scanners do not provide acceptable quality for prints, if that is the next question. For the price of a good L lens one can buy a Nikon CS9000 that will do very good scans of 35mm and MF as well.</p>

<p>When MF film and a 35mm DSLR will be comparable? Never. Aside of the simple facts of resolution and diffraction limitations, there is much more. A MF lens can project more information than a 35mm lens and it is not a matter of upgrading a sensor. Also an analog capture will look random pleasing distributions if scanned with a deep enough resolution - a digital capture is limited by squares pixels at the time it is taken.<br /> Here are my 2c: since most/all interested in B&W already own very good Canon or Nikon lenses for their DSLRs, try 35mm film with a very good SLR body you can get on ebay for just $100 and have the film properly scanned. The question on 35mm DSLR for B&W vs MF will soon became ridiculous, and you will have a fantastic tool for work/pleasure to carry along in your bag together with your DSLR and lenses.</p>

<p>When will a crop sensor dslr be the same as a FF? Never. DF aside, there may be one lens in your bag at f4-5.6 that in resolution terms can make a high density crop sensor comparable to 35mm, all other lenses and apertures (>99% of the combinations a photographer will use are not comparable). Same logic from 35mm to MF.</p>

<p> </p>

[michael_taylor9]

<p>For the average user the technology is probably already there. Considering what the final images are used for, you probably can't tell the difference.<br>

My concern as a shooter of various subjects is how much time I have to spend working on a specific project in order to achieve my goal. If I spend 1 hour shooting digital on site then have to spend 4 hours editing, dealing with computer image manipulation, batch processing etc. later on I'm not a happy camper. If however, I spend 1 hour shooting film and 1 to 2 hours editing and filing later on I am certainly a much happier camper and I have used my time much more efficiently. <br>

The only advantage I see to using a digital system is the ability to self edit at the shooting stage. What I see happening is people shooting arm loads of crappy images in the hopes that the "good one" is in there somewhere. There is no self editing on site. Which means they end up doing the editing at a later time, even if they beat the crap out of the "delete image" button on the camera. Using my film cameras has taught me to slow down and pay attention. Strictly digital users don't have that frame of mind, in my opinion.<br>

I'll leave you with this link to an article by shooter Chris Nicholson. <br>

http://www.nicholsonprints.com/Articles/digital.htm</p><div></div>

[acjtucson]

<p>I think John Jennings has said it best.</p>

[rossb]

<p>I do not know which one has more techno stuff. I would be interested in viewing a 30x40 print shot with film/6x6, especially if it were b/w. I have no interest in viewing digital prints except maybe snapshots of family and stuff. My point is there is more to photography then techno stuff. What does it take to reach a viewer or audience. </p>

[iwao_sakurai]

<p>Subject: (When) Will 35mm DSLR Exceed MF Film Image Quality?</p>

<p>Of course it will. That is why I don't paint anymore, it's so much easier to just shoot a digital image.<br>

Also I used to have a machine that took pictures and at the same time printed them "instantly" in color. This archaic device was of course replaced by the digital image, I don't even need a print to enjoy the image, I just know its there! Now thats advancement!! </p>

[dan_south]

<p>Neil, I apologize for quoting you inaccurately. That wasn't my intention.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>The funny thing about these types of posts are the sizes of prints always mentioned. Everyone needs to ask themselves how often they even print a 16x20....and then ask what differences there really are. </p>

[swilson]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=528518">Dave Luttmann</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"></a>, Dec 31, 2009; 01:15 p.m.</p>

 

<p>The funny thing about these types of posts are the sizes of prints always mentioned. Everyone needs to ask themselves how often they even print a 16x20....and then ask what differences there really are.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>

<p>I like 20x30 inch prints, they are cheap and are a nice size for hanging on a wall. I also make a fair number of 12x18 inch prints, which I like people look through much like a stack of small prints. In a way the 12x18 inch prints need more detail then the 20x30 inch print because people look closely at the 12 x18 print but not so much for the print on the walls.</p>

