120 Techpan versus Canon 5D

This looks pretty good in a 16x20...

But the 5D is no where near the match of Techpan 120mm in a Fuji GSW690III. With a scene the size of a 9x14 foot area, Techpan in 120 is clearly resolving details the size of a human hair....

Hello Daniel, isn't it also a matter of the lens you used? Assume both are done at f8 or so. You did not mention the analog lens - or did I miss it.

BTW great image again!

 

Regards Axel

 

The lens is a fixed 65mm 5.6 EBC on the Fuji, yes it is really sharp. The lens on the 5D is the really sharp 16-35 2.8L-II at 28mm. Thanks for looking!

Simple physics dictate that the larger the imaging surface the sharper the image providing your lens is not the bottom of a Coke bottle and your film is not sand paper. Light can only be focused to a curtain point after that it does not get any sharper. For a full frame 24x35mm camera 12 to 17 mega pixels is just fine. (Actually any thing over 12 may be over kill) Want sharper then that and you need a larger imaging area. Techpan is awesome stuff did you process it your self? Reed doesn't do Techpan very well. Does anyone do film processing in the Aspen/Glenwood area? By the way cool shot too.

Tech pan is going to out resolve any lens on that Canon. Tech Pan resolves up to 600 lpm. The Canon resolves 160 LPM. and it sounds like the tech pan was shot on 42 sq. cm. of film resolving 600 lpm as opposed to 7sq. cm. resolving 160 lpm! It's not even close. Keep your tech pan on a larger imaging surface and use the 5D for wedding's, fashion and journalism...Oh and by the way, Tech pan on small format would have killed the 5D just the same...It's just math. Don't forget this is a craft and not some flaky art!

 

Thanks,

 

Michael

 

I souped the Techpan my self. I have a few hundred rolls of it and wanted to finally test the 120 batch to see it if was fine. Slidemaster in Aspen does E-6 and C-41, but no black and white.

 

I don't post much on here these days, at least not the real good stuff since:

 

A. There is so much computer art versus photography, I feel a bit out of place.

 

B. I run a high end stock business and part of the reason it grows 30-50% per year is that I keep my best out of the public eye.

 

So Photo.net is for "Happy-snaps" now...

 

The reason I even posted this here was to link it to another site for anti-film twits to see.