This is worth a look [Luminous Landscape MF/Digital Shootout]

[david_chilvers]

Hiya

 

This link should make for some interesting reading.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

 

Dave C

[stephen hazelton]

Yes, hopefully, this will kill all professional demand for medium format cameras, and the medium format camera prices will drop to nothing (like old slide projectors). Then I'll be able to buy some really neat medium format equipment that I couldn't afford before! : )

[allan_jamieson2]

Dave at around 7000 pounds for the camera body alone, the EOS 1DS needs

to be good!

 

This just makes my Pentax 67II look even better value than before, an

absolute bargain at 1600 pounds including metering prism and standard lens.

I could buy a lot of extra film with all these extra thousands of pounds, plus a

really good film scanner as well and still have spare change left.

 

The review is certainly interesting, but the camera is still a bit expensive for

my taste. I guess in a year or two it will be a fraction of that cost and digital

technology will have advanced even more. Meantime I'm sticking with

medium format for my main camera gear. Although, I would be interested in

the consumer version. "budget" priced EOS digital body that is supposed to

be coming along sometime this year; which would be great for a lot of simple

shots that don't need medium format quality.

[john_baxter]

Whilst all this is very impressive for the Canon can we now all assume that MF (and by definition anything smaller) is no longer good enough? How many of us really need anything "better"? I think we have got to a point in photography where technology is driving demand rather than the other way round. I do not deny the benefits of technological advances but I can honestly say I have never needed a print bigger than that available from MF. If I could afford (and more importantltly justify) £7000 on a camera it wouldn't miraculously make me want ever more massive prints. In the real world how many people study images pixel by pixel on a computer screen? Stick a traditional 12" x 16" in a frame and enjoy it and treat yourself to a new car with the £7000 you've just saved.

[david_goldfarb]

I'd just file that one along with all other cross-format comparisons (with X film/dev combination, 35mm is as good as MF, 4x5", etc.). No matter what the resolution of the two formats is, they're just not comparable visually if the sensor/film size is different, because the focal lengths of the lenses are different, diaphragm size is different, DOF is different, etc., all other things being equal.

[struan_gray]

For me, the most telling thing about that article was the

side-by-side shot of the two cameras on their tripods. Anything

that makes a Pentax 6x7 look reasonably-sized has to be a good

thing. :-)

[ashley_hosten]

David, this is very interesting. And, what makes it more so is the conundrum that is posed by the tester. 'Goodbye film' he says. But he also says that even though the Canon 1Ds image is sharper and shows more detail, he admits that the Pentax 67 image can be blown up to much larger than the Canon's can. And - the drum scan at the end of the test, shows truly an inconclusive result.

 

Yes, digital is coming. But by that review, MF users...and certainly LF users can sleep peacefully tonight.

[jonathan_james]

The article raises two very pertinent questions for me. Firstly, when will the Canon or its equivalent be priced in the region of $300 - $500? I can buy some very decent if elderly MF gear in this price range and produce an image with a quality extremely close to the $7,000 Canon. This makes the Canon look very poor value for money.

Secondly, when the Canon is 20 odd years old and presumably down in price to a similar level to say the prices at which one can presently buy a Mamiya C series tlr, will it still be working? Will it be capable of being maintained and repaired? I hardly think so. The rules of built in obsolesence which manufacturers employ these days mean that vital parts will have been made to wear out and will be out of production within the decade I suspect.

Finally, I note that the comparison took place on the Canon's home turf rather than the Pentax's. Why was the test not set up to take output from the Canon on film to compare it with the unscanned transparency from the Pentax? Might this not have shifted the balance of power to the Pentax?

