MF film cameras and Nikon D800/E

[mjferron]

<p>Here's a 100% crop. Not bad for a "not" spending thousands of dollars on the latest camera. BTW these were handheld.</p><div></div>

[steve m smith]

<p>That looks superb even at the low on screen resolution. A print must look great.</p>

[chip_greenberg2]

<p>Real nice Michael. So you can see why getting nice 12x18 with finer grain film is certainly feasible out of 35mm.</p>

<p>So do people not print anymore? Can you really go beyond the size dictated by math at 300dpi?<br>

BTW for about $1000 I can find a nice Pentax 645n with 3 lenses. Will a 36 megapixel new Nikon print look as good at 20x30?</p>

[andylynn]

Why is whether you can get a decent 12x18 from a decent 35mm film even a topic for discussion? I do it all the time.

I have a 13x19 on my wall that I made using Plus-X, a 2800 PPI scanner and $35 worth of manual SLR and lens.

Could have done the same thing with my DSLR. I was fishing at the time and the $35 rig has the advantage that if it's

dropped in a stream I'm only out $35. I also enjoy shooting the old cameras and developing film, which is really the

point when you're not shooting for money, isn't it?

 

Settle down, guys. Does it actually matter to any of us whether a film scan or a digital capture has more detail when

enlarged to sizes large than we actually print? Just use the camera you prefer.

[donbright]

<p>The Photo sample here is from a 35mm slide, and like the screen, looks the same as a 16x20 printed digitally, that doesn't look too much different from a 16x20 done 20 years ago in the wet darkroom.</p><div></div>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>So do people not print anymore?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Surprisingly, no. On another forum someone asked that question and around half of the respondents claimed that they only looked at their pictures on their monitors or put them on websites. It was more or less the same group of people who obsessed over having the latest and greatest cameras with ever increasing resolution only to throw it all away by only ever using about 1 MP of resolution.</p>

[gareth_williams2]

<p>Not sure what the point of all the arguments above is! Surely the main question as to film or digital is whether they can deliver the goods- say a great 20inch or larger print- and surely both are capable of doing so with sufficient resolution and with great tonality and colour. Whether or not this potential is actually achieved is up to the photographer.<br>

The question of equipment is surely a personal one as different photographers work better with some cameras than with others. Me- I have an all in one digital for hiking, a Nikon DSLR for general work and an RZ just for the sheer joy of using it as well as the kudos involved in knowing I can master it!<br>

Also when using the RZ I get to meet and chat to DSLR users who approach me just to see what this strange contraption is - that never happens with the Nikon!</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Surely the main question as to film or digital is whether they can deliver the goods- say a great 20inch or larger print- and surely both are capable of doing so with sufficient resolution and with great tonality and colour.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. Both mediums are constrained by the laws of physics and I think they are now at a point where resolution is about the same for both at the same film/sensor format/size.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>Now the resolution crown will probably get easily taken as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rodeo, you're only right if you're talking about certain films. Some colour 35mm films will resolve close to the D800. Some will not. So as I said, to out-resolve 35mm, you'll need a D800. But if you think that 40Mpx our-resolves 645, you're mistaken, as I have shown above. I own a DSLR and I like it. And there's nothing wrong with that.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Of course both media are constrained by the laws of physics.<br>The question however is twofold: to what would these law constrain what could be had to, and what else besides the laws of physics is keeping either medium from delivering that.<br>The answer to the first part is simple: more than either format is capable of delivering. The answer to the second part is more complex, but the bottom line is that modern day sensors are still very much limited by self-imposed thingies, i.e. by their nature (for instance their dependance Bayer patterns to be able to capture colour info, or the soft focus filters they need to avoid producing artefacts).<br><br>Good colour films will still easily 'outresolve' any digital machine availble today, having no problem resolving up to 160 lp/mm. Black and white film goes over 200 lp/mm.<br>(If you want to find the limiting factor in film photography, it might be a better idea to start looking at the lenses rather than the recording medium.)<br><br>Still amusing to see the same old same old we have seen (as i mentioned before) since the first digital machines were introduced.<br>One day, it will be true. But though the digital technology has improved enormously since the first 2 MP machines, that day has yet to come.

[chip_greenberg2]

<p>The original post was :Are you MF shooters trading your gear in for a D800. I can't see why, unless workflow is the issue. </p>

<p>Everything is compromise. I make killer images with little Contax T2. Fit's in my briefcase. Great results. (again, I print. And bigger is better. Most people don't print anymore) IF I wanted more resolution and bigger prints I could buy MF. But I'd have less portability and DOF</p>

[chip_greenberg2]

<p>BTW I am not anti-digital. I can't wait until something the size of my iPhone can take images that rival my 4x5. It WILL happen.<br>

I keep researching digital cameras. MAYBE an NEX7 with the Zeiss 24mm lens can beat my Contax T2 for IQ and be ALMOST as portable. I don't see much else out there. Or a compelling reason to jump on the bandwagon since I'm interested in making images, not new toys.</p>

 

