medium format requires less investment in a scanner ?

[steve_johnston9]

<p>Am I right that medium format requires less investment in a scanner to get the same quality print as 35mm, due to the size of the negative?</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>A very important factor wth scanners is maximum density capacity (in practice 3.6 or better), which is the same requirement for all formats. In everyday life, many people (including me) find that MF and LF can be scanned well using a medium-priced flatbed scanner, while 35 mm needs a dedicated film scanner. Similarly, 2400 ppi is likely to be fine for MF and LF, while 4000 ppi is good for larger prints from 35 mm and even more can be useful. So - the short answer to your question is yes!</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

But mind you, Steve: David's "yes" is only valid under your preconditional, that the final image quality is the same as what you get from a 35 mm frame.<br><br>Why bother with medium format if that's all you want? To save a buck buying a scanner? Would you not like something better than 35 mm format image quality?

[stuart_richardson]

<p>Yes and no. The scanner does not have to have as high a resolution to achieve the same quality, but there are some other pitfalls. Scanners that can accept medium format (other than flatbeds) tend to cost a lot more than dedicated 35mm film scanners. It is also more difficult for the cheaper scanners and flatbeds to keep medium format film flat, so you are more likely to have problems with corner sharpness. Cheaper scanners tend to have other problems than just resolution too -- they are slower and have much lower dynamic range than their better counterparts, so if you buy a good 35mm scanner and compare it to a cheap flatbed that can do MF, the 35mm print might look better just because of the wider dynamic range and color reproduction. Finally, by skimping on the scanner, you are largely losing the point of shooting medium format in the first place...unless you just want the scanner for the web and for proofing, in which case any will do...</p>

[graham_mitchell]

<p>You will still need a scanner with a good dynamic range, low noise, good colour, good focus, etc. In practice, you'll probably still want as good a scanner as you would with 35mm.</p>

[steve_johnston9]

<p>Where I’m coming from is I want to invest in a film kit. I have just over a £1000 to spend. I was thinking of either going the 35mm route with a Nikon CoolScan or buying a medium format camera with an Epson V700.</p>

[jon_porter2]

<p>Maybe. I have an Epson 700 flatbed and it does a decent job with both 35mm and 120. Earlier I had a lower-end flatbed (Epson 1200) and was generally not satisfied with its 35mm scans. I'm not familiar with the current crop of inexpensive flatbeds, but based on my experience I wouldn't want to do a lot of 35mm scanning on a low-cost scanner.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Steve,<br><br>People report diferent things about the Epsons, and some of it is quite positive (if you don;t set your aims too high).<br>The advantage of MF is, of course, that you can get better prints than you can from 35 mm format if you have them made (printers usually have good scanners too) or make wet prints yourself.

[jaydesi]

<p>I recently picked up the Epson V700 and I'm quite happy with it. I'll probably pick up some better film holders, but I'm not ready to shell out an extra $90 for them at this point.</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>As written, your question can only be answered by a very simple "Of course". Or as Charlie Sheen would say..."DUH". ;)</p>

<p>Larger film will ALWAYS provide more image information, because it has more square inches. A cheaper scanner will ALWAYS collect less information per square inch of film, so basic logic dictates that larger film can compensate for a cheaper scanner.</p>

<p>I use a $200 V500, about the cheapest you can get, and shoot primarily medium format. Coincidentally, having just shot my last Kodachrome 35mm, I had one of my good shots scanned "the best way possible" on a Tango scanner, from West Coast Imaging, for $50+. </p>

<p>Conclusion? The V500 was good enough to provide "equivalent" image data at its 2400dpi effective resolution as the Tango. Viewed at the same image size on the screen, the images were pretty darn similar. </p>

<p>The image wasn't critically sharp, so it didn't stress the resolution of the Tango, but I expected more from the dynamic range. The V500 has a low Dmax, which should be particularly troublesome with Kodachromes. But it just didn't look that different.</p>

<p>So using "normal" film and shooting larger formats will just make the scanner's job that much easier.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>a lot of how good any scanner does it's job is very dependent on the the person doing the scan, their skill set , and their tools </p>

[miesnert]

Expensive scanners get more information from a piece of film. I scan with a v500 for internet but for printing use an

imacon. Huge difference, medium format scanned cheap and then printed is a waste.

