Mamiya 7 VS 24MP Digital?

[mauro_franic]

<p>Susan, I love 35mm as well (film or digital), and use it often, but it is not the correct format for fine 30x40 prints.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Another consideration while stitching is that your subject comes in and out of focus as you rotate the camera creating a wavy in and out of focus problem.</p><div></div>

[scott_ferris]

<p><em>Scott, there is no grain on the print using TMAX 400 (You may print yourself to check)</em></p>

<p>Your idea of grain and mine are very different.</p>

<p><em>For a square print like this, 35mm only offers 1/5th of the area of MF. Cropping both for the same subject leaves you still with 1/5th of the detail. You would need at least 6-9 shots with 35mm to at least try to match it considering minimal overlapping requirements.</em><br>

<em>Even if you never cropped, you are also incorrect with your calculation of the cropped rectangular area. The crop was a 42mm x 42mm crop of the film. This is over three (3) times the area of 24mm x 24mm assuming no waste. These are silly points since you can make this calculation yourself. Four to six (4-6) 35mm shots would be required for this with even zero cropping!</em></p>

<p>Don't know how you came up with those numbers, but they are wrong. To get exactly the same film area you used you would need 2 135 frames even allowing for plenty of overlap, so why would you say you'd need 4-6? You used about 30% of a 6x7 neg (I downloaded your full image and cropped the print you made and counted the pixels, the numbers showed you used about 1/3 the original), or 1,250mm², a 135 frame is 864mm². When you stitch 135 size you are not looking at a 24mm square, you are looking at a 36mm square. But that was not my point, my point was that that 24" print could be made quite well with one 135 sized frame, especially if it is a modern high mp digital camera. I print to 20" and 24" on the short side regularly.</p>

<p><em>35mm (film or digital) is not ideal for 30x40 prints to my standard. If a single 35mm shot is regularly good for you to make 30x40 prints, that's ok. It is not for me. This is obviously subjective to the application, personal threshold and the level of quality desired.</em></p>

<p>And that is the point, to your standard. That can mean many things and having been involved with several threads with you before I know your digital expertise is not on the same level as your film abilities. To be honest I was never happy with 24"x36" images from 135 film, digital is much better though and is more than acceptable for many users and buyers.</p>

[timlayton]

<p>FWIW, I can tell you that I have printed 7 and 8 foot canvas murals from my 8x10 Large Format negative at 300 dpi and could have printed even bigger if that is what the client needed. No stitching required, just endless details that were supremely sharp. Used 8x10 camera was $750, used lens from keh $290 and i sheet of film about $4 and self developed. Scanned at 2400 dpi making a 19,200 x 24,000 16-bit TIFF file. Could have scanned at 4000 dpi making a 20 foot print if that is what was needed. As I said in an earlier post, the vast majority of my prints are 8x10 or smaller, but since everyone is talking size I figured I would at least make sure the OP was aware of the possibilities of LF. </p>

<p> </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>With regards your latest red herring, if panning is set up correctly with the entry point, again your comments are incorrect, focus stays where it should. But I rarely rotate, I normally shift, this is exactly the same as using a larger sensor, indeed it is effectively a scanning back, just like some of the most expensive large format digital cameras.</p>

<p>P.S. Where are the results from the colour rendition competition?</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Scott, the crop was 42mmx42mm of the film. I won't argue a silly point you can stitch 2 35mm shots to make this. Not possible.</p>

<p> </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Tim,</p>

<p>I absolutely agree. Were I to be commissioned for very large prints then that would be the route I'd go. But there is a pretty big learning curve in there, as there should be, to get good results from LF cameras and scanning, it is not a straightforward thing.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Scott, you said that 35mm was enough for 30x40 and in the next entry that it is not enough for 24x36.</p>

<p>I understand that participating on the forums has some factor of unproductive discussion but this is a bit silly for me and I don't have the energy to keep contributing at this level.</p>

<p>To the OP, you may have to run some test to weed out the facts from this thread. If you need scans from the Coolscan and the Mamiya so you can print at 30x40 and evaluate, email me and I'll send you full resolution versions.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>No Mauro,</p>

<p>My comments have been consistent. With regards 135 sized captures, I don't find film good enough on many occasions printed to 24"x36", but am normally happy when it is printed to 20"x30", however with extreme care and the best technique and appropriate subject matter larger prints are possible. Digital captures on the other hand are normally very good at 24"x36" and almost with out exception are perfect at 20"x30", with care 40" prints on the long side are very achievable.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>I misunderstood because of this</p>

<p>"My main point for the thread was, if Susan wants to make 30" to 40" prints she can comfortable do that with 135 format single digital captures, well I do it regularly.".</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>The results for the color rendition competition are posted here:<br>

http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00YIXt?start=160</p>

<p>Judges are still picking the winners....</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>How does that contradict anything I have said?</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>"I rarely rotate, I normally shift, this is exactly the same as using a larger sensor, indeed it is effectively a scanning back, just like some of the most expensive large format digital cameras."</p>

<p>This would resolve the focus problem. It may take a lot of walking and several ladders to shoot a landscape like this though....</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>"How does that contradict anything I have said?"<br>

I misunderstood you meant with a single shot... instead of single shot(s).</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p><em>"It may take a lot of walking and several ladders to shoot a landscape like this though...."</em></p>

<p>Mauro,</p>

<p> Your complete ignorance of semi advanced shooting techniques is very surprising. Shifting can be achieved with a shift lens! That is what I used for the stitch I posted earlier in the thread. You might find <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/techniques/digital_tool_for_architecture.shtml">this article</a> interesting, Richard Sexton is a highly regarded professional architectural photographer and for his work quality is an absolute, he has used many formats through the years and his current main workhorse is a Canon 5D MkII.</p>