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Of course both media are constrained by the laws of physics.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What I meant was that they are both advanced far enough that they are probably very close to what is physically possible in terms of resolution and that the laws of physics are now the constraints rather than a new technology constrained merely by lack of development.</p>

<p>Just as we use larger sheets of film to increase resolution, I think any further advances in sensor technology will be in making larger sensors with a high enough ratio of good to bad parts to make it economic.</p>

[iversonwhite]

<p>Chip,<br>

The original post was, "Are MF film shooters considering the Nikon D800/E," not "Are you MF shooters trading your gear in for a D800." I have a Pentax 67II that I would never consider trading in. I also have a Nikon D300 and that I might trade in for a D800 because all of my lenses are full frame and I like big prints. In my mind it was not an either/or question. I probably should have asked if MF film shooters are thinking of adding the D800/E to their arsenal.<br>

I use the D300 at work and usually take out the Pentax 67II when I know I want a big print. Occasionally I'll capture a subject just by chance with the D300 and wish that I had shot it with a MF camera so that I could make a really big print. It could be my technique, but I find 20x30 inch prints from the D300 to be a little soft. I've made 16x20 prints, however, that appear fine. <br>

The D800/E interests me, among other reasons, because it's one of the lowest price MF digital cameras available and I already have the lenses for it.</p>

[eric friedemann]

Whether the D800 variants eclipse various MF film configurations, digital continues to amaze me. Recently, I bought a Fuji X100, which

is way smaller and lighter than my old Leica M6 with a 35mm f/2.0 lens. The other day I shot some Raw images at ISO 1600-2000, ran

them through Neat Image and ran them through PhotoKit Sharpener for capture and final sharpening. I was able to make 8x12 inch

prints at 350 d.p.i. I was pleasantly surprised that these 8x prints were brutally sharp and exhibited much finer grain than I could ever

have achieved with any high-ISO 35mm film.

[donbright]

<p>In regards to the OP's question, in another way. Is the D-800E an attention getter? Certainly it is. Big time. I've yet to see real results yet. Of course the screen images are going to look good. Would be great to know that 24x30s can be punched out with tonal richness. I don't doubt it, I just haven't seen it. After all thats what medium format users really want. The confidence in knowing that a stellar capture will not be limited. This could be a game changer. We'll see.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>If one happens to like the 35mm aesthetic, then the Nikon D800 is currently the highest resolution digital version, soon to be followed by the same or even newer technology ... most likely from Sony for $500. less.</p>

<p>Those that don't quite grasp the difference between the two formats view this as a digital medium format killer, and are selling their MF digital gear in favor of this <em>relatively</em> cheap high resolution digital solution. IMO, they never grasped the MF difference in look and feel in the first place, and bought into MFD because someone told them it was better.</p>

<p>As far a pure resolution, 36 meg will deliver given better lenses are used. If used for producing large prints, photographers will have to employ the same shooting disciplines as MF uses have always had to use in order to realize that resolution, and focusing is a key one of those disciplines.</p>

<p>As to the differences between film and digital, that discussion will never end because it is also an aesthetic subject. However, the differences between 35mm and MF still remain.</p>

<p>RE: resolution ... Since people don't whip out a microscope at galleries and inspect the underlying structure of pixels and film grain, and the viewing experience of a well made print from either technology can NOT be simulated on the internet, there is no way of proving anything in these arguments here.</p>

<p>Personally, I see a distinct difference between prints made from film and those made from digital. Given the same disciplines used and comparable optics, both have their own acuity ... yet to my eye, 6X7 analog film prints look just as detailed and tonally rich as the highest meg MFD back available (IQ180 at a mere $45,000.). In addition, the film based shot is often more aesthetically pleasing.</p>

<p>So, the Nikon D800 is a nice addition to the 35mm world, and may indeed resolve to MF levels, but it isn't MF in look or feel.</p>

<p> </p>

[james_smith55]

<blockquote>

<p>Any MF film shooters considering the Nikon D800/E?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As another poster said, "can't afford it." I shoot mostly black and white film and develop at home. My medium format setup cost me a fraction of the price of a Nikon D800. Selling it really wouldn't be worth it. You really don't get much for medium format gear these days. If I sold everything I would probably be able to afford one L lens. I have a Canon Digital Rebel and a couple of lenses for it. But the costs of acquiring primes and L zooms keeps me from expanding my collection.</p>

<p>I work a lot so I don't see myself dropping $3K on a camera system let alone a single camera body. That to me is excessive. Digital cameras do not hold their value. I've gone through multiple digital Rebels. My medium format camera is over thirty years old and I know there won't be something that comes out six months from now that will knock $500 off it's price.</p>

[denniswms]

<p>Considering? Sure. I consider everything. But bottom line if I am working I give it the best I can and that's 67 MF film. But I shoot one offs and have complete control. </p>

<p>If my business model / client list changed then I can see a FF DSLR as the way to go. For instance, the largest online retailer of men's underwear - millions of units- has a relatively small white cove in their warehouse with a six foot hex box and they shoot digital straight to their online catalog. The elegance and feel and nuance of film is pointless and completely wasted under those circumstances. If this is what I was shooting I'd pick up a 5d3 and the 67s would likely never see the light of day again. </p>

