Jump to content

35mm film vs 5DII - Low light performance


Recommended Posts

<p>From his description of the 80Mpx back, I'd probably prefer the 60 and 40 versions, simply due to the 1sec maximum shutter speed. Otherwise it does produce wonderful images overall - most digital cameras do these days. However, 1:1 crop he provided on that page did not look very nice. It looked overly processed and artificial. You wouldn't get that from even a D100!</p>

<p>But, as vain as it is to speculate, how do you think the 6x7 frame will compare? I've seen many contradictory tests on-line. Some showing that 35mm is exactly on par with a Sony A900. Others showing that a mid-range DSLR is better than 6x4.5. Somebody is full of crap - although it has been demonstrated that Velvia (50) is on-par, per sq.mm, with a high resolution DSLR, although noisier.</p>

<p>BTW Velvia 100 has a lower RMS number than V50 - it might be worth trying both? And did Reichmann specify that you had to use colour film?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 229
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Very good questions.<br /> "However, 1:1 crop he provided on that page did not look very nice. It looked overly processed and artificial."<br /> Regarding the crop he posted, he clarified he oversharpened, but I agree it looks very plasticy (interpolated color).<br /> "But, as vain as it is to speculate, how do you think the 6x7 frame will compare? I've seen many contradictory tests on-line."<br /> 6x7 film like TMAX, Velvia, Techpan, etc will clearly outresolve and 80MP Bayer sensor (capture finer detail) although drumscanned at 8,000 dpi some grain will be visible.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"Some showing that 35mm is exactly on par with a Sony A900. Others showing that a mid-range DSLR is better than 6x4.5. Somebody is full of crap - although it has been demonstrated that Velvia (50) is on-par, per sq.mm, with a high resolution DSLR, although noisier."</p>

<p>When people say they cannot match their DSLRs with 645 is probably true. It is their fault. Results with digital are very even across photographers mainly because of the ability to preview and retake an image, and the fact that developing and scanning are not in the equation.<br>

When someone post examples that even 35mm film outresolves current DSLRs, you will hear responses like "Well.... that doesn't match my experience... I could never get the results I get with my DSLR with my 645 and film". Ok, true - But many other than you can...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"BTW Velvia 100 has a lower RMS number than V50 - it might be worth trying both? And did Reichmann specify that you had to use colour film?"</p>

<p>V50 is sharper than V100. For the test (if he is up to the challenge) I will use both Color and B&W.</p>

<p>There are discussion comparing the detail of 35mm film (Velvia) and 18-20 megapixel DSLRs where the DSLR shots were processed to try to extract the most detail possible. The conclusion from both film and digital shooters was that 35mm resolved more detail in the high contrast areas but there was a debate on the low contrast areas. Well, 6x7 is almost 5 times larger than 35mm so this would give even a higher advantage to film.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To add to that, 6x7 has 80% more area that the 80mp back. Both used on the same camera and lenses, will have the digital back receive a much smaller portion of the information delivered by the lens plus would be diffraction limited much sooner.</p>

<p>In short, yes I believe 6x7 film would do better but I would love the opportunity to run the test with the Luminous Landscape and present the results together.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi Mauro: I like your way of putting up actual results of your finding than those who make plenty of 'claims' and never provided any real evidence for their 'claims'. However, I think the way you choose the title for this thread is just, inevitably drawing all the flames from all the digital gearhead... How they would always p- e-e-p into this FILM forum looking for any digital vs film thread and try to discredit/disprove (without evidence)/give you a lecture/insult/bossing about their 1 century worth of experience is really beyond me. They could have state opinions on the test, but what I really don't like is their TONE when expressing on their points. Are all digital diehards behave similarly? Why even bother if they find all the film users or diehard fans are wrong or outright stupid? If it's the case then it's not worth their time then just let it be.</p>

<p>However, on another note when you choose a title like 'Comparison of lowlight performance of various 35mm films', and post in one of the reply the result of the 5dII would certainly draw less attention, maybe 10 rather than 100+ responses? :)</p>

<p>PS: Can you share with us what LL has to say in greater detail on the 67 vs 80MP challenge?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"Well, 6x7 is almost 5 times larger than 35mm so this would give even a higher advantage to film."<br>

 <br>

"To add to that, 6x7 has 80% more area that the 80mp back. Both used on the same camera and lenses, will have the digital back receive a much smaller portion of the information delivered by the lens plus would be diffraction limited much sooner."<br>

