PDA

View Full Version : Interesting article: "36 Megapixels vs 6×7 Velvia" and 4 x 5



Ken Lee
20-Dec-2014, 09:55
See 36 Megapixels vs 6x7 Velvia (https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/#/) by Tim Parkin at On Landscape (https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/)

mdarnton
20-Dec-2014, 10:11
Thanks for that. Here's another article, from yesterday, I was looking for a place for, and this thread seems to be the place:
http://petapixel.com/2014/12/18/comparing-image-quality-film-digital/

Ken Lee
20-Dec-2014, 11:23
My only reservation/observation is that the Mamiya 7 used in the test is a rangefinder camera: precise focus is dependent on calibration of the rangefinder mechanism.

I don't know if the lenses for Mamiya RB67 (http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/legacy_RB67.asp) are basically "diffraction limited" IE optimal as are the Mamiya 7 lenses but if they are, the resulting images could be even better than those obtainable from a Mamiya 7. A Pentax 67 might do better also for the same reason.

Bernice Loui
20-Dec-2014, 11:33
moiré pattern in the digital test images. What has been done in the digital image processing to result in those images that give the appearance of being higher resolution.

They look digital on the Mac Book Pro display via the web.


Bernice

koh303
20-Dec-2014, 12:02
My only reservation/observation is that the Mamiya 7 used in the test is a rangefinder camera: precise focus is dependent on calibration of the rangefinder mechanism.

I don't know if the lenses for Mamiya RB67 (http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/legacy_RB67.asp) are basically "diffraction limited" IE optimal as are the Mamiya 7 lenses but if they are, the resulting images could be even better than those obtainable from a Mamiya 7. A Pentax 67 might do better also for the same reason.

Mirror shake on the RZ needs to be considered more then glass quality. Modern RZ lenses, have usually tested better resolution then 7 lenses, last time i checked.

koh303
20-Dec-2014, 12:09
In any case this is AMAZING stuff. why even bother with so expensive digital stuff when the quality is so low?

Ken Lee
20-Dec-2014, 12:15
Mirror shake on the RZ needs to be considered more then glass quality.

The mirror can be locked up, no ?

See http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/assets/files/documentation/RZ67_Pro_v4.pdf page 29:


With the RZ 67, it is possible to lock the mirror in the up position beforehand, and at the desired instant release the shutter without the usual accompanying mirror movement. Referred to as “mirror-up operation,” this technique is extremely valuable when desiring to eliminate even the slightest mirror shock...

koh303
20-Dec-2014, 12:34
The mirror can be locked up, no ?

See http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/assets/files/documentation/RZ67_Pro_v4.pdf page 29:


With the RZ 67, it is possible to lock the mirror in the up position beforehand, and at the desired instant release the shutter without the usual accompanying mirror movement. Referred to as “mirror-up operation,” this technique is extremely valuable when desiring to eliminate even the slightest mirror shock...

Yes of course. I guess for testing puproses the RZ is a better tool, regadless, the results of this test just blew my mind away. I knew it all along, but was basing this on 10 year old knowledge and testing. Surely, i told myself recently, technology has leaped ahead and the world is a different place. I guess not.

8x10 user
20-Dec-2014, 14:15
One must keep in mind that phase one has ~20 years of experience in processing files from digital cameras. Their algorithms are top notch. So the actual raw files might be softer and of course have the bayer grid. A fair comparison would include extensive post processing of the film images.

Sal Santamaura
20-Dec-2014, 14:55
...I don't know if the lenses for Mamiya RB67 are basically "diffraction limited" IE optimal as are the Mamiya 7 lenses but if they are, the resulting images could be even better than those obtainable from a Mamiya 7. A Pentax 67 might do better also for the same reason.No, the 7 wins period. First, its lenses don't need to deal with a mirror box, so they're not retrofocus, enabling extraordinary performance. Second, any camera with a reverse-curl film path suffers from resolution-reducing bulging unless an entire roll is exposed in one continuous burst.

Pentax 67 lenses just don't achieve the same resolution as either Mamiya. See this page


http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

for some numbers.

Michael Graves
20-Dec-2014, 15:13
The mirror can be locked up, no ?

See http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/assets/files/documentation/RZ67_Pro_v4.pdf page 29:


With the RZ 67, it is possible to lock the mirror in the up position beforehand, and at the desired instant release the shutter without the usual accompanying mirror movement. Referred to as “mirror-up operation,” this technique is extremely valuable when desiring to eliminate even the slightest mirror shock...

I only have a lowly RB-67 Pro-S, but with the double cable release, I push down halfway to release the mirror, wait a second and push down the rest of the way to take the shot. Piece of pie. Easy as cake. Even I can do it.

sanking
20-Dec-2014, 15:31
Having owned and used both a Pentax 67 system and a Mamiya 7 system I agree with Sal. Pentax 67 lenses don't come close to Mamiya 7 lenses in terms of resolution. My own resolution tests consistently gave between 25%-40% higher resolution with Mamiya 7 lenses than Pentax 6X7 when comparing the same film.

Sandy

Larry Gebhardt
20-Dec-2014, 15:32
Mirror shake on the RZ needs to be considered more then glass quality. Modern RZ lenses, have usually tested better resolution then 7 lenses, last time i checked.