[john_a5]

<p>The bottom line in the notion that MF film scans better than 35MM, thus less cost for a scanner to get same results, is really sort of a smoke and mirrors proposition. It is the same principle that if you have a scan that isn't sharp, it looks sharper at a smaller size (4x5) than at a larger size(8x10). In this case, the MF file is being blown up less to make say an 8x10 print than a piece of 35mm film. If the scanners are identical, then the MF negative should, all other things being equal, look sharper. In reality, the sharpness is no better but appears better because of the lower magnification.</p>

<p>If you aren't jonesing to shoot MF, then getting a good 35mm scanner would be a better bet, IMO.</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>John,<br>

<br />"Smoke and mirrors"? Well, by that convoluted logic, large format is a TOTAL waste of time. Common knowledge says that LF lenses are less sharp than 35mm lenses, so only fools would shoot with such "pedestrian" equipment. I'm sure Ansel would have preferred to use 35mm if he'd had the option.</p>

<p>I think most would agree that the image on the film (and its inherent sharpness) is effectively USELESS until it is printed or scanned. Sure, you could spend more $$$ extracting the full sharpness out of a 35mm neg, just as you could spend more time carefully packaging a whole weekend of camping gear into a Mini Cooper. Or take the simple route and drive the Jeep. :-)</p>

<p>Plus, sharpness isn't everything. Scanning 35mm at high resolutions will increase the grain in the image. Larger formats have relatively smaller grain in the final image, regardless of how it's scanned.</p>

<p>And once you go there, you can discuss pros and cons on weight of gear, DOF, maximum lens aperture, total amount of light needed, etc. Most benefits tilt in favor of 35mm. <br>

<br />But he didn't ask those questions. :-)</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Gregory, that wasn't my point. The point is that a bad scanner is a bad scanner. When you scan a 35mm on a lower end scanner (not referring to the 700 here), and an MF neg, the MF will look better but is not sharper in the absolute. But there is nothing necessarily wrong with the 35mm format. My comments were in reference to the OP's comment:</p>

<p>"Where I’m coming from is I want to invest in a film kit. I have just over a £1000 to spend. I was thinking of either going the 35mm route with a Nikon CoolScan or buying a medium format camera with an Epson V700."</p>

<p>We can discuss all day what format is better or worse, all I was pointing out is that a scanner doesn't get better because the format gets larger, it is just that the output looks a bit better because of less magnification. If you understand that and still go that way, great, but be aware that the scan isn't better in the absolute.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Saying you can get by with a lower quality scanner because MF is larger than 35mm and doesnt' have to be blown up as much for a print is like saying you can get by with lower quality lenses because MF is larger and doesn't have to be blown up as much. It simply misses the point of shooting MF in the first place. You don't shoot MF with cheap lenses and cheap scanners so you can get 35mm quality. You shoot MF so you can go beyond 35mm quality. If you want to shoot film and scan, I would place my bets on 35mm with a dedicated film scanner over MF with a flatbed. If you want to shoot MF but can't afford a MF film scanner, why not just go the traditional darkroom route and not scan in the first place? Keep in mind that everything in MF costs more, not just the scanner. If budget is an issue, you may be better off by buying good equipment in 35 within your budget rather than trying to stretch your budget to MF and being forced to cut corners.</p>

[bueh]

<p>Why settle for cheap compromises (good scanner w/ small format vs poor scanner w/ bigger format)? If you have a digital workflow, get a nice EOS 5D and save yourself all the trouble with scanning.</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>John,<br>

<br />Got your point...thanks. I didn't catch his followup comment. Yes, all the math changes if you're talking buying new gear. He implies he has nothing to start with...no digital camera, lenses, nothing.</p>

<p>Heck, I might have saved some money just attaching a film camera to all my high-end Minolta lenses, and buying that good scanner. Instead, I collected a FULL arsenal of both 645 and RZ67 lenses and cameras. <br /><br />But given their cheap prices, I was probably able to do it for less than $2000. Camera, lenses, everything. How much does a good scanner cost? Will it get me better quality than I get from 6x7 cheaply scanned? I highly doubt it.</p>

<p>In fact, addressing Bueh's comment, I even decided to spend the same amount on a 22mp digital back (that required me to keep all my MF gear) rather than just get a 24mp A850 and sell all my film/MF gear.<br /><br />Why? Because the MFDB has a different look in a digital workflow than the Sony, AND I still have the ability to shoot film. Some shots just look better on film than on even the MFDB. And this is coming from a guy who started with digital.</p>

