Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

An IQ test to blow your mind
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Andy, while I love the 5d mkII a lot and digital photography still in the examples you posted in my opinion film wins hands down.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:
Andy, while I love the 5d mkII a lot and digital photography still in the examples you posted in my opinion film wins hands down.



I vote for film also (lot cheaper to me than 5D) Smile seriously I like film better on Andy's samples.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
From a financial point of view the medium format film cameras are a bargain today compared to full format 2.4x3.6 DSLRs

However I still feel it's a bit like comparing apples and oranges due to the big difference in the frame area: a 6x9 camera has a frame area that is almost 9 TIMES bigger than a full frame DSLR !

I mean it's a bit like making a race with a 1930s car and a 2000s bicycle... the 30s car will win, but it's not possible to say that the 30s technology is better because of that Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excellent summary Orio!


PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio,

Your avatar reminds me of what was called the "dime test" in the early 60's on Eastern US college campus'.

The girl passes the dime test if:

'If you can tell whether the dime in the back pocket of the girl's shorts is heads or tails.'


PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:
Andy, while I love the 5d mkII a lot and digital photography still in the examples you posted in my opinion film wins hands down.


The thing to consider is that the 5D shot is the straight raw.
The point I would make and maybe you and Others will have some feedback is.
With the RAW shot I have room to recover details that I can not with the film.
With film, sure there are some things to be done in PS to get some DR back.
But the level of control is far superior using RAW and digital for these night shots in my experience so far.
The real proof comes in the printed shots. Most PP done in film can not be enlarged to half as much as the 5D frames without showing degradation from recovering a TIFF or Jpeg.
I love film also. But I'm finding that for night work. It is more finicky and does not have the end result potential that a quality Digital sensor has.
In addition, the film has resiprocity failure that results in much longer exposure times and a lower success rate overall.
Of course this can be used to an advantage at times such as capturing a receding tide or star trails.
I guess once again it shows that both mediums have a place and their own particular advantages. Wink

Here is the 5D raw with a quick stroke of the PP brush to bring out some life.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Still is a lot flatter compared to film.
I don't know how to explain properly... it's a matter of how light falls and spread through the frame.
The 5d mkII is better in handling light nuances (probably thanks to the new DIGIC processor), if you really enjoy that much night photography you should give it a try.

Last edited by A G Photography on Sat Apr 18, 2009 12:21 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
BTW

I crack up everytime I see the title to this thread from the main forum index

"An IQ test to blow you....."

Sounds like a test that comes from a spring break party Laughing Laughing

Promises Promises Laughing


PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
From a financial point of view the medium format film cameras are a bargain today compared to full format 2.4x3.6 DSLRs

However I still feel it's a bit like comparing apples and oranges due to the big difference in the frame area: a 6x9 camera has a frame area that is almost 9 TIMES bigger than a full frame DSLR !

I mean it's a bit like making a race with a 1930s car and a 2000s bicycle... the 30s car will win, but it's not possible to say that the 30s technology is better because of that Laughing


Yeah, this is (almost) true, but my point is that most people think the 30s technology is a bicycle and the 2000s offering is a Formula 1 sports car. My aim was to show that this assumption is false.

Obviously, I chose 6x9 precisely because of the advantage of sheer size. I say it's "almost" true about the bicycle comparison because Allesandro posted in another thread about a test he did with folders, which showed that the lens quality did limit the output quality to around the level of a good pro digital, so the race isn't all that uneven ... but it is still a race.

I was interested to see in a rather nice book "The world's top photographers - Landscapes" from Rotovision, that Theo Allof's Canon 1V 35mm seascape is clearly breaking up on being printed at 10 inches by 14. Maybe it is a crop but even so it shows the limitations on usage arising from 35mm. 6x9 still has some possibilities for stock images - in fact, I sold one picture from that camera only today, on Shutterstock (admittedly, it has been shrunk to a handful of MP, but I think a couple of this week's shots will be heading for Alamy, which demands about 20MP).


PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Paul, you should try 4x5. Maybe with Velvia 50. It still blows out every digital sensor. Then you'll have your PC messing with gigabytes of image data Very Happy

It's just a matter of ease of use, but sometimes I think I'm just too much lazy and should shot some good 4x5 slides even if it is just for fun or portfolio.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:
Paul, you should try 4x5. Maybe with Velvia 50. It still blows out every digital sensor. Then you'll have your PC messing with gigabytes of image data Very Happy

It's just a matter of ease of use, but sometimes I think I'm just too much lazy and should shot some good 4x5 slides even if it is just for fun or portfolio.


Hmmm. Yes, I think it is going to happen one day. I've no idea how you load a 4x5" film but having proper t/s and the neg size would be amazing. Having just bought the new 5D, I'm afraid it will be a year or two (or I'll need to crank up some fantastic sales) before my wife will tolerate the purchase of a field camera (is that the right name for them?).


PostPosted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 5:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
PaulC wrote:

Obviously, I chose 6x9 precisely because of the advantage of sheer size. I say it's "almost" true about the bicycle comparison because Allesandro posted in another thread about a test he did with folders, which showed that the lens quality did limit the output quality to around the level of a good pro digital, so the race isn't all that uneven ... but it is still a race.


With folders, the problem isn't so much the lens quality as the rest of the camera, at least at the center of the frame. The front standard of the camera may be skewed, the registration may be slightly off, and film flatness is always a wee bit dubious, which affects the registration especially at the center of the frame. My recent posting concerning the uncoated 75 mm S-K Xenar (1933, extracted from a 6x6 folder) gives some idea of the lens quality, see http://forum.mflenses.com/the-iq-of-a-1932-s-k-xenar-4-5-75-t16058.html. Calculating from the 6x6 frame area ( = 56 mm x 56 mm) the crops in that posting would be from the center of a 75.9 Mp image (8713 x 8713), and the corresponding 6x9 ( = 56 mm x 82 mm) would be 111 Mp (8713 x 12759), which viewed at 72 dpi would be 10 ft x 14.75 ft (3 m x 4.5 m) or 29" x 42.5" (73.8 cm x 108 cm) printed at 300 dpi without resampling. With a proper lens shade the contrast would be better than in my examples.

Veijo


PostPosted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is true, of course, and I suppose what it means is that film curvature and perhaps defects with the camera neutralise a lot of the benefits from the extra resolution provided by the film size.

But does this apply to all film shots? The larger the film, the more likely it is to sag in the space it has in the camera chamber, I would think. Is there any reason to think a Hasselblad will hold it flatter than a folder? If not, then it means the resolution a lens delivers will always be better on a DSLR than on film.

An obvious drawback to folders is that critical focusing is impossible, as focus is either by guesswork or by measurment with a rangefinder, both of which assume that the markings on the lens or its callibration with the finder is accurate. An SLR lets you see what you are taking (assuming the mirror is correctly positioned)

Still, I've had a couple of 10x15 inch prints made from this series and the result is entirely satisfactory.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
PaulC wrote:

But does this apply to all film shots? The larger the film, the more likely it is to sag in the space it has in the camera chamber, I would think. Is there any reason to think a Hasselblad will hold it flatter than a folder? If not, then it means the resolution a lens delivers will always be better on a DSLR than on film.


A Hasselblad has a better film gate and pressure plate combination, the film is kept tighter, and there is no suction caused by the opening bellows. However, scanning can significantly degrade the final IQ.

Quote:
Still, I've had a couple of 10x15 inch prints made from this series and the result is entirely satisfactory.


I've had a couple of 20 x 30 inch prints made of my 6x9 shots, and they certainly look good even if viewed rather nearer than the 36 inch diagonal of the print. However, we must remember that any print larger than 8 x 12 made of a very sharp 8 Mp shot will look very sharp when viewed from a distance greater than the print diagonal - a good 5D shot (12 Mp) is already a slight overkill.

Veijo


PostPosted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Does that comment about the Hasselblad film gate/pressure plate apply to a Pentacon Six, too, do you know? Suction is a good point, I'd forgotten that.

And is viewing distance at the diagonal of the print a standard rule-of-thumb for assessing acceptable quality? I was actually examining my prints from about six inches away.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2