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

[abiggs]

I suspect not a single person who is attacking Mr. Reichmann has done such a test for himself/herself. I would refrain from attacking people, unless you have a leg to stand on.

 

I took a 1Ds out for a test drive last week, as well as with a 503 Hassy and some nice lenses. After getting the Velvia and Provia chromes developed, we scanned them in a Polaroid 120 MF scanner. Not the most professional tool to do such a test on, but it is what we had.

 

We came to the same conculsion that Michael came to: prints up to 13x19 were just plain better from the 1Ds. Period. Apparent sharpness was much better on the 1Ds, as well as the grain/noise factor.

 

Did we print larger than 13x19? Nope. But I don't normally print larger than that anyway. Do I want to believe that an $8,000 camera will outperform a $1000 Pentax 67 camera? Asolutely not, due to the size of my pocketbook. But it is what it is.

 

I wish we could get away from all of this name calling, and lpmm crud. Does it really matter? Why don't YOU go out and do a similar test for YOURSELF. It is the only way to make a convincing case, now isn't it?

[e_m3]

A few weeks ago Michael Richmann indicated on this LL message boards that he would be putting together a for-sale package of prints and full TIFF files from a photo shoot he went on with his 1DS in New Mexico a while ago. This would allow everyone to make their own prints and see for themselves. I don't know if he plans on including the files from his recent 'Shootout' article. But if he does this would go a long way toward resolving this debate.

 

On a side note, it's not very helpful that pro photographers don't offer for sale comparison files from their medium format/high end digital equipment. I would pay good money to purchase test files to try out myself. This debate rages not because people are uninterested in making their own prints and comparing them but because the people who have the access to such high end equipment (even magazines) simply, for whatever reason, don't offer prints or files for sale! Rich Seilling, of West Coast Imaging, on this debate a few months ago said he would gladly show anyone his 1DS LightJet prints at his lab--the only catch was that you had to drive to Oakhurst, California!! This doesn't really bring the debate forward much.

[bruce johnson]

Michael is often taken to task for not comparing a print from the digital camera and comparing it to a traditional print from the film based camera. This is a valid arguement and a test that should be performed. He, however, has chosen the digital route and is demonstrating that the EOS 1DS is considerably better than a film scanner of much better quality than most of us ever invest in (the scanner costs more than the 1DS), and nearly equivalent to the most expensive, highest quality drum scan possible.

 

This reminds me of the oft asked question: slides vs. print and the answer then was: depends on you plan to do with the images. I'd say the same thing applies here. If your desired method of working with the image is a digital workflow then the 1DS is of good enough quality that you can replace medium-format film and scanning if you wish and not loose anything quality-wise. However if traditional prints are your preferred means, well then the 1DS makes little sense.

 

As for people griping about the costs of printer, computer, etc., well if you're using a digital workflow, then you have those costs whether you're camera is digital or film. In fact, I'd say the costs of hardware are less with the 1DS because of (1) not needing a scanner and (2) much smaller files = less storage and computing power required. Then if you factor in the costs of your TIME, there's no comparison between the two. Say $15/hr for your time (cause you're cheap!) and an average of 1 hour/image (cause you're real quick!) to scan and clean up the image to get as good as a just downloaded image from the digital camera (before curves, levels, sharpening, etc. - I'm just talking dust and scratch removal here folks!), 500 images = $7,500 and this is a real conservative estimate. Then there's the cost of film, processing, running to the lab, etc....

 

So, for a digital workflow, I'd agree with Michael, a digital body is cheaper, quicker, and far more convenient than medium format and film. Now, if we can just get someone to compare the output of a digital print from the 1DS to a conventional print from medium format...

[jay dougherty]

I own a 1DS. I can tell you this: Images coming off of this thing are are not only sharp but have a three-dimensional quality to them that I have never seen with any other camera. Sometimes it's almost spooky. I'm still slightly afraid of the thing, quite honestly. I apporoach it with caution. It's the first digital camera I've owned that I can see keeping for a few years. I have some 1DS images in my photo.net portfolio, if you're interested. I like skin color off of the Nikon cameras better, but this can be fixed.

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

"I suspect not a single person who is attacking Mr. Reichmann has done such a test for himself/herself. I would refrain from attacking people, unless you have a leg to stand on."

