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

[mauro_franic]

<p>Also carrying a dslr to the top of a mountain in the middle of a blizzard is much easier than hauling my RZ67.</p><div></div>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>All the resolution in the world is not going to make you a better photographer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No one ever claimed that higher resolution would make anyone a better photographer.</p>

<p>Driving a car with better gas mileage doesn't make you a better driver, but it still has an effect on your driving experience. You might decide to take longer trips. You might visit distant relatives more frequently. You might decide that you can afford to take a job that requires a longer daily commute.</p>

<p>A technical improvement doesn't make you a better operator of the technology, but it opens up options that might not have been practical previously.</p>

<p>I find it amusingly ironic that contributors to a "medium format" forum would disparage the idea higher image resolution. Think about that for a moment. Why did you buy all of that heavy, expensive Hasselblad/Pentax/Mamiya/etc. gear when you could have just shot 35mm film for all occasions? Could it be that perhaps you wanted HIGHER RESOLUTION negatives and chromes?</p>

<p>Would it be fair to suggest that the higher resolution of medium format cameras (with respect to 35 mm film) isn't important because it won't make you a better photographer?</p>

<p>Who CARES why you want higher resolution? That's YOU'RE business. Shoot 8x10 if you like. Your chosen resolution is completely YOUR OWN choice whether you're a novice, an enthusiast, or a highly successful professional. Maybe one person wants to send baby pictures via email while another person wants to create mural-sized prints or their kids' smiling faces. Use a camera that can give you the resolution you desire and be happy.</p>

 

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Due to miss information</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I'm afraid that Miss Information has been an all too zealous contributor to this thread, but right now she's having her nails done with Miss Congeniality.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Dan,</p>

<p>It isn't just about resolution. In fact, quite often the resolution from 35mm is very good. The shift to MF and LF is also about finer grain, better tonality, and a for color, a more accurate color palette because of the larger surface area of the film. Greater resolution plays a smaller part than the above when making a large print for example. I get your point....but for some, the resolution is but a small part of the picture so to speak.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>I took the picture of myself above with a pocket Olympus Epic loaded with TMAX 400 (possibly one of the best films ever designed). </p>

<p>I laid the Epic on the snow with its timer set, I could not see the camera due to the heavy snowfall and the fact my eyes couldn't stayed open without goggles for long in the -18F degree weather. </p>

<p>The RZ was getting covered with snow but not wet since it was so cold. I just had to blow the snow off it every other minute.</p>

<p>Both cameras performed greatly and never flinched. I was ready to switch the RZ to mechanical mode in case the battery froze but it was not needed.</p>

<p>On portability.... when comparing an RZ with a 50mmULD lens as in the picture above, it is not bulkier than a 35mm DSLR/SLR with a 50mm prime and a 24mm prime (both ranges covered with a single prime on the RZ). I long ago realized the a a single 6x7 lens replaces at least two 35mm lenses making the size/weight comparison more even.</p>

<p>... I just had my snowshoes oversized to float on the soft snow...</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>The film choice is often times not about resolution. The contrast and tones captured by TMAX 400 cannot be easily replicated from a TMX 100 shot. The dynamic range from TMX100 cannot be replicated from a TMAX 400 shot. The colors from Velvia cannot easily be maid out from Ektar. The texture of any of the above cannot be made starting from the other. None of this can easily be made from a DSLR.</p>

<p>Yes, resolution of MF film (and in my shooting technique 35mm as well) are superior than any DSLR's. But that is not the main reason why people use film today. It is for all the other qualities that cannot be made out with hours of stitching and post processing from a DSLR and are ready-made out of the tank when using film.</p>

<p>I covered the most beatiful places in Utah and Colorado this winter. I didn't use my DSLR once.</p>

<p>In the end it is a personal choice. Like sculpting vs painting. When a DSLR will be the same as MF film? - Obviously never.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Earlier last month I was commissioned 24x36 prints from a shoot with a Canon 5D taken by another photographer. This is one of my favorite DSLRs, but seeing the results of 12MP with interpolated color on 24x36 prints it was painful to my eyes.</p>

<p>The customer was so happy it couldn't have loved the results better though. Myself - not so much. Sometimes it comes down to a point of reference of what one is used to seeing.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Here is a cropped section of a 50 megapixel scan. Lens is 127mm F4.7 Ektar; on a 4x5 speed graphic. Scan area is sub 4x5" ie 7x10cm. The dslr here did not have enought resolution for this jobe; thus we dragged out the 12 year old beast. I could have shot several dslr shots and stitched them togther too; another fun job. All the 500 watt hot lamps are nice to use when it is below freezing too. :)</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/16mm%20Nikkor/16MMPOWERPHASE4X5SPEED.jpg?t=1262702718" alt="" width="700" height="465" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/16mm%20Nikkor/PhaseOneScanARROW.gif?t=1262702864" alt="" width="1024" height="768" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/16mm%20Nikkor/UntitledTake26bagcrop.jpg?t=1262702828" alt="" width="676" height="564" /></p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Fresh off the tank from Utah. TMAX 400.</p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Another...</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>here:</p><div></div>