[kkeller]

Wow, quite a comparison and very informative. I certainly appreciate the trouble he went through. I want to read more discussion on this. I also wonder at the lens choices for the 67. The 200 and above are especially prone to shutter bounce (read these threads, or Luminous's own reviews), and are very tripod picky. There's also a 2 stop dof difference that mayhave, but probably did't matter. Nevertheless, I'd love to see the comparisons done with wide angle lenses (try the 67 55 or 45 vs a Canon 28 or 24) to help control such factors. I'd also like to see the comparison done against a leaf shuttered mf camera---even an old TLR. Latsly, I don't quite understand why a sharper image cannot be blown up near as much as the inferior image. Lastly lastly how about a B@W print comparison for not just sharness but tone, etc. And finally lastly,is there really no doubt but that an Epson 2200 print is far superior to a wetroom print? $699 is cheap in photo-dollars ( anyone want my epson 820?). Please comment!

[brian_c._miller]

It is evident that the drum scan beats his desktop scan for the very fine detail. The drum scan is definitely sharper. It is interesting to note that all three of the digital images have different color casts. Makes me wonder: what is the real color there?

 

I would have liked to have seen a real print, despite his objections. And I would have liked to see different focal lengths, besides telephotos. And I still wonder what is really on the film itself.

 

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't what we are seeing what has been known since lenses were first ground? That a lens covering a small area is sharper than a lens covering a large area?

 

Let's say the Canon digital camera was compared to a Canon film camera with the same lenses, and make it a B&W comparison, digital against Techpan.

 

Fact is, according to the following thread the Minox made MF obsolete long ago: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003HG0

[roger___3]

So now that we know that the two cameras compare favorably to each other, it would be interesting to compare a break even point for film vs no film. My estimates are 1000 roll films purchased/developed based on camera price differences. Throw in gear depreciation and it probably looks more like 1500. Extra computer gear for digital? For the pros, loss of sales from stock because buyers prefer the light table. Looking at things objectively, it would be nice to own such a digital camera, but at the going rate, considering I will be shooting a decreasing rate of photos after age 65, I should break even about 5 years after I'm dead, in which case it won't matter (if it does anyway).

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

"Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't what we are seeing what has been known since lenses were first ground? That a lens covering a small area is sharper than a lens covering a large area?"

 

What do we know? From the resolution tests in the reviews, the 1Ds resolves 40 to 45 lp/mm over a 24x36mm frame. We also know that MF with Velvia has no trouble resolving well over 50 lp/mm over a 56x69mm frame. (Although I doubt that even the Nikon 8000 can get much over 40 lp/mm off a slide. Still, the local resolution is about the same, with a factor of 4 difference in area.)

 

Looks to be a slam dunk for MF. There's no way the 1Ds can compete.

 

So what _are_ we actually seeing? He made a nice sharp (4 lp/mm) 12x16" print from that 45 lp/mm 24x36mm sensor. So far so good; the math actually works.

 

He also made several 12x16" prints from the MF frame, and got prints with _lower_ resolution and lower apparent sharpness every time. Sounds like MR doesn't know how to print scans...

 

(The test has an inherent problem in that at 12x16", the 1Ds provides as much resolution as his Epson 2200 printer can print (IMHO, inkjets can barely render 4 lp/mm), so the best _any_ competing technology could achieve at that print size would be parity.)

[jeff_singer]

Who cares... really? If your worried about the best resolution and best image

quality why aren't you using a large format camera?

 

Most people who are worried about this are probably people who will never

need anything more than an 8x10 print and are just technographers (hey, did

I just make up a word?) and seem to care more about technology than

photography.

 

Why does there only need to be one option? Are we supposed to say "well,

lets get rid of our film gear because digital gives better quality!" Is that what

photography is about? I know people that can produce a better image with a

$15 holga plastic camera than a lot of technographers with a 1DS. Image

quality isn't the be all end all of photography.

 

Just do what you want and don't try to tell other people they are wrong or their

method is inferior... its like a religious nut telling you you're going to go to hell

because you don't believe the same thing they do.

 

I've got digital, I've got 35mm film, and I've got MF. I use them all for different

purposes. What a though.

 

Jeff

[stephen hazelton]

To me, this will be a much more interesting comparison when the digital setup is substantially CHEAPER than the equivalent film gear. All he has shown is that more expensive equipment can perhaps produce better results, but does that surprise anyone? For those people who own the very finest film cameras that money can buy, and find them lacking, this article should be of interest. The rest of us can improve quality simply by upgrading to better film gear.