 

Some of the people attacking him own a Nikon 8000 and know that 4000dpi scans of Provia 100f look very good printed at 450 dpi; a lot better than 1Ds images printed at 150dpi, which give identical size prints from 6x7 and the 1Ds. So the idea that the 1Ds "shows more detail" or "has more resolution" than MF is seriously problematic.

 

It looks to me that all he's shown is that there is a problem somewhere in his Imacon to Epson 2200 workflow. (I suspect his Imacon is defective, out of alignment, or simply a dog.)

 

Besides, he himself admits that drum scans and 1Ds images are indistinguishable at 12x16. He should have figured out that something was wrong and had someone do a Nikon 8000 scan.

 

That he can't get a better 12x16 print from a 6x7 drum scan than from the 1Ds isn't much of a surprise: digital camera images look great printed at 255 dpi, and you'd need a loupe to see the difference even if inkjets could make better images than that.

 

If he wants to say: "If you can afford a 1Ds, MF isn't worth the effort for prints up to 16x20 or so" no one would be able to argue, but he wants to justify his US$8,000 purchase by having it be higher resolution than MF, and that's unreasonable.

[john clark]

...was that in MR's test, the 1Ds achieved better or comparable results to MF and a variety of scanning methods.

 

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but surely the flaw in the test is the fact that he's trying to infer that A > B*C, without really considering the true significance of the B and C elements. Let me rephrase that: he's infering that today's medium format scanner isn't capable of as good quality as the 1Ds for a given crop.

 

I'm in no position to refute this claim - the evidence is there on the screen though I find the results very surprising. I use a Mamiya 7 and print B&W, and I can't see the 1Ds reaching that level of quality - too many moving parts, shall we say - flapping shutters, distance between back of lens to sensor, etc. =- but it doesn't really matter.

 

It does suggest that digital is catching up, but look at the ridiculous size of the 1Ds - it's a tank! - I'd take my M7 anyday, though a M7-Digital with a 20Mp sensor would be a fine thing to dream for...

 

John

[jorge alban]

What impressed me the most about Reichmanns article was not

that he considered the 1Ds better than 6x7 scanned Provia up to

13x19 inches. I already use my D60 SI upsampled photos for

glossy magazine two page spreads at 300 dpi and NO ONE has

been able to tell them apart from the Hasselblad drum-scanned

Provia 100 pages.

 

The surprise came from seeing the shot of both cameras

pointed toward the Toronto skyline... the 1Ds dwarfs the already

HUGE Pentax 67! I bet it is just as heavy and cumbersome,

thought probably not as vibration prone (and I know what I am

talking about since I shot 6x7 SLRs for a couple of years and

had to use mirror lock up for anything critical below 1/250 of a

second).

 

I got the D60 after my Fuji GSW645 was stolen. Now that was a

light and vibration free, almost pocketable camera with no

distortion and one sharp wide lens (pity it was f5.6 max

aperture). The whole Fujifilm camera family seems to be

heading the way of the dodo bird now.

 

The D60 and Sigma 14mm EX prime lens combo I now use

gives me a 22.5 angle of view equivalent. It is indeed heavier

than the Fuji but with the 1.6X crop factor the Sigma has very low

distortion and great contrast and sharpness up to f4.

 

This is a best tool for the job situation. I am emotionally attached

to photography, not to cameras, lenses, enlargers or printers! If

something else comes along that greatly improves my chances

of getting the shot I want, such as digitals instant lighting and

exposure feedback or down-to-the-color-printing-stage control,

why fight it? Not that I think the 1Ds is it, since for the body price

alone one can get a D60... and some of Canons best L , Tilt-Shift

and Image Stabilized lenses.

 

Jorge Alban

[ilkka]

I think Robin's comment was right on. During the past two years that I have followed Michael's web site he has gone through a Rollei 6008 system with four Schneider lenses, a Mamiya 7 with 3-4 lenses, a Pentax 67 with half a dozen lenses, including 4/600 which was quickly traded for an equally expensive 4/400, and a Pentax 645, again with a set of lenses. He also had a EOS1 film camera which he seemed to seldom use. Canon D30 got him excited again to the Canon system and digital. He tried the D60, but decided against upgrading. Eventually upgraded anyway. And finally got the full frame digital EOS 1. While this was going on with his main equipment, he seemed to sell off a Fuji GX617, acquired Hasselblad Arc Body with two lenses, Hasselblad XPan with all three lenses and a Leica M6, with a set of lenses from 12 mm up, which was quickly traded in for an M7. This is no ordinary pro.