[swilson]

<p>

<p>I it interesting how this thread has drifted with time. The OP asked about a 6x6 camera compared to a full frame digital and printed at 30x40 inches. It should be noted that the 6x6 camera would have to crop far more then a DSLR for that aspect ratio, and in fact would have no more film area then a 645 camera.<br>

　<br>

So the thread started out comparing the film area of a 645 camera to a FF DSLR, but now I see Mauro wants to compare a 6x7 camera to a 10MP cropped DSLR. That is increasing the film area by about 43% and decreasing the DSLR’s resolution to less then half.<br>

<br />The OP also asked about "Image Quality" not resolution of high contrast test targets. Here things get pretty subjective as some people have a harder time with grain then others, I am in the harder time with grain myself.<br>

　<br>

The OP did not specify the subject or shooting conditions and this clearly will have a large impact on which system will produce the better print.<br>

　<br>

The OP also did not say how the print from the 6x6 camera was going to be produced, I a flatbed scan is going to be way different then from a Nikon 9000.<br>

　<br>

As to how much resolution is really needed for a large print the answer depends on how the print is viewed. I do like very high resolution photos, but I have to admit that for most prints the extra resolution does not add much to the print. </p>

</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Scott,</p>

<p>The OP referred to "6x6 or so" (I assumed it included 6x7) ~ prints up to 30x40 ~ and b&W work. With these premises, The difference between film and any DSLR is HUGE in term of printed-viewable detail. Differences in structure and tonal distribution are also material but they would be in smaller sizes as well if scanned with at least a Coolscan 9000. People objecting otherwise are grossly misleading those who have an intent to learn.</p>

<p>As I stated I finished printing a project for another photographer with a Canon 5D up to 24x36s. The nicest thing I can say is that some people must be luckily blessed with lower standards or crooked eyes not to see the difference.</p>

<p>For b&w work in particular, 35mm film in my opinion has a as well a large margin of quality on the print vs DSLRs without having to move to MF. There is no need to purchase a MF rig to experiment and try this. Just an SLR from ebay and already owned 35mm lenses would do for most people to see the difference. </p>

<p>It is worth noting that people obtain different level of results with film due to equipment and experience. I have posted dozens of 4000 dpi scans that look perfect to the pixel whereas other people say they cannot get detail pass 2000 dpi scans from their negatives.</p>

<p> </p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>With these premises, The difference between film and any DSLR is HUGE in term of printed-viewable detail.</em></p>

<p>I wouldn't call the differences in the crops I posted to be huge, and that was Velvia on a drum scanner.</p>

<p><em>For b&w work in particular, 35mm film in my opinion has a as well a large margin of quality on the print vs DSLRs without having to move to MF.</em></p>

<p>Are we speaking about technical, measurable qualities, or subjective qualities? As I've already said I wet print classic B&W film to help me produce better B&W digital prints. I very much admire the look of some B&W films. But I consider the 7D, which is not the best DSLR available (though it is very good), to be the match of 35mm on any technical quality except dynamic range with some films. See the Tech Pan comparison.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Scott - all very good points. The answer to the original question will depend on many factors, not the least of which is subject matter. Rafal did give a print size, 40", which can be challenging to meet. MF will still show some advantage there, but not nearly as much as just a few years ago. It will be interesting to see what the next generation of 35mm sensors can accomplish.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Daniel, I agree with you that when comparing 35mm film and DSLRs, the main differences are in style - a lot more so than in technical qualities like resolution.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>I just finished framing the tree above and it is on the the wall ready to sell (picture with my phone). This is TMAX 400 35mm printed at 24x34 and framed at 30x40.</p>

<p>Next to it, I have the prints - same size - from the commissioned 5D work from a different photographer (I can't show them since they are not mine). Post processed b&W.</p>

<p>I am looking at them in front of me as I write this. 24x34 prints framed at 30x40. The difference is brutally obvious to the viewers that stopped by today. That's why I encourage people to try b&W film even 35mm and use the forum's help to progress. <br>

This is not a resolution chart test. Agreeing with Daniel, there is a lot more to it. Only understandable while standing in front of the prints.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[matt_needham]

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

<p>For some photographers it already has. For others it never will. This suggests to me that the skill set, experience, and attention to detail of the photographer/processor/printer is much more important to finished print quality than the gear.</p>

 

[mauro_franic]

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>Thank you for the test. They are very good.<br>

Is there a reason why some of the rivers in the 7D example you posted show black when Velvia shows them blue?</p>

[greg_campbell1]

<p>Frankly, the question is 100% irrelevant to me. 6x6 gives me more resolution than I know what to do with. I like the mechanical feel of my Bronica, and prefer the look of film over digital.<br>