I found the Mamiya 7 65mm lens to be superior to the RZ 65mm lens with the floating elements. This was not the result of any rigorous testing, just looking at the results. Those were the only two lenses I had with a focal length overlap. However with the 150mm 7 lens I rarely get anything I want perfectly in focus. So there the longer RZ lenses gave me better results.

richardman
20-Dec-2014, 16:33
Tim Parkin and others have tested the Mamiya 7 lens to be some of the best lens ever, for any format. On the GetDPI, someone is challenging Tim for a "shootout" with the Sony A7R with image stacking (e.g. up to 60 images to extract the cleanest shadow details) vs. 8x10. Should be interesting.

Daniel Stone
20-Dec-2014, 19:03
Tim Parkin and others have tested the Mamiya 7 lens to be some of the best lens ever, for any format. On the GetDPI, someone is challenging Tim for a "shootout" with the Sony A7R with image stacking (e.g. up to 60 images to extract the cleanest shadow details) vs. 8x10. Should be interesting.

The major flaw that I foresee in this 'comparison' is the time involved in creating that (60?) shot layered photograph... In most cases, I'd assume that the exposure time of the 8x10 shot will be long over before the digital fellow is finished with 1/2 the necessary shots for that layer cake...

There's always going to be those that want to argue ;)

Richard Johnson
20-Dec-2014, 22:06
It would interesting if the testers could assign points for different factors like price, scanner quality, user learning curve, etc. to make more useful practical comparisons. After all if you throw enough time, money, expertise at a test I am sure a multi-stacked and stitched digital could eventually trump 8x10 with a high end scan if you just kept adding frames until it won.

But I'm more interested in comparing single shots from more modest equipment and workflows.

timparkin
21-Dec-2014, 08:24
moiré pattern in the digital test images. What has been done in the digital image processing to result in those images that give the appearance of being higher resolution.

They look digital on the Mac Book Pro display via the web.


Bernice


Not sure what you mean - there is definitely moire in the test images, exacerbated because it was a D800E.

Tim

timparkin
21-Dec-2014, 08:29
The film and digital images were fairly extensively post processed. Deconvolution sharpening etc.. Only fair to both platforms to get them optimally sharpened etc..

timparkin
21-Dec-2014, 08:31
My only reservation/observation is that the Mamiya 7 used in the test is a rangefinder camera: precise focus is dependent on calibration of the rangefinder mechanism.

I don't know if the lenses for Mamiya RB67 (http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/legacy_RB67.asp) are basically "diffraction limited" IE optimal as are the Mamiya 7 lenses but if they are, the resulting images could be even better than those obtainable from a Mamiya 7. A Pentax 67 might do better also for the same reason.

We bracketed the Mamiya 7 images but we were confident we would be OK as the depth of field covered most of the table at f/8 (about 20cm if I remember correctly). We put a video camera to the Mamiya 7 rangefinder and zoomed in (live view!) and the frame we used from this was spot on

timparkin
21-Dec-2014, 08:33
On the GetDPI, someone is challenging Tim for a "shootout" with the Sony A7R with image stacking (e.g. up to 60 images to extract the cleanest shadow details) vs. 8x10. Should be interesting.

Yes that should be interesting. We're going to do a single shot test (otherwise I'd just bracket 8x10 images!). He's more interested in signal to noise ratio in the shadows..

timparkin
21-Dec-2014, 08:35
With so many factors it would be tough to do.. I could do a 'cheapest film camera that still trumps digital' which could possibly be the Bronica? but then it loses by weight? So how do you score things? I'll write articles descibing pros and cons but I can't do much more than that I imagine..

Ari
21-Dec-2014, 10:47
Thank you very much for this, Tim; greatly appreciated.
Though had you come to a wholly different conclusion, I'd still be shooting my 8x10 no matter what! :)

David A. Goldfarb
21-Dec-2014, 11:21
My only reservation/observation is that the Mamiya 7 used in the test is a rangefinder camera: precise focus is dependent on calibration of the rangefinder mechanism.

It's not as if SLRs are without calibration issues. Looking through the prism gives the illusion that the image is in focus, but presumes that the mirror is aligned and the focusing screen is in register. Usually it is, and a rangefinder can be a delicate mechanism, but I wouldn't take SLR focus for granted.

Ken Lee
21-Dec-2014, 11:47
I've never had an issue with SLRs but had to send one of my Mamiya 7 cameras back for calibration several times.

Mamiya USA required several tries before I eventually gave up on them and sent it to Precision Camera Works (http://www.precisioncameraworks.com/Media/MamiyaInfo.pdf).

Short wide angle lenses with abundant depth of field are less troublesome but longer lenses like the 150mm require precise calibration: otherwise those world-class optics are... for naught. Getting my camera calibrated to use both an 80mm and 150mm is even more challenging.

According to Precision Camera Works "The most common repair request we receive for the 6, 7 and 7II models is for the proper calibration of a camera's rangefinder. We also receive occasional complaints about a discrepancy in the rangefinder accuracy between one or more lenses in a set..."

paulr
21-Dec-2014, 12:06
The real world comparison for me takes into consideration the cost of high quality drum scans. I can only afford them under rare circumstances.

If you do a comparison like this with desktop scans or with darkroom prints, things skew 100% the other way. 60 inch prints from my 36 megapixel files look better than 50" darkroom prints from 4x5 (don't argue ... I have examples. It's no contest).