 

It is his money and I have no objections to him doing what he likes. I do appreciate that he talks openly about his experiences and runs the tests that he quite uniquely is in a position to do. The only thing I dislike is his arrogant attitude about comments and criticism, stating that they have no value unless they are supported with similar evidence. Scientific articles are subjected to independent peer reviews before publishing and are subject to open criticism after. If someone can point out a mistake in the methodology, it does not need to be supported with tests involving tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment.

 

After this manic search for ultimate equipment, I hope Michael has finally got the gear that he likes and can concentrate on photography.

[bob_manson]

I recently got back into photography after a hiatus of 7-8 years. My previous efforts were mostly done with 35mm (old Nikon) and some MF (such advanced tools as a Brownie Six-20). I did all my developing and printing myself, and if I decided on film I wanted to continue doing this.

 

I pondered, researched, stared for months at the whole digital-versus-analog issue. My own desire is to make large prints, 24x30" and up, as I like to make images I can look at from across the room. I'm a definite computer geek, so the "digital" part of it appealed to me there... and yet it was a turnoff at the same time, because so much of the digital equipment is about toys and gimmicks with no lasting substance or value.

 

I knew I wanted to use a high-resolution printer rather than an enlarger, mostly because trying to develop huge sheets of Cibachrome just doesn't appeal to me :-) and I think digital image editing is a lot more versatile than darkroom work anyway. So the question really came down to: film scanner or digital camera?

 

I don't think the issue for me was so much "equipment envy" as it was not making a totally worthless investment. Some of the conundrum was that I knew if I waited "five years" I could get something very close to what I really wanted (a usable very-high-res digital camera with lots of storage space and good battery lifetime) for much less money. Yet there's *always* something better coming out "five years from now", so waiting doesn't make sense either.

 

I eventually determined that no matter what I did, it would quickly become a worthless investment.

 

So, I decided based on initial cost. I hated (and still hate) the idea of investing $10k+ in a digital camera that's guaranteed to be obsolete (and probably lost 95%+ of its value) very quickly, along with all the drawbacks of current digital equipment (storage space, battery lifetime). Perhaps the same is true of MF/LF cameras with regards to the percentage of value lost, but the initial investment is much lower--and even such "esoteric" equipment as film scanners *may* continue to hold some value for a while, as there's a lot of film out there to be scanned.

 

I think many of us are concerned (and rightly so) that the bottom's about to drop out of the film market, and film and chemicals will quickly disappear. Unfortunately... that's very likely to be correct. EK's not doing so well lately, and they'll be looking for places to cut anywhere they can. The attention will be on digital cameras since the markup is higher and the "hey, this next camera will make your pictures look TWICE as good!" and "you don't want that obsolete 6.7MP junk, here's a new 7.6MP camera" factors are great sells that make the used market very unattractive. Who knows how long it will take; my usual guess is by 2007 film will be pretty much obsolete except in 35mm, as while digital cameras may or may not be "as good", the convenience will outweigh any remaining image quality issues. Enjoy it while it lasts because it won't be here forever.

 

I ended up with a beat-up Bronica ETRSi and a couple of 4x5" cameras that have seen better decades, a decrepit Jobo film processor, a new Sprintscan 120, and an inexpensive Epson flatbed scanner for the 4x5" negs/slides. I'm very happy with the results I'm getting. I guess that's the final question: does it work for me?

 

So, to tie this into the actual thread (though I guess the whole rant is vaguely on topic): Maybe the results this person is getting are "as good as" a MF camera with Provia. He just spent *$9K* on a camera that will be worth perhaps $500 very shortly. If he were to go through 1500+ rolls of film over the next few years (assuming he doesn't buy any additional equipment, a very unlikely assumption) he might get his money's worth. Seems like a lousy investment to me, unless he's a pro who's somehow going to get a return on it.

[bill_eadie1]

I think we need to remember Michael Reichmann is a professional

photographer and equipment reviewer who's able to write all this equipment

off his taxes. Mr Reichmann is a rare bird. He's an equipment junky who

actually knows how to make exquisite prints. After all he runs photographic

safaris and actually sells prints. Who amongst us wouldn't want to be in his

shoes?