D700 VS F5

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>"D700 outperforms 35mm film in terms of detail"<br>

there are so many films available, so that statement is a little broad.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It wasn't a statement. My full quote was "IN MY OPINION the D700 outperforms 35mm film in terms of detail". I also suggested that "everybody has their own opinion," which you have now demonstrated. MY "opinion" is based on prints made from professional scans of fine-grained films such as Fuji Provia, Velvia classic, and Velvia 100.</p>

[frank_gary]

<p>I know its a bit off the topic of the OP but this discussion seems to be heading in the direction of film vs. digital so. I am curious at what quality of scan do you cease to pull information out of a piece of film? I ask this because looking in the large format forums people seem to scan their film at very high Dpi such as 7,000 or 11,000. I calculate that a 35mm frame scanned at 7,000 Dpi would be a 65 megapixel image but am not sure if any of these extra pixels contain useful data or are we just getting a better scan of film grain.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2071900">Dan South</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Mar 22, 2010; 01:27 p.m.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"D700 outperforms 35mm film in terms of detail"<br /> there are so many films available, so that statement is a little broad.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>It wasn't a statement. My full quote was "IN MY OPINION the D700 outperforms 35mm film in terms of detail". I also suggested that "everybody has their own opinion," which you have now demonstrated. MY "opinion" is based on prints made from professional scans of fine-grained films such as Fuji Provia, Velvia classic, and Velvia 100.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The problem Dan is that this isn't about opinion. It either does, or it doesn't. One cannot have an opinion that 1+1 is 3. It either is, or isn't. As we can see in hig rez scans that 35mm can match, or exceed even an 18mp Canon 7D....then there is not opinion about whether or not it can beat a D700....it does.</p>

[amien_burteau]

<p>I shoots lots of medium format film, with great lenses, but :<br>

in terms of true global sharpness , even my 10MP DX camera does a better job. Fact is , medium format is slow, mirrors on certain cameras (p67) can add lots of blur if not handeld well or locked up. & finally, even if shot on medium format rangefinder or TLR cameras, grain & gelatin structure is always uneven. This is the conclusion I have, after having scanned more than 2000 rolls of 120.<br>

Global sharpness is way better on Digital : almost grainless at 100 iso, can be blown up on huge sizes as well.<br>

That said, true resolution & dynamic range is way better on medium format- large format Film. But technology evolves fast & new sensor technology will surely do a better job in 5-10 years.<br>

I still enjoy my darkroom sometimes. Fiber paper & chemical development is unbeaten.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Frank, as it has been pointed out, it highly depends on which type of film you are talking about. The last landscape film I used was Velvia. Quite to my dismay, even though I scan it at 4000 dpi, it looks very soft and I am merely looking into the grains. It is the exactly same situation Scott Wilson commented above:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=940372">Scott Wilson</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 21, 2010; 02:20 p.m.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/user?user_id=509425">Arnab Pratim Das</a> <a rel="nofollow" href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 21, 2010; 01:58 p.m.<br>

And scroll down on this link to a see a 100% crop from a 40+ MP scanned image from 35mm Provia 100F.<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="../nikon-camera-forum/00FKTo">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00FKTo</a><br />Works for you? That's about as good as it can get with 35mm (or the F5, for that matter) -- so you decide...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That 100% crop is way soft, it starts to look ok when resized to around 40%, but then that has shrunk your 40MP image down to around 6.5. And even at 40aA% is looks soft to my eye.<br />I assume you are talking about this crop BTW<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00F/00FKUl-28300884.jpg">100% crop</a></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>So unfortunately, it is not merely Dan South's opinion; it is something that can be easily demonstrated. You can scan it at 10000 dpi for all you want and generate some huge image file that has no extra information. It is like you have a 24MP Nikon D3X without using a tripod and end up with 24M blury pixels.</p>

<p>But that is hardly anything new. We have known all along that with a 35mm slide, you cannot print very large or you'll start seeing a soft image. That was why I bought a 6x4.5 camera 9 years ago and most serious landscape work is done with 4x5 large format or at least 6x7. Additionally, large-format lenses are not as good as 35mm lenses, but they win because their sensor (film) size is so much bigger.</p>

<p>However, there are other high-resolution specialty film that resolves much better than Velvia. So it all depends on exactly which type of film you are talking about.<br>

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00F/00FKUl-28300884.jpg"></a></p>

[frank_gary]

<p>Shun Thanks. That makes sense I guess it would be like putting a slide under my wifes microscope at 400X I could see everything there is to see but it can't make a line sharper than it is on the slide, at least without changing the image.</p>

[sven_felsby]