Prints from high end drum scans of those same negatives would look considerably better than the 36mpx prints, but that's not going to happen.

Christopher Barrett
21-Dec-2014, 12:29
I was playing with tests of this nature last summer (posted the results at LuLa) and preferred the look of film over digital, though many of their qualities were very similar. I'll do another shootout shortly and post the tests for you guys. Since I happen to have an M-Line 2, a roll film back, an IQ 260 back and an A7r that will mount on the view camera, I can shoot everything through the same lens and then drum scan the film (Portra 160) to do some highly critical tests. Let me know if there is anything specific you want to see.

I'll likely compose a still life set and light it with extreme contrast in part of the scene.

CB

Bernice Loui
21-Dec-2014, 12:29
Digital imaging as a technology must have filtering and varying degrees of numeric processing which can and does alter the results. How the results are altered can be widely adjusted to deliver a specific perception of the resulting image, i.e. the illusion of extreme sharpness-resolution when it is not really there in the original data acquired.

Some time ago during a LF get together, one of the participants show me a digital print that appeared really, really sharp with extreme resolution. Within moments of looking at this digital print, I noted that it has been digitally sharpened. He was very surprised that this was visible in the print, with that an explanation of how and what visual clues in this print pointed to the fact is has been digitally sharpened. As that discussion went on, it turns out that image was made at f90, then digitally sharpened and worked over to produce a sharp, high resolution, contrasty and snappy look.

Point being, digital is a completely different technology to film and their results are inherently difference is baked into how they work to produce images. IMO, comparing the two is more academic than realizing they should be treated as different imaging technologies producing different results.



Bernice



Not sure what you mean - there is definitely moire in the test images, exacerbated because it was a D800E.

Tim

timparkin
21-Dec-2014, 12:38
The real world comparison for me takes into consideration the cost of high quality drum scans. I can only afford them under rare circumstances.

If you do a comparison like this with desktop scans or with darkroom prints, things skew 100% the other way. 60 inch prints from my 36 megapixel files look better than 50" darkroom prints from 4x5 (don't argue ... I have examples. It's no contest).

Prints from high end drum scans of those same negatives would look considerably better than the 36mpx prints, but that's not going to happen.

Not going to argue I'm just going to say $23 for a drum scan and my 4x5s blow away my A7R files even with an Epson flatbed..

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/epson5x4-vs-d800e.jpg

In fact my Mamiya 7 gets pretty close to matching my A7R on an opticfilm 120

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1552/1323/original.jpg

I'll let you extrapolate that out to 5x4 if you like..

My only argument would be that it's easy to get the best out of digital but it takes some skill to get the best out of scanners. I'm not going to argue with the results you get though...

Tim

timparkin
21-Dec-2014, 12:41
Digital imaging as a technology must have filtering and varying degrees of numeric processing which can and does alter the results. How the results are altered can be widely adjusted to deliver a specific perception of the resulting image, i.e. the illusion of extreme sharpness-resolution when it is not really there in the original data acquired.

Some time ago during a LF get together, one of the participants show me a digital print that appeared really, really sharp with extreme resolution. Within moments of looking at this digital print, I noted that it has been digitally sharpened. He was very surprised that this was visible in the print, with that an explanation of how and what visual clues in this print pointed to the fact is has been digitally sharpened. As that discussion went on, it turns out that image was made at f90, then digitally sharpened and worked over to produce a sharp, high resolution, contrasty and snappy look.

Point being, digital is a completely different technology to film and their results are inherently difference is baked into how they work to produce images. IMO, comparing the two is more academic than realizing they should be treated as different imaging technologies producing different results.



Bernice

Agreed but barring gross stupidity if you take a photographer who uses both film and digital seriously and specialises in scanning film then I would hope that you can get the best out of each medium. And yes, if you read the articles it mentions that digital has a peak contrast at close to it's nyquist and then drops to zero whereas film's contrast drops slowly as detail gets finer. The grain in film limits applying sharpening too.

Which is why the comparisons weren't really 'interpreted' and no gross conclusion drawn. The results should stand for themselves...

Tim

Greg Miller
21-Dec-2014, 12:47
This seems to come down to priorities. The CMS20 seems to resolve line pairs very well, nut has noise (grain) issues. Mamiya 7 Provia has less noise, but doesn't resolve lines pairs as well. The IQ180 seems to have better resolution of the numbers (6, 8, 100) than the Mamiya 7 Provia and much less noise, but quite a bit of digital artifacting in the line pairs. All of which is seen at a magnification factor that is not declared (unless I missed it) so had to know if meaningful in the real world. One thing I know for sure is that every time I look at my old 35mm Velvia slides I am disgusted and the amount of grain or dye blobs in many skies.

So much agonizing over technical details. I wish people spent as much time working on the artistic side of photography.

Bernice Loui
21-Dec-2014, 12:52
Difference between those who are interested in the process of making images -vs- those interested in producing expressive images regardless of the technical process involved?


Bernice




So much agonizing over technical details. I wish people spent as much time working on the artistic side of photography.