<p>I do like to look at sharp prints and am pretty near sighted so I do tend to put my nose right to the print, but from watching most other people view prints you could get away with a fairly low reasolution image even for a large print, in the range of 6-8 MP.</p>

<p>Often people will judge how "sharp" a print is not from how fine of detail is in the image but based on the contrast and lighting of the image, which is how it should be IMO. </p>

<p> </p>

</p>

[karl_fermedfor]

<p>I think a better question to ask would be: "When will my 8x10" (20x25cm) prints from digital look better than 35mm or MF?"<br /><br />While 35mm has been handily out-resolved from digital for some time now, the labs are still using 300DPI (~115 dot/cm) output almost exclusively on RA-4 prints.<br>

As I have neither the time nor interest in learning dry printing, I recommend that people realize that, for all intents and purposes, they are getting lower resolutions in their prints than they were with film.<br>

Until at least 450 DPI output becomes common (let's not even talk about 600+), you are only getting 7.2MP of information in an 8x10" (20x25cm), no matter what you use. With 6x7cm, ignoring the crop, you got about 60MP on the negative and maybe in excess of 30 on the print (of course everyone is using glossy for finest detail) after the printing lens was factored in. <br /><br />Of course, optical printing had its own problems, like printer lens resolution loss, especially if it weren't stopped down two stops; now it's big problem is that no one does it anymore.</p>

<p>Anyway, if people want to rail on about their gripes about film resolutions in the past, they ought be far more enraged about the continuing "scourge" of matte paper today ;-)</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Particular to the OP's question interested in Black and White, there is not as 35mm DSLR today that comes even close to just 35mm film. </em> <em>Not in resolution and not in tonal information.</em></p>

<p>That's not what I'm seeing. Note the 35mm Tech Pan comparison posted earlier. As to tonality, allow me to distinguish between the ability to discern subtle changes in tone, and the tone curve which gives each film its look. Digital sensors have an excellent ability to distinguish subtle tones. Notice the map contours in the previous samples. However, it takes some work to get a tone curve in digital which yields a print comparable to a traditional B&W print. It can be done, and tools like Silver Efex make it easier. But you can't just switch to B&W mode on your DSLR and expect shots comparable in look and feel to well printed, classic B&W film.</p>

<p><em>When MF film and a 35mm DSLR will be comparable? Never. </em></p>

<p>We're much too close now to claim never. The next Canon 1Ds will likely have a sensor in the 35 MP range, give or take a MP. If it's not able to resolve comparable fine detail to a CoolScan 9000 MF scan, which is softer than a Howtek scan, it will be darn close. At the 7D's sensor density Canon could make a FF sensor of 46 MP. I would guess that such a sensor would easily match scanned MF film even in fine detail.</p>

<p><em>DF aside, there may be one lens in your bag at f4-5.6 that in resolution terms can make a high density crop sensor comparable to 35mm, all other lenses and apertures (>99% of the combinations a photographer will use are not comparable). Same logic from 35mm to MF.</em></p>

<p>That logic is flawed Mauro. Diffraction is not a hard and fast limit on lens or sensor resolution, but rather appears as a slight blurring effect (which USM does a very good job of eliminating). A 7D is said to be diffraction limited at f/6.8, but it continues to show a resolution advantage over comparable APS-C DSLRs well past that. Also, if you compare DoF at a given FoV and distance (not aperture/focal length, but equivalent DoF/FoV) between formats, you will find that diffraction doesn't hit any of the formats much worse than the others.</p>

<p>Example: an APS 17mm @ f/8, full frame 28mm @ f/13.5, and 6x7 50mm @ f/22 all have roughly the same FoV and DoF. Enlarged to the same print size they will also have almost exactly the same circle of confusion on the print.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>The reason I shoot with film has nothing to do with reoslution, MTF curves, dynamic range, etc, etc.....it has to do with the fact that film looks diferent than a digital image....and I like it.</em></p>

