645 400 ISO Versus 35mm 100 ISO

[rick_falck]

I searched the archives but cannot find a cross comparison between

films and formats. Now that I have a MF camera, I would like to know

what I can expect if I were to shoot a 400 speed film in it and blow

the result up to 16X20. How would it compare to the same shot taken

with my Nikon camera using 100 speed film? Does the extra size of

the 645 negative make up for the extra graininess and sharpness?

 

For example, if I used Provia 100F in my nikon with the best lens at

the best aperture setting and 400F in the Pentax 645, blew them both

up to 16X20, what would I see? Assume that the only variables are

the ISO speeds and the camera formats.

 

Thanks!

[jeff_graeber]

if you are going to base your test on prints, use negative film.

 

personally i think you'll find both prints very similiar.

[sam_portera]

I disagree. Your 645 will win hands down. Todays 400 speed films are not what they use to be. Infact I know of many wedding photographers that use 400 speed film! Of course that is to say that your Nikon has its uses also. I too have a Mf and 35mm Nikon system. I generally use MF only for formal portraits and formal engagements. I use my Nikon for everything else especially now that I have expeirenced Fuji velvia.

[robert_kennedy]

There is no comparison. The 645 will win.

 

With caveats.

 

An MF camera with crappy optics will make a crappy picture, while an F5 with the latest optics will make a great picture. That would not be a good comparison.

 

Overall though, a decent MF will outperform most every 35mm out there in this competition.

 

Remember too, that not only are the negs much larger than 35mm, but the equipment is much more specialized and high-quality. MF cameras tend to be well made, high-end items. A Nikon N60 is made in MUCH larger numbers and for a lower price (not that I am bashing Nikon here, they make excellent cameras and for the money you get a lot in the 35mm arena with them). It's the difference between a Hyundai with all the geegaws, and a Mercedes Benz. Both may have power windows, leather seats, and six-cylinder engines, but the Merceds is in it's own class.

[raymond_valois]

Hi Rick ...

I ditto all the positive responses. I do wedding photography with my 645N. At a recent wedding, I had a portion of a 4x5 proof enlarged to 8x10. The portion of the 4x5 PROOF that I had enlarged to 8x10 measured approx. 1.5 x 1.75 inches. The portion of the NEG is of course much less. The resulting enlargement retained all its sharpness, tonality and color saturation. If one looks REAL REAL close, you can just start to see the grain.

 

The shot is of the bride, eyes closed, profiled against the groom's cheek.

 

I have not tried EXACTLY the same with my 35mm. Those enlargements that I have had made from 35mm don't come close to what I get from the 645N. Landscape enlargements come out very well but H&S 35mm enlarements simply don't compete.

 

The shot was taken with the AF 80-160mm at the 90mm setting, 1/60, f19, with fill-flash. I use PORTRA NC 400 almost exclusively. I know it's somewhat subjective, but none of the films I have tried reproduce skin tones so faithfully as PORTRA NC.

 

If you send me your e-mail address, I'll send you a scan of the initial shot and enlargement.

 

Ray

[rick_falck]

Thanks for the responses! What I am thinking about here is using a 2X converter on the 80-160 lens AND using a 300 f4 lens with and without the 2X on the Pentax 645. The loss of VR coupled with the F8 minimum aperture I would get (for handheld shots of animals) would require a faster film. However, doing this with the 645 would be pointless if I can use 100 speed film with my Nikon F100 and 80-400VR and get the same quality enlargements anyway.

 

So I guess the real question I should have asked, is will the 400 in the 645 Pentax be BETTER than 100 in the Nikon?

 

Thanks!

[raymond_valois]

Hi Rick ...

 

Since you're talking shots of animals, it would most likely make less difference than if you were taking shots of people. I'm somewhat paranoid when it comes to skin tones.

 

Depending on how important this is to you, ie, your personal enjoyment or PAYING CUSTOMERS, I suggest you take some test shots of the SAME SUBJECT with both cameras under the VERY SAME conditions. Get the enlargements made and compare SIDE-BY-SIDE. SInce you'll be using ISO 100 in your Nikon and ISO 400 in the 645N, ensure that your APERTURES are the SAME and adjust the shutter speed accordingly.

 

I have found that we all see things in a slightly different way. And a whole lotta of it is somewhat subjective. So you really have to decide for yourself what YOU think is better.

 

Ray

[raymond_valois]

Hi Ellis ...

 

If all the reasons that you have stated for using square are making you take better photographs, then I whole heartedly agree 100% with you.

 

If square was the ultimate format, then everybody would be using square.

 

One professional told me once that "cameras don't take pictures, it's people that take pictures".

 

Just for the record ... when you write that 6x4.5 is not "much bigger than 35mm", you should note that 6x4.5 is almost 3 TIMES larger than 35mm. Actually, it's 270% larger.

 

Ray

[bill_heiker]

Rick, I shoot weddings. In the Pentax 645N I use Portra 400. I also take some photos with a 35mm camera loaded with Portra 160. At 8x10, the 645 prints are quite a bit better They are sharper show far less grain and have much nicer color gradation. In the last few years 400 speed films have improved to the point where there is not that much difference between them and 100 films.

[steve_levine]

Try this link:http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e58/e58.shtml

This will answer all comparison questions between print size,and format size.

[brit]

It seems to me Rick you're not exactly seeing the woods for the trees.

 

What I mean is you have the answers at your fingertips. There really are so many variables that a mass debate on the subject will be fraught with complications. You have the equipment so all it takes for you to become an expert where your own equipment/film choices/styles are concerned is to run a film through each. Then inspect with a loupe or have two comparable shots enlarged. What you will get at the end is an infinitely more meaningful appraisal of you question. And all those subtle differences, the subjective values associated with tonal range etc, you will see and understand for yourself.

 

Two rolls is all it takes to *really see* the difference.

 

Good luck.

 

Bri

[don_harris1]

I have done this very test. It really matters what film you are using. I used a Leica with a 50 2.0 summicron loaded with Fuji Reala, and also NPH loaded in my Pentax 645N with a 45-85 zoom set to about 80. This was a studio setup of a 3/4 portrait. Both lenses were shot at f8. I adjusted light output for the PEntax to maintain the f8 setting. I enlarged both to 16x20 prints at my lab. I asked that they try to match the color as much as possible. The results blew me away. I could tell no real difference between the two images and I am very picky about image quality. This is not a plug for Leica. I used a rental for the test and feel the same results could have been obtained with a Nikon 50. I am going to repeat the test to see. I do however feel that this speaks very well of slow films like reala. Take this test as one users experience and try them yourself.

[jeff_graeber]

er, what did you rate your nph at? did you rate it at 250? it's superb at 250.

[tak_ming_leung]

I have owned and used a Bronica ETRsi system with various PE optics (they are fabulous) and routinely shoot Fuji Superia 400. IMHO, this setup (and certainly other similar high-quality MF systems out there) will beat ANY 35mm systems utilizing ASA 100 film (negative and slide) hands down. The sheer amount of image details, tones, contrast grades and colors recordable with MF will outweigh the potential grain disadvantage of faster ASA 400 films. Of course this is just a subjective measurement (nothing scientific here), but no one should feel handicapped by using modern ASA 400 films with a top quality MF camera system. Only when you work very carefully and meticulously with 35mm with ASA 50 or 100 films can you replicate the results obtained by using MF. Also don't forget you can always use ASA 100 or 50 MF-format films to maximize quality too.

 

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!