 <br>

Mauro, I've no experience in extracting the max from 6x7 even though I was very satisfied with my own 6x7 results. The biggest I've done is a 16x24 from an expired roll of Neopan 160 :). I do have a question for the above 2 statements you made. From your experience do you find that 6x7 lenses (Mamiya RB in my case) are the limiting factor for the max quality of this 6x7 workflow? As from the 1st statement above, I don't think any Mamiya RB lenses can resolve as many lp/mm as any good 135 primes. The 5 x advantage is certainly not attainable in my opinion. As for the 2nd statement, assuming the tests are on the same 'system' (ie Hassy) then it cancels out the lens factor so there's nothing wrong except whether the lens in use can get the max out of the film limit. Please share from your experience. Thanks.<br>

 </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"From your experience do you find that 6x7 lenses (Mamiya RB in my case) are the limiting factor for the max quality of this 6x7 workflow?"<br>

I do not know about the RB but I would not think so. I use an RZ and a Mamiya 7II, all my Mamiya lenses outresolve my Canon primes (lp/mm) as well as my scanner (Coolscan 9000). I have tested them all - email me if you want me to send you film test to inspect under the microscope. (although best and easier is a microscope on the fresnel).<br>

If the lenses were the limiting factor (which they are not), the 80mp digital camer would be in trouble since it uses only a crop of the 6x7 frame.</p>

<p>"As for the 2nd statement, assuming the tests are on the same 'system' (ie Hassy) then it cancels out the lens factor so there's nothing wrong except whether the lens in use can get the max out of the film limit. Please share from your experience. Thanks."</p>

<p>If both film and the 80mp back are placed on a 6x7 camera with the same lenses, the 80mp back would only have access to a portion of the information captured by the lens.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks for this thread. To my opinion this thread is not digital vs. film. This thread is about the opinion of independent artist vs. highly corrupted photographic media. Truth and knowledge vs. lies and deception Regardless how accurate this test is done (I may admit that it’s not 100% accurate, it‘s not apple-to-apple) but one conclusion can be made clearly: there are not any measurable evidences confirming that the modern $3000 digital camera implementing “technology of the future” is superior to the film implementing technology of last century in terms of image quality. And it’s been scanned on 8 yrs old out of production scanner BTW. </p>

<p ><em>“With proper education about film, photographers can understand they are best served by incorporating film and <a href="%20/%20">digital</a> to their arsenal. Much to gain and nothing to lose from using both mediums.” </em><br>

Very nice, Mauro. Cannot agree more. But lets make it clear what is really going on. For almost a decade most of us are being subjected to brainwashing techniques to disrupt the believing that the film can yield same result (in some cases even better) as the newest digital cameras. And this campaign has been organized and financed by digital manufacturers and computer related industries. This is being done not because there’s nothing good to gain from film but simply because the production of digital equipment is incomparable cheaper than the production of film cameras. It doesn’t required tremendously expensive sophisticate mechanical shops, R&D and engineering works. More over, implementing flexible software digital devices are easy to update (i. e. to create another “new digital camera”) and customize that makes many people addictive to them. This mighty industry has shut the bottle tight to make sure that the film won’t get fresh oxygen. I’ve already mentioned that Mauro’s scanner is about 8 yrs old. So is mine (Coolscan V). Won’t we buy anything newer? I definitely will, but nothing’s available. There’s no new film related equipment are coming to the market. Using this approach the digital manufacturers have secured the easy cash flow for decades to come without breaking in sweat. The least their concern is our education. They are even interested we to be deceived. They have money, they have power, and they will rule the game.<br>

<br>

Anyhow Mauro, your enthusiasm and attempt to improve these things is highly appreciated. Thanks for using your expertise and your personal time to share this knowledge with us. Pretty much because of people like you we are still believing that we will keep the film in our photographic arsenal for many years to come. <br>

-RP </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for appreciating the post.

 

It is much cheaper to manufacture a DSLR than a coolscan 9000. The DSLR can be sold for more money over and

over to the same person every few years.

 

So can you blame nikon for discontinuing the scanner. No. But consumers can fight back.

 

The problem is that consumers are either brainwashed (not to use digital but to ignore film) or become too vested in

equipment and years of producing digital only pictures that considering that film has benefits unrealized by digital it

could be a mental blow for the dollars spent and quality loss.