Greg Miller
21-Dec-2014, 12:59
In fact my Mamiya 7 gets pretty close to matching my A7R on an opticfilm 120

The 5x4 Porta is certainly better in the text and curved lines. But seems less crisp on the straight metal edges, has obvious noise, and has chromatic aberration inside the aperture blades (not the film's problem, but a result none-the-less of the system). How does one factor noise into a resolution test? It does impact resolution, but in the scales here not necessarily in an obviously good or bad way. So hard to make definitive judgements other than they are different.

Ken Lee
21-Dec-2014, 13:11
I wish people spent as much time working on the artistic side of photography.

What makes you think they don't ?

The person who made these tests writes articles like this one: Taste and Landscape Photography (https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/taste-landscape-photography/).

Greg Miller
21-Dec-2014, 13:12
Another interesting twist is the amazing amount of detail (resolution) that can be pulled out of deep shadows from a D800E. Much more than I ever could with color film. So's there resolving power in the deep shadows where the film shadows are just blocked up. On the other hand color film still holds more detail in the brightest tones than the D800E.

So do we need to compare resolution in specific tonal ranges? Or what would change if the line pairs were changed from black+white to black+gray, or gray+white? I think we have to remember that tests like these are only valid so long as the test closely mimics subjects we are actually photographing.

Greg Miller
21-Dec-2014, 13:13
What makes you think they don't ?

The person who made these tests writes articles like this one: Taste and Landscape Photography (https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/taste-landscape-photography/).

I wasn't basing that statement on this single thread.

Bernice Loui
21-Dec-2014, 13:32
What if the anti-aliasing filter were to have a slope that is more gradual with constant group delay than what appears to be commonly used, what effects would this have on the digital image. If more resolution is required, increase the number of samples and rate by an order of magnitude rather than trying to squeeze the last possible bit information from the data available.


Bernice





And yes, if you read the articles it mentions that digital has a peak contrast at close to it's nyquist and then drops to zero whereas film's contrast drops slowly as detail gets finer. The grain in film limits applying sharpening too.

Which is why the comparisons weren't really 'interpreted' and no gross conclusion drawn. The results should stand for themselves...

Tim

timparkin
21-Dec-2014, 13:51
This seems to come down to priorities. The CMS20 seems to resolve line pairs very well, nut has noise (grain) issues. Mamiya 7 Provia has less noise, but doesn't resolve lines pairs as well. The IQ180 seems to have better resolution of the numbers (6, 8, 100) than the Mamiya 7 Provia and much less noise, but quite a bit of digital artifacting in the line pairs. All of which is seen at a magnification factor that is not declared (unless I missed it) so had to know if meaningful in the real world. One thing I know for sure is that every time I look at my old 35mm Velvia slides I am disgusted and the amount of grain or dye blobs in many skies.

So much agonizing over technical details. I wish people spent as much time working on the artistic side of photography.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/timparkin

BetterSense
21-Dec-2014, 13:51
"Preoccupation with the equipment is the hallmark of the amateur"--EWD

Greg Miller
21-Dec-2014, 13:59
https://www.flickr.com/photos/timparkin

Sorry if you thought my remark (last sentence of the quoted post) was directed at you. It was not, and your work is obviously not all about the technical aspects. My remark was more generic in regards to how much time and effort by people on this site spend agonizing over technical aspects, almost to the exclusion of the creative side. Even in the image sharing threads, which for the most part I ignore, where it seems the most common remark is "what lens was that" or "nice tones".

timparkin
21-Dec-2014, 14:03
Definitely not chromatic abberation from the taking lens - The drum scan from my Heidelberg (not available at the minute) doesn't show it.

It doesn't have to be grainy - I didn't noise reduce it that much and the digital had so little textural detail I think it was always going to be smooth. But yes digital is mostly smoother than film. Here's a properly post processed IQ180 vs Mamiya 7 scanned on my Heidelberg at 6000dpi

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/iq180-mamiya7-pp.jpg

Magnification is shown in the photos but what you're seeing is probably a 60" print equivalent on screen.

Tim

p.s. Ken Lee posted one article but you might want to look at these too..

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/issues/

Probably about 5 or 6 deeply geeky lens/camera tests in that whole lot

timparkin
21-Dec-2014, 14:04
Heh you beat me to the mark there... I am deeply interested in the technical side of photography to the point where I understand my medium as much as possible. Then I ignore the hell out of it until something changes..

timparkin
21-Dec-2014, 14:07
Well oversampling is definitely the key to good results. That's why I think 50mp is actually really useful in a DSLR. Not to get 50Mp worth of huge images but to create a smooth transition from broad detail to fine resolution. In fact I've taken to blurring the fine detail a bit on the A7R as it makes things look very natural looking to me.

timparkin
21-Dec-2014, 14:14
Thought you might be interested in the full size 'definitive' D800E vs Mamiya 7 scanned on the Heidelberg.. I kept the D800 as raw pixels so you can see the proper data..

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/d800-mamiya7-rawpixels.jpg

Tim

Christopher Barrett
21-Dec-2014, 14:26
Maybe I missed something, but why Velvia? It has maybe the worst shadow detail of any film ever produced. I'm a little biased, though. After 12 years of shooting chromes for a living, I am so glad to be done with it. Nowadays I either shoot digital or neg.

sanking
21-Dec-2014, 14:33
Maybe I missed something, but why Velvia? It has maybe the worst shadow detail of any film ever produced. I'm a little biased, though. After 12 years of shooting chromes for a living, I am so glad to be done with it. Nowadays I either shoot digital or neg.