[david_chilvers]

Please Don`t shoot the messenger:-)

 

Well for sure the report made for some interesting reading and I think you must just take it as it is because at the end of the day if MF cameras and film is the way you are going then fine. It becomes more interesting if you are looking into the possibility of using 35mm cameras.You now have a viable path! It became clear to me that the Canon D60 was capable of producing comparable results up to 16x12 when comparing against 645 slides scanned on my 8000 Nikon. Yes I know what everyone might be thinking but I just couldn`t and still can`t figure out why all that resolution from the 4000dpi scan wasn`t making the D60 images look stupid and even more so with the 1Ds.(although I have to say that the 1Ds really only shows it`s head for me when cropping because i can`t print any larger than A3+)At the end of the day we can only compare the results that we are getting from the equipment that we are using. I can`t afford high price scans of my slides and wouldn`t pay big money even if I could so I have to compare a digital file against an 8000 scan (and remember that sending more than 360 to the printer is a waste of time and may even affect the final results when the printer has to shed all of that extra res)and it has been my findings that using the 8000 and printing out on a 1290 Epson put my D60 on par with 645. So! using a 1Ds, printing out on a 1290, mounting and hanging on the wall for viewing at normal distance puts the digital image the one that 99% of people choose as the more pleasing. dpi,lppi,lupes etc etc apart it is a fact for me and why this is I still to this day don`t know, maybe my MF skills are so bad that it isn`t a fair comparison, who knows? Using a DSLR is like using a 35mm camera and doesn`t give me the feel good factor that using a good MF camera gives to me but for me the instant preview and choice of lenses certainly go a long way to bridging the gap.At the end of the day no one can make us use what we don`t want to use but you must admit that they are interesting times.

 

Dave C

[struan_gray]

The review has problems, but is interesting and relevant

nevertheless.

 

Imagine someone offering an MF system with f2.8 zooms, long

fast primes and high speed wide angles. Throw in a whole

series of specialist tools like tilt-shift lenses, macro accessories

and giant teles with image stabilisation. Somehow reduce the

system weight by half or more, and the bulk by a similar factor.

Reduce the price of everything except perhaps the body.

 

Were it film-based people here would be cheering to the skies.

 

I like MF photography for the results. Sometimes I get a grin out

of the 'whoaa!' factor when I pull the Kowa out of it's stealth

carrying bag, but most of the time I simply put up with the weight,

bulk and slow handling because I like the results. A Canon 1Ds

is an expensive body, but a complete *system* costs about the

same or less than a top-line MF film-based one. Even if you only

want unexotic primes, you don't need to buy too many

Hasselblad, Rollei or Mamiya lenses to start eating away at the

cost differential on the body. Now I have another option to dream

about when my boat comes in.

 

Techno-obsessed weenie problems? Aliasing as usual: look at

the uneven appearence of the holes in the curlicues on the York

Hotel, particularly when compared to the drum scan. Also, in the

main review the 1Ds images look oversharpened (there's quite a

bit of saturation), and the Pentax ones undersharpened.

 

Worst of all are the middle images of sky between two buildings

which seem to show two completely different sets of windows.

The Pentax appears to have much higher resolution, which

makes the review's main point moot, and the caption comes

across as mealy-mouthed if not obfuscatory.

 

All the same, I agree with Reichmann that the resolution is close

enough that it makes no difference. I am also confirmed in my

own prejudice that good digital sensors are far, far better for

rendering grain-free tonality than film formats with an order of

magnitude better resolution. As an armchair shopper I can't wait

to see which format Canon's next model supercedes.

[gary_ferguson1]

The difference between the Flextight desk-top scan and the drum scan was HUGE, far more than I've seen when comparing my own Nikon 8000 6x7 scans versus a drum scan. Yes, I'd expect to see plenty of differences, in deep shadow detail, in tonality, and in noise levels. But this was a quantum change, and it didn't even look like it was a particularly demanding transparency.