 

Hopefully the film engine will rev up and regain momentum. That can only be done by sharing knowledge with those

who want to learn and share back, we the hope their purchase dollars will have a voice for film in the years to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi Roman: I agree with most of what you said except this statement </p>

<p><em>This is being done not because there’s nothing good to gain from film but simply because the production of digital equipment is incomparable cheaper than the production of film cameras. It doesn’t required tremendously expensive sophisticate mechanical shops, R&D and engineering works.</em></p>

<p>I always tell those who ask me about the main difference between a full fledge electronic, late 1990s AF FILM SLR and a DSLR is on the 'rear end', ie the recording media part. The 'front' part from lensmount to shutter is essentially the SAME for 20 years. Even the electronics for the AF and metering processing doesn't change much, with maybe a faster CPU. DSLRs got rid of the film chamber and winding motor, by having card slot/s and digital ports and an LCD. There's not that much different any way. As for the sophisticated mechanical shops you mentioned, it is still greatly needed as evidenced by the rocket high price of the EOS 1D and Nikon D3 series. The full frame sensor could be 500% more expensive than that you find in a D300, but that is only maybe 20% of the cost of the whole SLR. But that would only make the EOS 1D or Nikon D3 series 2x as expensive as a D300, not the 4x we see it now. The full aluminium/magnesium alloy die cast body, the ultra precision shutter and the 10 fps mechanical swinging mirror is just as expensive if not more than that you'll find in an EOS-1V or F-5.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Huang,</p>

<p>Apparently you're right. What you said is less or more correct. But as a electro-mechanical engineer and from my experience I can tell you that quite often we are trying to replace (whenever it’s possible) a mechanically controlled unite with electronic one by to major reasons: reliability issue and cost. Also, in many cases it really helps us to save on initial set up/installation, field service and repair. And it’s just a general trend to drive the cost down.</p>

<p>Mauro,I agree that we cannot blame Nikon or Canon for their desire to make more profits. However as the major companies instead of chasing their giant profitability and fueling up this endless ugly war between film and digital they may contribute something more to preserve fine art for future generation. Vanishing of entire generation of fine art won’t contribute for harmonize developing of our society (may be I’m too idealistic).</p>

<p>Mauro, a question to you. In your test you’ve used the Portra 400 and cranked up the ISO dial to 1600. I guess I missed you explanation what you did next with this film. Did you make +2 push processing or you process it normally but then made all necessary adjustments during the scanning or PS editing to recover 2 stops? “I spent zero time in on PS modifications on film…” indicates that you pushed it in lab. Am I right? I do a lot of pushing (in lab of course) for E6 (Provia, E200 etc.) but never try to push color negs. How often do you push color negs? Is the result consistent?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hey Mauro,</p>

<p>I'm allowed to mention it now.....Kodak just released the new Portra 160. Wait till you see the grain off of this stuff. I have a few rolls in 120. #5mm, 4x5 and 8x10 to come.</p>

<p>Check out the test at:</p>

<p>http://figitalrevolution.com/2011/02/21/new-kodak-professional-portra-160-film-new-negative-c41-scan-hybri/</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks Dave and Kodak!,</p>

<p>I'm very excited about the new 160 as well. The new PGI is proportional to Ektar for its speed (whereas Portra 400's is smaller than Ektar relative to its speed). Although the drop in PGI is small on paper, so it was with Portra 400 and the results were clearly outstanding.</p>

<p>Can't wait. 160 matches my shooting style and lenses better most of the time. (100 ISO would have been even nicer for me to cover the 100-400 spread)</p>

<p>Print Grain Index (8x10)</p>

<p>***** Ektar 100: 38<br>

***** New Portra 160: 50<br>

- Portra 160NC: 54<br>

- Portra 160VC: 56<br>

***** New Portra 400: 59<br>

- Portra 400NC: 62<br>

- Portra 400VC: 64</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"a Nikon D3s or Canon EOS 1D Mark IV would make far better choices"<br /> Yes Ellis. The D3S would have been top choice.</p>

<p>My example got misinterpreted though. I did not mean to say the 5DII performance was bad, actually it was extremely good.</p>

<p>My example was to point out how well both color and B&W 35mm did at high EI. I did not intend to make digital look worse.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>This is yet another one of Mauro's completely biased, and subsequently irrelevant comparisons. How is an ambient digital low light image supposed to be compared to a flash illuminated film "low light" image? Besides, looking at unworked digital images is like looking at undeveloped films, pointless.<br /> Farcical at best, deliberately misleading, oh yes.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>No Dave,</p>

<p>I think I got the jist of it right. There are some placating words throughout but basically it is, as has been pointed out by several others, totally biased and no comparison at all.</p>

<p>So many points that can totally destroy the validity of the images it is silly. But more importantly, Mauro seems to be setting himself up as some type of film crusader, (certainly that is what his posting history shows) very worthy as the lose of film would be a lose to us all, even non film users. But his methodology and the images he chooses to compare are so farcical any digital rebuttal is obvious and just makes his film posts, even when they might have some merit, seem totally biased.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...