<p>I live happily with my D300 and my beloved FM2n + F2A combo.<br>

Now, at night, I ponder whether to put an LP on my turntable or to stream iTunes to the stereo.<br>

In both cases I am happy to have the choice.</p><div></div>

[RaymondC]

<p>Due to cost and if you don't shoot many shots like sports, I would go to 120 format, price and maybe size they are not bad compared to the F5.</p>

<p>But regardless, for most people out there, both 35mm and digital can provide exceptional work.</p>

<p>To me it is the style of film that I prefer, I prefer the less shots, the more planning, more careful approach and I even enjoy the longer PP of film as well as the 2nd hand goods on the market. That I am using cheap equip to produce an image.</p>

<p>From what I have shot with, there are slide film like Elite Chrome and E200, probably Provia and Ektachrome 100G too IMO that looks a bit like digital. I wold get my Provia first sample back this month and my 100G next month, I plan to shoot a roll each month, I have film in my freezer to clear out that has been sitting there for a few yrs. To my eyes, Velvia has a diff look, not sure about digital PP or plugins b/c I don't use them. My digital PP is just a 2min job in LR, mainly just a rotate, a crop and a curve adjustment, maybe a few lever adjustments like fill light and saturation for the few.</p>

<p>I have used Kodak Ultra Color neg film which might be similar to the new Kodak Ektar, that to me has a digital look to it. However if you are looking at regular neg film like Kodak Gold / Fuji Superia or their portait films up to 400 or 800, film to me look different, not saying it is better or worst but they are just different.</p>

<p>OTOH, I don't but if I did more events, sports, portraiture in otherwords a bit of everything I would shoot digital, just make finance sense and they work better in low light. For me a week overseas I woule be happy with no more than 4-5 rolls of film with maybe 2 rolls of faster film. </p>

<p>Film is more difficult though. You guys in the USA have it good. I get my film there and pay $60US for postal. Here I am paying 3x for film. Same for labs. I note that Kodak has pulled 100 consumer print and 400 consumer slides and they only have E100G/VS and E200 now, they don't have 400+. Fuji has a 400 but v expensive, $10US where as my country wants almost $30US for a roll. If it wasn't for Fuji, try pushing E200 for 3 stops, you won't get much ....</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Some may find that digital is more clinically correct, I don't dispute that but some people may think deficiencie are ok or even attractive. </p>

<p>I also like the slow approach. You take your time getting your 36 shots in a month or two, go to the lab, bring them home and take your time selecting the few shots and PP them.</p>

[swilson]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=528518">Dave Luttmann</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 22, 2010; 02:13 p.m.<br>

The problem Dan is that this isn't about opinion. It either does, or it doesn't. One cannot have an opinion that 1+1 is 3. It either is, or isn't. As we can see in hig rez scans that 35mm can match, or exceed even an 18mp Canon 7D....then there is not opinion about whether or not it can beat a D700....it does.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Things are not that simple, when taking about film resolution there have always been two numbers used, what it can resolve with a 1000:1 contrast target and what it can resolve with a 1.6:1 contrast target. Film takes a large hit in resolution when dealing with lower contrast targets, which happens to be what most of the world is. On the other hand digital takes a large hit when imaging targets that have high contrasting colors, say red text on a blue background.<br>

　<br>

For example in the 100% crop below in some cases film might do better with the hat but really struggle to show the difference in texture between the dad’s arm and his son’s. However even with the hat it is going to be hard to 35mm film to capture more detail, but at least it has some chance.<br>

<a title="IMG_4504 by KonaScott, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4047/4454547439_88ed54ae7e_o.jpg" alt="IMG_4504" width="700" height="700" /></a></p>

<p>One of my problems with film is capturing low contrast textures well, in this image a film shot would end up with both arms having about the same texture to them IMO.</p>

 

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Re: the ongoing resolution debate<br>

Just a reminder (since this thread is so long) that I posted Canon 7D vs film scan samples earlier. If 35mm Velvia at 5400 ppi cannot match a 7D, then I doubt any color film can under any conditions. Tech Pan is discontinued, though there are probably still a few B&W films that can match or exceed a 7D's resolution.</p>

<p>I realize a 7D can out resolve a D700, but the D700 isn't that far behind. The D2x out resolves just about everything but Velvia in color film, and a D700 should do a bit better than the D2x. (Quite frankly I think the D2x looks better, even if it's a hair lower in resolution, than a 35mm Velvia scan.)</p>

<p>Scott - you're right about low versus high contrast details. Digital does much better as contrast drops.</p>

