malcom_knight

<p>Maybe with Black & White Medium Format. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/modern-bw.htm. <br>

It also depends on your skill level. If you are a film guru, and know how to use film, you can produce some stunning results that may rival your digital. I have some film shots from Agfa 25 B&W taken with an old Yashica twin lens reflex camera back in the early 90s. Had to use a light meter and a tripod (no on board computers-LOL). I still can't reproduce the level of detail, and the richness of tone from the film with my digital equipment. Something about the black and white seems better with the film. To get these results you do have to know how to use film. There's a learning curve if you're coming from digital where the on board computer does most of the work for you. To pick up an old camera and a roll of film and take shots and run it up to Sams, isn't going to be a good comparison.</p>

<p>You're not missing anything with film. Today's digitals are way better. I own medium format cameras Nikon 9000 scanner and Epson 3880. I also have an older digital Dslr 12mp crop sensor. LOL. It can handle its own against my Mamiya 645. They have almost the same resolution....I can only imagine what a Nikon D800 can do. I plan on scanning all my film and selling the Nikon 9000 and upgrading to the D800 or Canon.</p>

<p>I have used PK sharpen on 8mp P&S camera from years ago and made beautiful 17x20s on Epson 3880. No one could tell which were from the p&s and which were from a 12mp dslr. PK sharpen is a plugin for Photoshop. It has a free trial period. Try it and see if you like it.</p>

<p>Is it possible that the crop sensor Pentax K3 is equal in quality to the FF Nikons? These comparisons seem to indicate it! These are great! <br>

Here's an article that Pentax users can be proud of: http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=5438&news=pentax+K-3+Nikon+D600+head+to+head+comparison+Pentax+wins</p>

<p>If you check http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-k3/pentax-k3A7.HTM It appears that the Pentax holds its own against the D800E too! Slight edge maybe to the D800, but check out high ISO shots. The quality seems to be the same at high iso. </p>

<p>Easier? Yeah right!<br>

Yes, the wonders of film…..LOL….. Several steps must go flawlessly to make a great print from film:</p>

<ol>

<li>Technique (same with digital)….</li>

<li>Processing- hope the chemicals are fresh and the lab is competent. If not, your whole project is screwed. Chemicals are bad=film can be blotched, ruined, spotted, scratched…overdeveloped, underdeveloped. (not a problem with digital)</li>

<li>Digitizing – for great prints you need an expensive film scanner- and good scanning skills.(not with digital)</li>

<li>Good post processing skills (same with digital) – exception: that film may require a grain reduction software, and more post processing to clean it up so it will look as clean as a digital camera image.</li>

<li>Good print preparation software, or a competent print lab.</li>

</ol>

<p>It’s a lot more work to get film to look as clean as those from today’s DSLRs. The more variables you put into place, the more opportunity there is for problems to arise. I still find my digital images to look sharper and have less noise and artifacts than my film scans. Film also can’t match the high iso achievements of the current DSLRs. And let’s not forget the time it takes to scan the film.</p>

 

<p>I was reading an article (<a href="http://briansmith.com/sony-a7r-field-test/">http://briansmith.com/sony-a7r-field-test/</a>) on a field test of the new Sony FF A-7R.<br>

It came to my attention that you can use Pentax lenses via an adapter on Sony cameras. Has anyone tried this? <br>

The adapter isn't expensive (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/RainbowImaging-Pentax-mount-Camera-Adapter/dp/B003X19WZC/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1329283364&sr=1-1-catcorr">http://www.amazon.com/RainbowImaging-Pentax-mount-Camera-Adapter/dp/B003X19WZC/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1329283364&sr=1-1-catcorr</a>)</p>

<p>True! I had my eye on the D600 until I heard of the problem. Now you don't know if you can trust the new Nikon products without having to wait for a year and read the reviews. Still sucks. I'd be totally pissed had I bought that model.</p>

<p>That's a lot of money for a defective product. One shouldn't have to go through all the hassle of sending it back all the time for cleanings and repairs. Nikon should permanently fix or replace all D600s. You might want to also consider switching to a different brand. I think I would lose my loyalty to Nikon real quick………. Go with a brand that doesn’t have that problem. There are choices – Canon, Sony, Pentax………</p>

<p>The K3 specs look great. Compared to Canon & Nikon, I’m of the opinion that you get more quality for your money with Pentax. Some of the Pentax primes also have really good ratings. I have an FA 43 limited that takes great pictures when paired with my Pentax 12mp KX. The disadvantage with Pentax is lens choices. Canon & Nikon have so many more choices which is sad. I’m certain that Pentax has studied the competition and made the K3 better. I just can’t wait to see the reviews when it comes out.<br>

FF would be nice, but is it really worth the $$$$ for a little less noise at higher ISO? All things being equal a 24mp FF should have the same resolution as a 24mp crop given that both have quality lenses of equivalent focal lengths. I know that physics is on the side of the FF in terms of quality, but can you really tell without pixel peeping? Unfortunately, I don’t have both to compare. If anyone has done this comparison, I’d love to hear from you.<br>

I do have a Mamiya 645 FILM camera and a Nikon 9000 film scanner, and from pixel peeping comparisons, the 12MP Pentax has just about the same resolution as 120 speed Medium format Velvia film (just from my eyes, not scientifically done). The K3 should be a welcome step up in resolution. </p>