Personal preference of course. Or might there be some influence from Joe Cornish?

Sandy

timparkin
21-Dec-2014, 14:35
No it's exposed for the highlights which were very bright on the lightbox and very little light in the foreground. Check the scene out and check the exposure on the lightbox.. I've tested the dynamic range of chromes and they don't match the D800E nor Colour neg.. (no surprise there). So you have to choose what is more important in a scene. In this case we exposed for the highlights.. The black areas on the cameras are about -6 stops, possibly even darker in the deep shadow parts..


Tim

Greg Miller
21-Dec-2014, 14:36
Thought you might be interested in the full size 'definitive' D800E vs Mamiya 7 scanned on the Heidelberg.. I kept the D800 as raw pixels so you can see the proper data..

Tim

Obviously the Velvia wins in resolution; not even close. I have a hard time getting past all the grain anymore - it just sucks my eye in (just a matter of taste; others will disagree). And the shadow detail is all blocked up, especially around the camera strap on the left.

126988

timparkin
21-Dec-2014, 14:40
Personal preference of course. Or might there be some influence from Joe Cornish?

Sandy

Well he shoots the IQ280 now so that's a no..

The Velvia was chosen because it holds more detail than Portra. The new Portra's have actually lost sharpness whilst being optimised for scanning.

Here's the figures from Henning Serger.

Velvia 50: 110 - 125 lp/mm
Provia 100F: 120 - 135 lp/mm
Kodak Portra 400 (new): 80 – 100 Lp/mm

That's a substantial difference (although not as much when scanned obviously)..

If I were photographing the scene as a piece of 'art' I would have given it another stop and a third maybe a let the lightbox blow out. But I wanted the lightbox to be exposed OK to compare some of the finest detail in the picture - the transparencies on it.

Also I still prefer the result from chromes for certain subjects so I carry both. Sometimes I even take a shot on both and use the neg to roll off highlights and shadows on my chrome ;-)

Tim

Ken Lee
21-Dec-2014, 14:48
My remark was more generic in regards to how much time and effort by people on this site spend agonizing over technical aspects, almost to the exclusion of the creative side. Even in the image sharing threads, which for the most part I ignore, where it seems the most common remark is "what lens was that" or "nice tones".

Would you like to see more threads which encourage critique ? How else could we rectify things ?

timparkin
21-Dec-2014, 14:55
Well I might decide to use some noise reduction on that if I were to print but that is always a balance against print size ... as mentioned in my other comment the whole shot was exposed for the highlights on the lightbox and to place the printed res chart at about +0.5. This meant that the unlit cameras had shadows at about -6 or less.

I didn't spend too much time making sure they were opened either so.... as it wasn't a dynamic range test. There is some more info in there but not much.

Tim

p.s. Greg - The grain looks a lot less problematic in a print. and that last image that you can see on screen was the equivalent of about a 245" x 368" print!! (presuming a 100dpi monitor)

Old-N-Feeble
21-Dec-2014, 14:56
"Preoccupation with the equipment is the hallmark of the amateur"--EWD

I don't know where you found that but... an amateur is often seen as a person who truly loves his/her endeavor without regard to financial gain but who seeks to be the very best. The negative side is an amateur is regarded as one with no professional skills.

BetterSense
21-Dec-2014, 21:12
Let's not forget that "megapixel" is the worst sort of marketing-driven unit. 36 megapixels is only twice as much resolution as 9 megapixels; basically a factor of two better than my old D70. This use of misleading units can lead one to assume progress has happened faster than it really has. Thankfully the video folks are doing it right by designating video resolution classes by linear resolution-a much more meaningful metric.

jp
22-Dec-2014, 09:31
Great article. Fun and interesting to see the comparisons from time to time.

Better; It's true 36 mp is only twice the res of 9, but there is much more to the innovation than that. A 36 mp dslr uses a full frame, where most 6-10mp cameras were crop sensors, meaning they required more magnification and more from the lens. Most of the improvement I've seen is in low light abilities, dynamic range, and video. DSLRs have a long way to go I think before they get to the dynamic range of tmax 400 or portra 160. I use a 24mp digital camera and the detail is plenty for me to keep it for a long time. I'd upgrade if Nikon came out with something with similar resolution and massively enhanced dynamic range though.

Old-N-Feeble
22-Dec-2014, 09:37
Let's not forget that "megapixel" is the worst sort of marketing-driven unit. 36 megapixels is only twice as much resolution as 9 megapixels; basically a factor of two better than my old D70. This use of misleading units can lead one to assume progress has happened faster than it really has. Thankfully the video folks are doing it right by designating video resolution classes by linear resolution-a much more meaningful metric.

That's right but let's not discount that the difference is 'similar to' doubling each side of film thereby quadrupling film area. So it's 'somewhat' the same as moving from 135 format (24x36mm) to 6x7cm if you crop the latter to 2:3 ratio. It's not 'quite' the same because with film the physical size difference is absolute whereas with digital sensors there is an increase in pixel concentration in a smaller area. If the difference between 9 and 36mp was absolute it would be very substantial just as the difference between 135 and 6x7cm formats. That stated, there is a definite difference in quality between 9 and 36mp once you get past 8x12 inch prints especially if the former is smaller than full-frame.