<p>Well said. I'm of the opinion that it is theoretically possible to shape a RAW file into any look desired. But it's not always easy, consistent, or practical to do so. Where a particular film offers a unique look, sometimes it's just easier to shoot the film.</p>

<p>I find that I need to periodically shoot and wet print classic B&W film to train my eye as to how a classic B&W print should look. Doing this helps me tremendously in my digital B&W conversions. While I feel I can make digital B&W prints comparable to my darkroom work, I can see why some people just stick to the darkroom for B&W rather than going through the effort to master the same look and feel in digital. It does take some work.</p>

<p>I think you pointed out another look recently, here or on dpreview, which can be tricky to achieve digitally, and that is overexposed NPH. Given the manner in which digital sensors clip highlights, achieving the same look may require HDR. Given the intended subject (weddings and portraits), that's not really feasible and it just becomes easier to load and shoot NPH.</p>

<p>Digital is very flexible and can also accomplish certain looks and tasks easier than film. Each adds to the photographer's toolbox and is worth exploring. I think we're at the point now with digital that it is no longer a question of technical quality (i.e. when will digital equal), but rather a question of artistic quality (which will give me what I need for this specific shoot and goal).</p>

[swilson]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4263804">Karl Fermedfor</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Dec 31, 2009; 04:49 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>I think a better question to ask would be: "When will my 8x10" (20x25cm) prints from digital look better than 35mm or MF?"<br /><br />While 35mm has been handily out-resolved from digital for some time now, the labs are still using 300DPI (~115 dot/cm) output almost exclusively on RA-4 prints.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

<p>It is even a bit worse then 300 ppi since then tend to use slightly oversized light beam to avoid aliasing. I figure the real resolution of a digital print to RA-4 it closer to 200 ppi. I get far sharper prints using a very cheap inkjet printer then I do from Costco.</p>

<p>

<p>Below is a comparison between a Costco print on the top and one from my Inkjet on the bottom, both scanned at 300ppi. My inkjet is a low cost one, a better inkjet would show a much better looking print.</p>

</p>

 

<br>

<img src="http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/89043066/original.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>

<p>Having said that I have to point out a couple of things, I rarely got optical prints that were any sharper in the days when the labs were doing optical prints and in many cases I get really bad prints. At least with digital prints the resolution is consistent. The other thing I have notice is that the slight softness of a digital print bugs me when I look close most people can’t tell the difference.</p>

<p>Of course if you want to see something really bad take a close look at a photo in most magazines, the 133 DPI on the magazine is the dot / inch it was printed at, not scanned.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/101215825.jpg" alt="" /></p>

</p>

 

[liam_martin]

<p>And I've recently picked up a film camera for the sake of getting my hands dirty again. Loading film, removing, developing...I have a 35mm digital (5D) for when I want it.<br>

It's nice to cross-process or home develop etc...versus simply plugging in the CF card</p>

 

[swilson]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2129602">Daniel Lee Taylor</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 31, 2009; 05:48 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Well said. I'm of the opinion that it is theoretically possible to shape a RAW file into any look desired. But it's not always easy, consistent, or practical to do so. Where a particular film offers a unique look, sometimes it's just easier to shoot the film.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>

<p>Depending on the film it is not really possible to match the colors of film, this is because many films have spectral sensitivity curves that have much less overlap then the human eye and the filters used on digital camera. The effect of this is there is no way to map between the colors from most films to what a digital camera records. It is worth noting that digital camera are very close to the same curves as the human eye, so an image from a digital camera can match the real world colors much closer then what you can with film But if someone really likes the look of film then it can be hard to match with a digital camera, for some subjects. In theory a filter in front of the lens could block some of the light when film is lacking in sensitivity and get a much closer match, around 490nm and 590nm for Velvia for instance. For me I like the more natural looking colors from digital, if processed right.</p>

</p>