 

I take my hat off to anyone for investing so much time and giving such a clear demonstration, but I'd want to see the results repeated on different equipment before arriving at too many conclusions. I got the sense reading the article that here was a man on a mission, he wanted the results to go a certain way. Full credit to him for nailing his colours to the mast, but there's plenty more legs in the story yet, and at the end of the day what's wrong with simply prefering the look of film?

[fotografz]

Digital does not look or feel like film no matter what the

resolution is. These tests are meaningless to me. If I want the

emotional look and feel of film, I use film. If I need or want the

look and convenience of digital, I'll use digital. In the same vein,

Video has more realistic resolution than motion picture film...so

what?

[glenn_kroeger]

I think Straun hit the nail on the head... "resolution is close enough that it makes no difference"

 

The real impact is that for a busy professional shooting MF, the equipment cost will pay for itself in time and reduced materials and lab costs. Today, 11MP costs $8K but does anybody doubt it will be less than $5K by the end of this year?

 

The scary impact is the loss of film and processing sales to the professional market. My E6 lab is already cutting back on runs due to decreased business... and film costs are rising. My biggest concern is not the value of MF hardware, but the cost and diversity of film, the first skyrocketing and the second plummeting.

[david k.]

This is getting out of hand, is there no amount of effort, time and money, that Michael Reichmann will devote to proving himself right.....in the context of his testing procedures.

 

It is time to rename the Luminous landscape website, as the Canon Digital support group.

[wayne_crider4]

What it comes down to is the best tool for the job that needs to

be done and how fast a turnaround is needed. Take a 67 to a

horse jumping or motorcross tournament and see how many

pictures you'll sell compared to the guy with the digital camera,

laptop and printer. Yet if your doing fine art PT/PD work I'd have to

say that film has the edge. The only thing that I wonder about

and which time will tell is, how many of todays digital cameras

will be worth anything compared to what will come down the pike

in 5 years. And what of the value comparsions of a D60 and a M6

10 years from today? I suspect that in the end digital cameras

will have approx the life expectency and value of a computer that

no longer can run the latest software as it ages. Think I'll buy the

M6.....with the proceeds from the horse show.

[hm]

My suspicion is that the digital cameras of 2013 will obsolete both the D60 and the M6 (at least in terms of practical photography, there's no accounting for camera collectors).

 

The last generation of abacus technology didn't have the problem of premature obsolescence due to rapid technological improvement that those fancy electronic calculating devices had. But their history of long product lifetimes should not have been naively projected into the future.

-harry

[john_lund1]

Gentlemen,

 

I long ago sold my Linhof 4 x 5 and my Pentax 67 sytems when I went out of the commercial photography business. However, I kept my Canon F-1n 35mm system for the freelance magazine work that I continued to do as a writer-photographer. It is still a good camera system and works fine. What doesn't work well are the 57 year old eyes behind the camera. Time for a new all-in-one system with first-class electronic focus lenses.

 

I bought the Canon's L lenses and the 1Ds for just the same reason that Michael Reichmann is testing his Pentax MF system against it. He determined that he can replace his MF system with one, albeit pricey, system. What is wrong with that if it serves him well and does what he asks of it? I don't believe he is doing any of us a disservice by pointing this out. In fact, it makes me feel good by affirming that I bought a camera system that is competitive with MF. Yes, I will put a film back with the system for those times when only film will do.

 

I would urge you to use Mr. Reichmann's comparision only as a guideline to compare your own needs when choosing to keep, buy or sell one system for another. I don't believe MF's article is intended to go to the molecular level and so be used as a scientific research paper, in fact he says so himself.

 

Film will always be film and digital is digital and forever changing...make your own decisions using his information and be happy.

 

JL

[Robin Smith]

Michael Reichmann's site is interesting, but everytime I read it and see a picture of him next to vast and expensive lens x..I just think "boys with toys", I can't help it, there is something of the fanatical consumer about him. Nothing wrong with this of course, I certainly can afford it, but I doubt it affects his photography seriously one way or the other.

[Robin Smith]

Sorry: HE can afford it -- I can't.