Drew Wiley
22-Dec-2014, 15:00
Rangefinders do have an advantage when it comes to wide-angle lens engineering (versus retrofocus), but it's also a fact that they aren't very adept when it comes to providing longer focal lengths. So a lot of this is apples to oranges, then more apples to oranges comparisons.

timparkin
22-Dec-2014, 16:12
Rangefinders do have an advantage when it comes to wide-angle lens engineering (versus retrofocus), but it's also a fact that they aren't very adept when it comes to providing longer focal lengths. So a lot of this is apples to oranges, then more apples to oranges comparisons.

We did a test with the Hasselblad and 40mm CFE too and it was pretty close to the Mamiya. I thought the rendering of the lens was nicer personally (too rich for me though)

Adamphotoman
22-Dec-2014, 16:23
That's right but let's not discount that the difference is 'similar to' doubling each side of film thereby quadrupling film area. So it's 'somewhat' the same as moving from 135 format (24x36mm) to 6x7cm if you crop the latter to 2:3 ratio. It's not 'quite' the same because with film the physical size difference is absolute whereas with digital sensors there is an increase in pixel concentration in a smaller area. If the difference between 9 and 36mp was absolute it would be very substantial just as the difference between 135 and 6x7cm formats. That stated, there is a definite difference in quality between 9 and 36mp once you get past 8x12 inch prints especially if the former is smaller than full-frame.

I have to agree. It would be like saying 8X10 has twice the resolution as 4X5, or 645 is 1/2 the resolution of 4X5. When it comes down to paper the 16X24 print uses 4X the paper as an 8X12 print. If one were to make the same size print using the 9 mega pixel camera at the same res and quality, then one would have to stitch at least 4 shots together [more with overlap].

There is no question that my 10 mega pixel D200 is not even close to the 36 megapixel D810. The D200 was poor in low light, noisy both in IQ and the shutter was noisy. Slow to focus etc...

I think if I were to compare the image quality in reprographics from a drum scanned 4X5 piece of film to a Betterlight image of the same piece you might be surprised at how much better the digital image is. There is no contest. I have a friend photographer who drum scans and also has a Betterlight.

Making pictorial images outside is quite a different story. Then again I have seen incredible & huge images printed 20 feet across from Mike Collette.

Drew Wiley
22-Dec-2014, 16:33
I've seen forty foot wide images taken with horribly exposed amateur 35mm film. They're called billboards. How small a fraction of a "megapixel" do you think would be equivalent to the Marlboro Man? But it's probably one of the most influential photographs in history, or at least it has killed millions of people. All this
numbers stuff is about the LAST thing I would think about when choosing cameras and lenses, and I'm often a sharpness fanatic!

Old-N-Feeble
22-Dec-2014, 16:44
^^^ Billboards are viewed from 100-1000 feet away. I want my viewers to walk up to my prints and see clean detail from inches away. You simply cannot accomplish this with 135 format film enlarged to 340X. OTOH, 8x10 enlarged to 10X (10 feet wide) is certainly within reason. Apples and oranges...

karl french
22-Dec-2014, 16:56
Why is this interesting?

Ken Lee
22-Dec-2014, 16:57
Why is this interesting?

Why are you asking ?

karl french
22-Dec-2014, 16:58
Medium format camera vs. digital camera on the LARGE FORMAT PHOTOGRAPHY FORUM.

Old-N-Feeble
22-Dec-2014, 17:04
Medium format camera vs. digital camera on the LARGE FORMAT PHOTOGRAPHY FORUM.

If it perturbs you then ask a moderator to move this thread to the Lounge Forum.

karl french
22-Dec-2014, 17:07
The thread was started by a moderator. It never should have been here in the first place.

sanking
22-Dec-2014, 17:52
The thread was started by a moderator. It never should have been here in the first place.

If you go only by the title, perhaps. But the article is primarily a comparison of film scanned with a drum scanner versus digital. And the article compares digital to both medium format and large format film.

Sandy

richardman
22-Dec-2014, 17:55
On the other hand, Tim did an earlier comparison between 8x10 vs. Mamiya 7II AND the post did mention that there will be a 8x10 vs. Sony A7r shootout, so it's tangentially related.

Adamphotoman
22-Dec-2014, 18:08
I've seen forty foot wide images taken with horribly exposed amateur 35mm film. They're called billboards. How small a fraction of a "megapixel" do you think would be equivalent to the Marlboro Man? But it's probably one of the most influential photographs in history, or at least it has killed millions of people. All this
numbers stuff is about the LAST thing I would think about when choosing cameras and lenses, and I'm often a sharpness fanatic!

I viewed the 20 foot prints from 3 feet away at Betterlight's old manufacturing offices in San Carlos. The detail is astonishing. Also the tonal gradations are subtle and exquisite.

Randy Moe
22-Dec-2014, 18:19
Medium format camera vs. digital camera on the LARGE FORMAT PHOTOGRAPHY FORUM.

Most of us didn't notice.

I find it one of the most interesting threads lately.

ymmv

Adamphotoman
22-Dec-2014, 19:31
Although I do have minature formats - dSLR
I do have the LF Digital Back, & that compares with 4x5, and qualifies input to LF Posts.