<p>Shun - you're right about sunsets and color. Don't overexpose, and I might add, shoot RAW and process in 16 bit, and there should be no banding or difficulty.</p>

<p>Ektar was mentioned, but if you compare the 7D samples from my earlier posts to the 35mm Ektar scan sample at Les Sarile's site, you'll find that it's not really competitive in terms of resolution.</p>

[fred_rooks]

<p>Of course, scans from 35mm Velvia (and other films including Ektar) at 5400 ppi can match the output from the 7D (or any other small-format DLSR) in terms of resolved details, even with grain aliasing shoddy optics common in film scanners. What I see through a loupe on a light table or projected on a wall is much better, though. When looking at samples from the 7D, I see nothing that couldn't be achieved with 35 mm film. Not that I think it's desirable to make film pictures look like digital ones. People usually strive for the exact opposite.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Fred - you must not be looking at the samples posted above, where the 7D clearly out resolved 35mm Velvia 50 scanned at 5400 dpi, and matched Tech Pan scanned at 4000 dpi. As to the argument that the scanner is missing something, I can attest to the fact that Velvia does not look any better at that level of magnification through a loupe, microscope, or projector.</p>

<p>As for Ektar, I'll go ahead and post the 7D sample against Les Sarile's Ektar scan sample. The 7D crop is at a higher magnification which should put it at a disadvantage, yet it's quite obvious which is better.</p>

<p>Now these are pretty extreme views. The films being discussed are quite capable of making excellent enlargements. And some may prefer their palette and view of the world. But it's clear that modern DSLRs have resolution which now matches and exceeds the best films in a comparable format, while offering exceptional sharpness and grain/noise, not to mention highly accurate and pleasing color balance under a wide range of lighting situations.</p>

<p>I think it's a very good time to be a photographer.</p><div></div>

[RaymondC]

<p>A few yrs later, we could say the D3 was garbage lol ..</p>

<p>Then again, if I go to a museum / art gallery are they shot with a digital camera, lol.</p>

[fred_rooks]

<p>Yes, I am looking at different samples including the ones linked above, in which you obviously confuse resolution with sharpness. I assure you that film (especially fine-grained film such as Velvia) looks much better in reality than in any scan ever made. Scanner lenses aren't sharp enough, and scans seriously suffer from aliasing artefacts. I haven't seen too many drum scans, but I believe they have more potential. I look at slides under a loupe all the time, project them often and have even examined a few under a microscope. I'm yet to see a scan that would contain what I expect to see in reality. I'd have to sit with you in person over piece of film to demonstrate this, however.<br>

In the Techpan-7D-Velvia comparison, I see no detail in the 7D image that would be absent from the Velvia one. What I do see is that Velvia resolved rivers in Ghana, Nigeria and the Congo correctly as blue lines, whereas the demosaicing algorithm of the 7D interpreted them as green. I think this speaks about the colour resolution of Bayer sensors. The 7D image is higher in contrast and apparent sharpness and not as noisy as the scan, that's all. I think I prefer the Velvia crop over the 7D one.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>I concur with that. My while flatbed scanner is just not comparable, I have also seen drum scanners and Nikon Coolscans but they just loo fantastic on a lightbox. </p>

<p>That's one reason I shoot slide and no PP. Even no scanning. Load the carousel up and presto. </p>

<p>But as good as it gets, I'll prob end up with a CS 8000. Better than nothing I guess if I need it to be digitised.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Frankly, digital is getting so good that is harder and harder not to recommend that option. The results that people are getting from the D700 are very impressive, especially at low light.</p>

<p>Still, the lure of old film cameras pulls me from time to time, and I confess that I still have the F5 and the F3HP. I simply don't shoot them much anymore, since digital is so fast and convenient.</p>

<p>For the record, I shoot Canon digital now, but the D700 is still about as good as it gets at low light and high ISO--and it is a fast camera, which the Canons typically are not.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[fred_rooks]

<p>Daniel, what happened to the border lines running through Lake Chad in the 7D crop? Is it not the same map?</p>

[swilson]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=4212496">Fred Rooks</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 22, 2010; 08:46 p.m.<br>

Yes, I am looking at different samples including the ones linked above, in which you obviously confuse resolution with sharpness. I assure you that film (especially fine-grained film such as Velvia) looks much better in reality than in any scan ever made. Scanner lenses aren't sharp enough, and scans seriously suffer from aliasing artefacts</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

<p>Here is my problem with blaming the scanner, when you give the scanner a super sharp negative to scan you get a super sharp image.<br>

<a href="http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/Tobermory_SH_crop_1000.jpg">Scan of Gigabit film</a><br>