<p>And as has already been said, if you absolutely gotta have the megapixels, neither 35mm film nor digital will get you there. That MF film can always be scanned by someone else to 50mp+.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>As usual, many good points but not the most important one: how large are you going to print?<br>

If you need 10x10, an Epson MF scan will not look significantly different from a Nikon MF scan. But the difference will gradually manifest itself at larger print sizes, and this becomes very subjective until you print over 20x20.</p>

 

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>"Where I’m coming from is I want to invest in a film kit."</p>

<p>This word "invest" always worries me when connected with photo equipment. To me and the dictionary, an investment is something that you hope will increase in value. Well, if that's the case then film equipment is definitely something to steer clear of. Like "investing" in a new car, you'll lose money as soon as you drive it away.</p>

<p>Better to say, Steve, that you want to throw some money away in exchange for a camera that you probably won't be able to feed in a few years time. As for the scanner issue, what's been said already is probably about all that there is to say, except that if you shoot B&W or colour negative, then the DMax of your film shouldn't really be greater than about 2.4, and therefore the scanner shouldn't need a dynamic range much greater than that. You do want to get something with a 48 bit colour depth though.</p>

[sfcole]

<p><<Well, if that's the case then film equipment is definitely something to steer clear of. Like "investing" in a new car, you'll lose money as soon as you drive it away.>><br>

Depends on the equipment. <br>

Some counter-examples:<br>

Price 3 years ago of Mamiya 6 50mm lens: $900 Price now: $900<br>

Price 1 year ago of Mamiya 6 body: $999 Price now: $1300<br>

Price 15 years ago of Contax G2 body: $600 Price now: $600<br>

However, <br>

Price 1.5 years ago of Pentax k20d body: $620 Price now: $400</p>

<p>The word "invest" doesn't always mean you expect something to increase in dollar value. Sometimes we accept "invest" simply means something that offers value for the price and a reasonable service life. It's perfectly valid to call a Honda Accord a "better "investment" than a Suzuki Samurai.</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>I like both the treatments of investment....each has its own merit. Camera gear seems to have oddly dynamic price fluctuations, probably due to the ebb and flow of the film vs. digital market. <br /><br />As I mentioned before, I only shoot MF because it's quite cheap now, even relative to "equivalent" FF gear. Furthermore, I have been able to pick up enough used 35mm gear at a discount to fund all my gear acquisition syndrome purchases. There are as many people in the market who undervalue their gear as those who overvalue it, so persistence pays off if one is looking for bargains.</p>

<p>And of course, in dealing with the hobby of photography, it's much harder to label something offhand as a "luxury item". What other hobby produces lifelong priceless memorabilia? I can't think of any. ;-)<br /><br />Greg</p>

[david_goldenberg1]

<p>At the risk of further inflaming this discussion, I would go further and say that a medium format negative scanned with a relatively inexpensive flatbed scanner can *exceed* the quality of a 35mm negative scanned with a Nikon film scanner. When I first started using MF a couple of years ago, I bought an Epson V500 and did some initial comparisons with a Coolscan V. The rather lengthy thread generated from my experiments can be found here:<br>

http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00RS5y<br>

From my experiments at the time, my impression was that scans of the same negative from the two scanners were difficult to tell apart up to magnifications of about 4-5x. For a medium format negative, this means about 8"x10" or maybe 11"x14". But, the same print size requires 8-10x magnification of a 35mm negative, where there is significant image degradation due to grain, dust and other noise, even with the best scan. <br>

I've never seen the article, but legend has it that Geoffrey Crawley of the British Journal of Photography once did a comparison of a cheap Seagull TLR and a 35mm camera with a first-rate lens. Because of the lower magnification required, the Seagull at least tied (or won, depending on who tells the story).<br>

Now, I also have to say that after a few months of using the Epson, I started longing for the last bit of quality in the MF negatives, and I bought a second-hand Coolscan 8000 (and, eventually the glass carrier). There is no question that the Coolscan captures more of the detail in the negatives, with about twice the real resolution. The other issue is that the Epson scans require more sharpening, which can cause artifacts. But, for an 11"x14" print, you only need about 1500 ppi resolution from a 6cmx7cm negative.<br>

So, my view is that, for someone interested in exploring the hybrid way (film and scanning), MF with a flatbed scanner is a perfectly good way to go, at relatively low cost.<br>

David</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Here are some scans from medium format and a v500.</p><div></div>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Here is a another fullsize medium format scan from v500. Download it print it and decide if it is good enough for you needs.</p><div></div>