<p>On a side note- I watched a video of two guys running the 5D3 and the 800 through their paces side by side with models and as sharp and detailed as they both were zooming in to eyelashes the skin looked dead a week. These were supposedly pros. I'll bet the Canon and Nikon ad executives are cringing.</p>

<p> </p>

[rossb]

<p> Well this time of the year I usually buy my Uncle Sam a new camera. That pretty much keeps me broke for a while. </p>

[joe_casey5]

<p>There are many factors at play and image size has a bit to do with IQ. Why else would commercial photographers still be trapsing around shooting 4x5 field cameras! Digital is closing the gap but 6x7, 6x9, 6x17, shot with top notch lenses, a light meter, and a Heidelberg scanner.... no digital camera can surpass this as of yet!</p>

[mikestacey]

<p>This is true Joe. The digital marketeers have been extremely successful in creating a very big illusion and getting the public to subscribe to it. At the current time, unless you can afford an 80Mpx back, film is the superior picture taking medium. This is evident for anyone who requires prints larger than 30 inches. This is just fact, there's no debate I'm afraid.<br>

If I only ever printed to less than 24 or 30 inches, didn't require 10 stops of dynamic range and didn't enjoy the aesthetic and palette of various different films, I might consider buying (another) digital camera.</p>

[eric_pelve]

<p>I used to own a Mamiya 645 Pro and loved my Mamiya lenses. Progress on resolution and convenience of digital made me sell my entire Mamiya system so I could capture magic moments with a lighter bag in those National Parks.<br>

With the coming of the D800E and D800 (I own both) I rediscovered the quality of Medium format (I will not go into a technical comparative of specification numbers as I am only interested in the visual results). The focusing challenge of the D800/D800E requires again Medium format techniques:<br>

- tripod, mirror lock-up, remote trigger to avoid micro vibrations<br>

- super quality lenses to match the resolution: I use some Nikon primes, Leica and Zeiss ZF lenses<br>

- magnification of viewfinder: I use a hoodman loupe on rear LCD display and the magnify button of the camera to focus at 100% magnification<br>

A twist of fate made me rediscover the enjoyment of using Mamiya lenses adapted on Nikon DSLR using a Fotodiox Pro adapter. I repurchased what I consider the very best lenses from Mamiya 645 format:<br>

- Mamiya APO 200mm f/2.8, A 150mm f/2.8, Macro A 120mm f/4, 80mm f/2.8N, 55mm f/2.8N<br>

I find that these lenses give a more subtle and continuous tone than the more modern contrasty digital lenses. Adding contrast to a photo capture with MF lens is easy in post but recreating the subtle pastel tones of nature from a digital era lens is not possible.<br>

You can examine many samples of pictures taken with Mamiya lenses mounted on D800E. No regret at all selling film camera bodies and embracing digital world.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/episa/sets/72157632712664606/</p>

<p>This Stacked focus Macro photography of an orchid assembled from 27 digital photos taken with Mamiya A Macro 120/4 on Nikon D800E is a proof that digital allows us to go beyond the physical capability of film. And again, I am not interested in specification numbers being compared, I just judge the results.<br>

<img src=" alt="" /></p>

<div></div>

[mikestacey]

<p>Interesting Eric. I recently tested my Mamiya 7 with Portra 400 against a D800 on a portrait shoot. Exactly the same shot on both cameras. The thing I noticed with the D800 was the severe lack of dynamic range and the colour palette is nowhere near as pleasing as Portra + Mamiya lenses. So my comparison and preferences have not much to do with resolution. Your results are superb, but to my eyes they do have a very digital look to them - again this is purely subjective and a personal preference.</p>

[eric_pelve]

<p>Hello Mike: I agree with you that Digital cameras do not have the film look and you would have to do some post processing to imitate the film look, just as we do it in video to mimic cinema look (desaturate colors, add noise or grain, soften slightly...).<br>

I believe that for nature/landscape photography which is my favorite field, digital gives much more flexibility and ultimately performs better than film, and not just in resolution: think about expanding dynamic range beyond the 14EV range of the D800E using HDR, or expanding Depth of field using focus stacking, increasing resolution using Panorama stitching, increasing or decreasing contrast and softness in post vs using screw in filters in lenses etc...<br>

For portraiture, which is the example you mentioned, the medium format sensor and Mamiya lenses excel for their smooth gradation tones, lack of harsh contrast and let's say it the size of the sensor helps very much like portraits done on FF cameras look better than those done on DX cameras. Also the film rendering beautifies the skin tones.<br>

This is where analog has still an edge over digital, like high end audio tubes have more warm musicality than digital electronics. But here your are talking to an exclusive club where less than 1% of people will notice the difference without proper training/education of the eye (or ear)....<br>

Here is below a portrait I took with the D800E and a Mamiya APO 200mm f/2.8 lens mounted on it. I think that it does not have such a strong digital look. the differences between film and digital - even in the area of portraiture in medium format - is narrowing.</p><div></div>