The whole notion that more resolution = a 'better' photograph is just an outgrowth of the Megapixel flavored Kool Aid that the pixel peepers have become drunk on.<br>

When I can buy a $300 camera that kills MF in every way (not just raw pixel count), give me a call. Until then, "Phhhht!" :)</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Is there a reason why some of the rivers in the 7D example you posted show black when Velvia shows them blue?</em></p>

<p>I'm not sure. At first I thought maybe the rivers were a Bayer artifact since they are very thin and are color detail, and I would expect a Bayer sensor to have lower resolution with certain colors than with others. But Les Sarile has a 40D sample that shows them correctly. I noticed his D2x sample has the same issue my 7D sample has. So I'm guessing it's a RAW converter or converter setting issue in this case, though that caveat about Bayer sensors still applies. A Bayer sensor will show a slightly higher resolution with a B&W test chart than with a color test chart, and the resolution will vary somewhat depending on the color.</p>

[swilson]

<p>

<p>One of the things I notice in Daniel's test is that even with the MF shot there is a fair bit of noise in the image, gives everything a textured look. By the time you are looking close enough at a print to see the small extra resolution that the MF image might have the grain is going to be very noticeable. This gets us back into a subjective area when it comes to quality as that grain is going to bother some people far more then others.</p>

<p>For years my scanned film photos had more resolution then digital camera images, but to my eye the film scans looked soft do to the gain. And prints from the scans also looked way softer then I would expect given the resolution of the scans.</p>

<p>Now if it was just a question of resolution then I find resolution very easy to achive with stitching. I stated stitching photos not to get more resolution but to get wider fields of view. The full size version of the photo below has a bit more then 120 MP, as a 16 bit / color tiff that is a file 720 MBytes in size. For a print this is more resolutin then is needed. A print from a 8 MP image, when viewed from a normal distance, would look very close to the same.<br>

<img src="http://sewcon.com/email_photos/bridge_sized.jpg" alt="" /><br>

100% crop from above<br>

<img src="http://sewcon.com/email_photos/bridge_crop.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="700" /></p>

 

<p>

 

</p>

</p>

 

[mirek_elsner1]

<blockquote>

<p>I wondered what members thought about the next few years of the best in 35mm DSLR image quality with respect to prints, say up to 30x40" in size viewed on a home or office wall, as compared to what can be achieved from a 6x6 or so traditionally enlarged or scanned (is that 81MP?) and digitially printed film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Like other posters, I believe image quality is a subjective term and the two media can't be easily compared as apples to apples.<br>

Many people focus on resolution only. I believe the current top of the line cameras with 20+mp sensors provide comparable quality to MF up to 13x19" or maybe larger. I don't have direct comparison, but I believe for 30x40 you would need at least around 24mp. If you look at other attributes of image quality, as grain (or lack thereof) or color accuracy, digital has been better than film for some time now.</p>

[colin_dewolfe]

<p>I have to agree with Karl Fermedfor above. </p>

<p>The resolution I have seen from labs at 300 - 450 dpi on RA4 from digital files leaves me feeling that the images are mushy, and the tones look plastic like.<br>

I recently had photo from Ireland enlarged to 10x10 at the lab from a 3000dpi scan of a 6x6 negative, and I wasn't impressed with the sharpness of the print. Just for laughs I then printed it in my RA4 darkroom with a good nikon lens, and the difference was very very noticable. It was this print which motivated me to set my darkroom back up and go on the hunt for elusive colour chemicals.<br>

It is true that dealing with problem negatives is easier in the digital realm, but I have come to the conclusion that the lab printing technologies are incapable of rendering the detail that an optical print can make, and that it isn't even really capable of rendering a full frame 24 mega pixel sensor's image to it's full glory.<br>

I have a 16x20 print of the Grand Canyon in my cube, and I always get comments such as "wow... what a sharp print... must be a digital print, or taken with a digital camera". They always seem shocked when I tell them it came from a 6x4.5 negative and they can see the individual shrubs at the bottom of the valley.<br>

If you're comparing a print from a digital file on a mushy RA4 led printer, then I'd say yes digital has has reached the capacity of 35mm (especially the full frame stuff), and maybe is close to medium format at the smaller sizes. However, if you compare it against a custom optical print, in my eyes anyways, the optical print is much sharper. That is why I have gone back to the darkroom. I just gotta make sure I expose well enough to not have a problem neg.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Daniel, that is what I thought. If this is color interpolation where the 7D (or raw processor) guessed wrong, it is safe to conclude that, at least in color resolution, 35mm Velvia still outresolves the lates (crop) DSLR.<br>

I have seen similar problems when we were testing DSLRs against Ektar 35mm where the colors and shapes created were different than the original subject.<br>

This could explain why when I see a picture I've taken with my DSLR, even if it is downsampled for the web, it still looks somewhat synthetic to me. It is hard to explain, but this could be a contributor since colors that were interpolated wrong will ultimately be downsampled wrong as well.</p>

<p>Thank you for the response again.</p>