That is a 4000 ppi scan of Gigabitfilm on a Nikon LS-9000, I have never seen a color scan come close to that sharpness or detail.<br>

Here is a scan from the same person using Velvia<br>

<a href="http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/Tabert_crop_1000.jpg">Scan of Velvia</a><br>

Now the Gigabit scan has issues of grain in places, but the detail in the scan is far better then the scan of Velvia, so do we blame the scanner for color but not B/W?</p>

</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>I think the drivers of digital has been the convenience for the masses, more everyday people own cameras than pro's and the fact that computer are part of our lives now and plus it is free of film cost and lab cost without thinking that film cost have increased. </p>

<p>Even for a pro, one can debate but digital are pretty good now. Both gets the job done but people need to be pretty astute to shoot film. For me, the film cost has always been 2x vs the USA in the film days and these days more like 3x. A roll of slide film cost me $20US for Velvia 50 and almost $30US for a 400 Provia. </p>

<p>I remember back in 2000 out org bought a point and shoto camera for staff fun activities a 3MP IXUS a heavy thing back then for $2,000 USD. And not long after that every one starting buying them and upgrading more often than their film cams, bit like a cellphone. WE HAD TO BE UP TO DATE, LOL.</p>

[fred_rooks]

<p>Both scans look very good to me, Scott. Where are the supposed additional issues with the colour one? Both crops exhibit scanner noise and aliasing artefacts (which is colour in the Velvia example): I truly don't believe that the Nikon LS-9000 has the resolving power to bring up the grain of Gigabit film. The grain of Velvia is definitely much larger than that of Gigabit film, yet the noise in both crops looks very similar. I propose the conclusion that in both cases it's caused mainly by the scanner, not the film.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Frank Gary, to answer your question:</p>

<p>the Coolscan 9000 at 4000pdi captures based on my own tests:</p>

<p>- Velvia 50: CS9000 captures 80% of the information available (this is very good) ---> (a 4000 dpi scanner like the Coolscan 9000 is very good for this film but a 6000-8000 dpi scanner will give appreciably better results).<br>

<br /> - Ektar 100: CS9000 captures 90+% of the information available ---> (a 4000 dpi scanner like the Coolscan 9000 is excellent for this film).<br>

<br /> - TMX 100: CS9000 captures less than 50% of the information available ---> (a 6000 dpi or 8000 dpi scanner would be optimal)</p>

[fullmetalphotograper]

<p>For me the F5 is one of the finest 35mm cameras I have ever shot. I would shoot film process it with a Noritzu Film processor, then scan it by using a Kodak Lazer Scanner, for a newspaper, and clients I worked for. When the Noritzu was retired I shot a Canon D30 (The worst camera I ever shot) then moved to a Canon 1D MarkII. I really did not like the actions of these cameras and their action. They were clunky compared to my F5, quality of image I prefered my F5.<br>

I then bought bought the D2x, the action was better, the quality of image was better, did not care for the DX sensor. I felt that this camera was 85% of what I was missing with film. Today I am shooting the D3, The action felt great. The FX sensor, and the action of the camera made me feel like I had come home again.<br>

The D3 really was the final nail in the coffin for my 35mm film use, with the FX sensor and its sensitivity I would say the D3 for me really passed 35mm. I look at my old F5 film images and compare them to my D3 with its higher resolution less noise, it was time for me cut my links to my F5. With D700 having the same sensor I would be shocked if the experience would be all that different.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>i think that we are putting too much emphasis on resolution. film provides many advantages over digital, apart from resolution. there are certain advantages that digital has that make it appealing to professionals. i use and love digital. but i see no reason whatever why an amatuer would want or need digital. film has archival advantages, better colour rendition, better tonal reproduction, it's cheaper to shoot in the long run. grain...well that is supposed to be there, and don't try to compare noise froma digicam to film grain, it's just not the same thing. with film i have the best of both worlds. <br>

if resolution and sharpness were the only indicators of image quality, then i doubt that any of us would be shooting with nikon lenses and small format cameras.</p>

<p> </p>

[frank_gary]

<p>Just to add to the debate and answer my own earlier question I found this site. <br>

<a href="http://www.mindspring.com/~lorqvonray/Sticker-5mp-Velvia.html">http://www.mindspring.com/~lorqvonray/Sticker-5mp-Velvia.html</a><br>

I believe that his magnification is around 350X. I'm not sure that I agree with him that the scan and microscope look the same but it seems that a scan around 8,000 to 16,000 Dpi would probably capture the black spots. I think you might be able to make out a face (recognize the person) from the velvia but I don't think I could from the scan. I think I need to find some film and put it under the scope to see how it looks.</p>