<p>I can’t wait to get my hands on one. Those arguing the merits of Full frame vs. Crop need to relax. The Nikon crop sensor D7100 24mp actually produces sharper images than its 24mp FF D600 cousin because the 7100 lacks an AA filter. This Pentax lacks the AA filter too. I think some people are pissed that they shell out a lot of $$$$ for the full frame body and notice very little improvements. I’ll bet side by side, you couldn’t tell the difference between prints from either of the two Nikons.</p>

<p><a href="

real life comparison between full frame & crop Nikons. Give you an Idea of how the Pentax compares.</p>

<p>The technology has improved so much that anyone with an entry level DSLR and a decent flash can photograph a wedding. It may not look as good as a pro, but it will likely be acceptable to most. So now you have Uncle Bob, with his Nikon 7100 (or Rebel), and a good flash, good Photoshop skills, taking the business away from the pros.<br>

<br>

In the old days of Film – you needed a medium format camera, the right film, and a general knowledge of photography to photograph a wedding. Not anymore….. These new cameras with their computers are like pilotless planes that can take off and land by themselves. Sure, there will be times when you wish you had a pilot, and the plane crashes, but people are looking to save money.</p>

<p>It also depends on your digital darkroom skills. There are very talented digital darkroom gurus out there that can take a good DSLR image from 12mp and make a great large print. There are ways to do it. Since photography is an art, what is great to me, my be average to you. I do like my 24x36" prints from my 12mp cropsensor DSLR (Pentax KX). They have about the same resolution as my Mamyia 645 scanned on Nikon 9000 using Velvia 100. Just try it. If it doesn't satisfy you, you may need to buy a better camera.</p>

<p>I don't know about you, but I shoot both. I love my DSLR. Both require digital darkroom post-processing skills to get the best out of each.<br>

I find the film needs more post processing to clean it up unless I want the grainy look.<br>

On a recent trip to Italy, I compared shots from my Pentax K-X (old entry level 12mp from a few years back) to my Mamyia 645 Velvia 100 shots. The resolution was almost identical. And that was from a crop sensor! An old crop sensor! I liked the color better from the Pentax.. I used one of the Pentax prime lenses. Now if a dinky little crop sensor can match Velvia 100 on a tripod with a trigger cord, I can only dream of what a full frame Nikon D-800 could do.<br>

I did use a Nikon 9000 scanner. Perhaps a drumscan would give the Mamyia a slight edge in resolution, but you also pick up more artifacts from the film that requires more digital darkroom processing to clean it up. </p>

<p>Some of these film vs. Digital comparisons are the same ones from a few years ago. The DSLRs are old models and are not fair comparisons as the technology is constantly changing. So here is a link for a comparison of a Canon 5Dii against against film. Now in a year there should be a new version of the 5Dii which will mean this comparison will have to be done again. LOL</p>

<p>http://www.twinlenslife.com/2011/01/digital-vs-film-canon-5d-mark-ii-vs.html</p>

 

<p>That looks like the film is being bent when it is inserted into the processor. Try a different lab.</p>

<p>Here's an interesting read from professionals that still shoot film. http://annawu.com/blog/2011/03/film-vs-digital/<br>

Points out a few interesting reasons some still like film.</p>

 

<p>Digital keeps getting better & better. I shoot film & digital & I think the digital often looks better.</p>

<p>Roger, it can be hard to post images that look good on everyone's monitor. So some may see the image a little different than others. I ran into that problem a while back. I know Leica's old film camera's are supposed to be great. I don't know about their digital ones. It may be Panasonic trying to paste a Leica name on its product to make more money. I'm thiking of buying one of their old film ones from KEH.com.</p>

<p>Maybe someone here with a little $$$ can start up a retro film company and sell it to this niche market. I would love to have Agfa 25 black & White, back. </p>

<p>I'm sure some of you have seen the Art - Photoshop Magazines at the bookstores. In these magazines, there are things you can do to an image that are incredible. My question was based on having fantastic Photoshop skills- Being able to manipulate pixels and colors with skill. My question is not based on the cheapest lenses, but name brand- good ones. It seems like with lots of time and proper skills that a Photoshop Artist could do wonders with mid-range lenses.</p>

<p> With Photoshop, can you make a good lens great? Is it really worth spending $$$$ on the top of the line lens if you can make it better through post processing? I understand getting a top of the line lens for speed if it's your profession, but how about general image quality. (Landscape and people). With all these post processing tricks, can you make that mid level lens look like a top of the line one?</p>

 

<p>Charles, if you click the image that compares the Nikon to the 7200 on <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm7400.html" target="_blank">http://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm7400.html</a>, you'll see a little color picture of a tree- Click on it and it compares the Nikon to the 7400. The Nikon looks a lot better.</p>

<p>The colors seem denser and richer, at least on my screen. It may appear different on my CRT screen at home.</p>

<p>Edward, your Medium Format Ektacolor looks better than the Medium Format Digital.</p>

<p>I still have yet to see the shadow detail advantage from the $19K Imacaon. Nikon looks just as good for $2.5K. Resolution does matter if you are printing large. Must use the glass carrier with the Nikon. You got money to blow, go for the Imacon... The Hiedelberg has more Res and looks better than both, but not by much. The flatbed Epson scan looks like crap!<br>

again, here it is:<br>

http://www.rankin.com.au/essay11.htm</p>