Jim Andrada
23-Dec-2014, 00:11
+1 on interesting thread.

Peter De Smidt
23-Dec-2014, 06:31
+1. It was a really well done and informative test.

Ken Lee
23-Dec-2014, 06:36
Medium format camera vs. digital camera on the LARGE FORMAT PHOTOGRAPHY FORUM.

Oops: I'm sorry for the poor choice of title for this thread.

I have renamed it to reflect the inclusion of Large Format, particularly 4x5.

Old-N-Feeble
23-Dec-2014, 10:28
Shame on you, Ken. For SH-A-A-A-A-ME!!!:mad::rolleyes::p

Drew Wiley
23-Dec-2014, 14:22
If you want large clean images viewed inches away, good luck. That rules out inkjet. And it rules out 8x10 film too. It takes a pretty remarkable 8x10 original
from a surface flat enough to use ideal f-stops to get an immaculately sharp 30x40, let alone 40x60. This is my game. I know it inside out. Not an easy learning
curve. And unless you do have precision filmholders, you'll never make it to first base. You won't have either apples or oranges, but maybe apple cider or slushy
orange juice. Any anyone even discussing megapixels in this context doesn't have a clue. Hypothetical detail of film or lens resolution is the least of your worries. Film and image plane, along with depth of field, is where most of the war is fought. You have to approach your scenes strategically - what aesthetically belongs in focus and what will be pleasing out of focus. And if you want sharp sharp, that means Fuji Supergloss, now that Ciba is gone. Nothing ten feet wide is going to be sharp sharp, at least from any typical outdoor subject. I don't care how its done. And who likes to see a flat picture of a flat object? Don Worth tried that - pictures of pictures in shallow shadow boxes, but at least the Cibas themselves were immaculately printed. And hope you have a LOT of money to spend if you do want mounted prints this big. Good luck, regardless.

Old-N-Feeble
23-Dec-2014, 16:07
^^^ Hmm... All I can say is that 8x10 film is better at resolving fine detail in a 12-foot-wide print than 135 format. No, 8x10 isn't perfect but for that purpose it's far better than 135 format.

So... 36MP vs. 6x7cm... are roughly the same if the lenses do their jobs.

Drew Wiley
23-Dec-2014, 16:51
Well, yes ... I feel 8x10 film is the best compromise for big enlargements. Any format bigger than that and the depth of field and logistical issues get overwhelming, and miss too many shots from all the fuss. Leave the ULF cameras for contact printers. And big digital capture arrays? ... well, they do exist, but those kinds of cameras are called observatories and are a bit beyond the budgets of small countries.

sanking
23-Dec-2014, 18:13
Well, yes ... I feel 8x10 film is the best compromise for big enlargements. Any format bigger than that and the depth of field and logistical issues get overwhelming, and miss too many shots from all the fuss. Leave the ULF cameras for contact printers. And big digital capture arrays? ... well, they do exist, but those kinds of cameras are called observatories and are a bit beyond the budgets of small countries.


Wonder how many stitches from a Betterlight scanning back it would take to equal one sheet of 8X10 film? Six? Or more?

Another subject in desperate need of a comparison!! Not that I plan to switch my work to either, but . . .

Sandy

Tyler Boley
23-Dec-2014, 20:13
If you want large clean images viewed inches away, good luck. That rules out inkjet....

why?

Adamphotoman
23-Dec-2014, 21:17
With the Panoadapter, a very large file is produced with great detail. I wonder how many 8X10 sheets would need to be stitched together...

This one is a straight shot

http://www.betterlight.com/zoomify/zoom_nisquallyGlacier.html


And this is a pano

http://www.betterlight.com/panoWideView.html

Randy Moe
23-Dec-2014, 21:52
On a clear day you can see forever.

Lenny Eiger
24-Dec-2014, 15:55
Tim,

I have the next comparison for you - black and white! I'll toss down the gauntlet. Back in the 1880's, in your country, there was a man named Frederick Evans. He made the most amazing platinum prints, filled with the atmospheric quality of light. There is an aperture monograph in paperback that is pretty good. You may already have one of these...

I'd suggest using a film like Ilford Delta, a developer like Xtol, and comparing it with a digital camera. The goal would be to achieve perfect smoothness of print, matching as close a possible, a platinum print. Reasonable sharpness is expected, but the resolution is not the issue, its the smoothness I would be after.

Can do?

I'll do the scans if you want...

Lenny

Adamphotoman
25-Dec-2014, 20:34
And 4X5

Remove this from the forum

It is wrong to leave this. The add on 4x5 is bogus

fishbulb
1-Jan-2015, 10:45
I think this article is very relevant for the Large Format Forum. There is a lot of good information on 4x5 and 8x10.

The article linked in the first post (https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/) of this thread is actually a follow-up to a 2011 article (https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/) that includes quite a bit more information on 4x5 and 8x10. I would also check out this page on Tim's site (http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html), which has a lot of comparison shots of 4x5 and 8x10.

What I find very interesting about the 2011 article are the tests on how much stopping down impacts resolution (via diffraction of course). For example, 4x5 Provia scanned at 4000dpi yielded 205mp at f/16 but only 157mp at f/22 and only 115mp at f/32. This shows how huge of an impact f/stop has on sharpness and resolution. For comparison, that article found 627mp from a 4000dpi 8x10 scan vs. 320mp from a comparable 4x5 scan. So, stopping down too much could have as much impact as choosing 4x5 over 8x10 in terms of resolution.