[eddymendoza]

Susan, here is my experience since it mirrors your concern to a T. I started with 35mm film and jumped to digital in

2000 I believe with nikon's D1 maybe 2001 but after I bought it I realized a few months later that although the camera

was good at some things, quality as I compared it to a scanned 35mm slide shot on my F5 was not one of them. Yes

it took instant images and yes my clients where very impressed but the quality was not there. Before the D1 I was

used to shooting 35mm for certain clients and with my Mamiya RZ for others depending on their needs so you can

imagine how I felt when I compared a scanned image from even the 35mm to this new 2.74mp camera. But the speed

at which I could get the images to my clients over quality won for some while others never embraced it. Of course like

a good little photographer I followed the upgrade path and every time a better more megapixel camera came out I

bought it because it would help my clients. Eventually I decided enough was enough. I no longer run after the

megapixel upgrade in fact I stopped at 12.4 and I think it's enough for a decent 13X19 which is what my current printer

can do. Instead I chose to upgrade my medium format film camera to a higher level with a digital back. This way I can

shoot film when I need to and digital when I need to. I also now shoot large format film for those occasions that require

it. It all depends on what your final output is fo an image.

 

If I had it my way though I would like to own a camera that can take a shot using both film and digital at the same

time. And when I say film I say medium format 6x7 cm and digital around the 40megapixel range.

 

Final thoughts! You will eventually come to your own conclusion once you hit enough walls and figure out what you

want to do, till then enjoy the process because once you get there it's not as much fun. The fun is in the process!

 

Cheers

[scott_ferris]

<p><em>"The results for the color rendition competition are posted here:</em><br /><em> <a rel="nofollow" href="../film-and-processing-forum/00YIXt?start=160">http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00YIXt?start=160"</a></em></p>

<p>They are not results, they are entries. The results were supposed to be announced last Friday so the second, only interesting, part of the competition could be done.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Scott, I appreciate no insults. I use tilt and shift lenses. Shift only buys you in general half a frame leveling the midline to the bottom for example.</p>

<p>Good luck with the thread I can no longer rationally participate.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Regarding the color rendition, the last three entries are the results from scanning all films.</p>

[thomas_janik]

<p>Hi Susan:<br>

You've received a number of quality responses. I'll just add my own experience. I have been using a Pentax 67II or 645N and a Nikon 9000. I've never printed large enough to consider a drum scan; I have sent troublesome slides to be scanned with an X5 and found the quality no better than what I can get from the 9000. I have a 15 MP DSLR, but do not find it competitive with MF. I purchased a 645D in December and have done a number of tests and my conclusion is that is comparable to 67 film scanned on the 9000. There are a number of advantages to digital but I prefer the fall off to fuzziness and grain that Stuart Richardson mentions. Here is a comparison using the Pentax 120mm macro on a 645D and 645N (9000 scan). The test completely removes the lens as a variable (assuming correct focus, which is not a given) and in my eye the 645D is clearly better. <br>

<a href="http://tsjanik.blogspot.com/search/label/1%29645D%20crop%20%202%29%20full%20image%203%29%20645N%20crop">http://tsjanik.blogspot.com/search/label/1%29645D%20crop%20%202%29%20full%20image%203%29%20645N%20crop</a><br>

Here’s another comparing 645D, 645N and 67II. In this case, different lenses were used:<br>

<a href="http://tsjanik.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-post_2775.html">http://tsjanik.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-post_2775.html</a><br>

I'd go for your option #2 and then determine which system gives you what you want. I'm not entirely convinced the 645D was a wise purchase for me (only because of the cost/benefit, not the quality of the camera), but traveling with film is very difficult nowadays and digital solves that problem.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Tom,</p>

<p>Thanks for those links, they really put some of the issues in perspective. The 645D and 645N really confirm what so many people have also found, it is just nice to see such a direct and straightforward comparison. The other set is just as illuminating, few could argue that the 645D is performing above the level of the 67II, but even if you are micro analytical, nobody can deny they are close.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

[swilson]

<p>I have not had nearly the problems with stitching that Mauro would have us believe.</p>

<p>I am mostly going after a wider field of view. I like to shoot using a 28mm lens, my camera with a 28mm lens can see a bit more detail then I can with my eye, so I am capturing all that I can see in the scene. </p>

<p>Here is an example<br>

<a href="http://sewcon.com/photos/pan11-rect-06-26-10.jpg">Pretry big photo</a><br>

This is just a photo of the road that I use to run on a lot, I took a bunch of stitched photos going up and down this road, just to have something to remember the road that I have spend so much time on.</p>

<p>I use a panoramic head and good stitching software, which might not be needed but it makes stitching very easy.</p>

<p>I can understand that stitching is not for everyone, but it can work very well indeed and is not nearly as hard as some would have you believe.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>The amount of fringing on the bottom of the 645D frame is interesting. One thing I don't like about digital.</p>

[thomas_janik]

<p>Scott (Ferris): I'm glad you found it useful, thanks.<br>

Scott (Cole):<br>

Yes, fringing is a problem. I assume you're referring to the shot with the 35mm, not the 120 FA. The 35mm A has a red/cyan fringe which is correctable in ACR (these images were not corrected).<br>

A more severe example can be seen in this series from the same shot:<br>

http://tsjanik.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-post_7244.html</p>

[huang_shao_hui]

<p>While I try to remain silent for this thread I fail to understand how a shift lens could be used to caputre what Scott Ferris stitched landscape shot without having to at least extending the tripod head significantly. Unless there's a shift lens with a 100cm image circle AND a special camera that allow a movement as big, how, by shifting alone could produce the stitched picture is really beyond me. </p>

<p>Scott, care to share with us what shift lens and body did you use? :) I'm keen to invest in one.</p>