The takeaway here, to me, is that managing your depth of field is really important if you want that optimum resolution - that is, knowing how to use the camera's movements to obtain maximum use of your DOF so you don't have to stop down too much. Obviously I am a beginner but it really drives home the importance of movements and DOF management.

Randy Moe
1-Jan-2015, 12:49
I think this article is very relevant for the Large Format Forum. There is a lot of good information on 4x5 and 8x10.

The article linked in the first post (https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/) of this thread is actually a follow-up to a 2011 article (https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/) that includes quite a bit more information on 4x5 and 8x10. I would also check out this page on Tim's site (http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html), which has a lot of comparison shots of 4x5 and 8x10.

What I find very interesting about the 2011 article are the tests on how much stopping down impacts resolution (via diffraction of course). For example, 4x5 Provia scanned at 4000dpi yielded 205mp at f/16 but only 157mp at f/22 and only 115mp at f/32. This shows how huge of an impact f/stop has on sharpness and resolution. For comparison, that article found 627mp from a 4000dpi 8x10 scan vs. 320mp from a comparable 4x5 scan. So, stopping down too much could have as much impact as choosing 4x5 over 8x10 in terms of resolution.

The takeaway here, to me, is that managing your depth of field is really important if you want that optimum resolution - that is, knowing how to use the camera's movements to obtain maximum use of your DOF so you don't have to stop down too much. Obviously I am a beginner but it really drives home the importance of movements and DOF management.

Thanks for those new links, very interesting, Tim has done a grand experiment and shown the results in a comprehensible manner.

Daniel Stone
1-Jan-2015, 18:07
POTENTIAL resolution is one thing
ACTUAL resolution is another (aka what's actually put onto that film)
Top-tier equipment is nice to have, but knowing how to maximize that potential is what's key
Judge photographs by prints on the wall or in your hand, not pixels at the end of your nose.
As uncle Ansel stated so well: "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." :)
Numbers on a chart don't squat if you can't frame and compose a balanced photograph, much less print one.

Randy Moe
1-Jan-2015, 18:23
Tim showed great examples, yes we see them on a monitor, but I bet most of us have fairly good monitors.

He did a lot of work producing his results.

Thanks Tim!

Old-N-Feeble
2-Jan-2015, 01:30
Agreed... Thank you, Tim.

buggz
1-Feb-2015, 17:47
My RZ67 Pro II does this also, with a two connection cable.
No problems.


I only have a lowly RB-67 Pro-S, but with the double cable release, I push down halfway to release the mirror, wait a second and push down the rest of the way to take the shot. Piece of pie. Easy as cake. Even I can do it.

StoneNYC
1-Feb-2015, 20:34
You guys make me shake my head.

I feel like I'm watching an episode of south park with a mob "rubble-rebble-rubble-rubble" film is great "rubble-rebble-rubble-rubble"

I will say one thing, my Mamiya 7 lenses are way sharper than my Mamiya RZ67 lenses, they resolve better and have much less CA. So using the Mamiya7 is a better choice for optimal results.

That said, this whole thing is irrelevant, you're talking 35mm sensor vs 6x7 which is 4 times the surface area, yet only just barely compares, which means the new nikon is 4 times higher resolution than the same surface area on the best film.

Sure it's nice to know if I use my Mamiya7 I can get equivalent detail as the new nikon, but they are different animals and their application and usage is totally different.

Just go out and make some art, the film vs digital argument is old...

koh303
1-Feb-2015, 20:45
I will say one thing, my Mamiya 7 lenses are way sharper than my Mamiya RZ67 lenses, they resolve better and have much less CA. So using the Mamiya7 is a better choice for optimal results.
That *might* be true, but how can you ever tell when anything is in focus when you cannot see through the lens? That is not optimal, i don't think.

StoneNYC
1-Feb-2015, 21:40
That *might* be true, but how can you ever tell when anything is in focus when you cannot see through the lens? That is not optimal, i don't think.

Tell that to all the leica using journalists...

But everyone has a preference.

If you haven't used and perfected using a RF then you might have a hard time understanding. But it's actually really easy, I don't even have an issue with the 150mm on the Mamiya7 wide open shooting models, but I can't probably do journalism with that lens.

Anyway that's really not the point, if you're doing a test, you're shooting a still subject, so long as the coupled RF is calibrated properly, you're going to be getting accurate focus.

koh303
1-Feb-2015, 22:22
Tell that to all the leica using journalists...
Perhaps you should and they will tell you what i can tell you after many years in the field doing spot news with a range finder, especially mamiya 6/7, and that is you are lucky when you get something in focus.


Anyway that's really not the point, if you're doing a test, you're shooting a still subject, so long as the coupled RF is calibrated properly, you're going to be getting accurate focus.

Well, like other things, this is just not true.

richardman
2-Feb-2015, 01:15
Omer, some (heck, prior to digital - most) of the great documentary / photojournalistic photograph were taken on a Leica (and yes, some on Nikon and Canon). I have personally spoken to people like David Alan Harvey, Peter Turnley, Craig Semetko and Bruce Davidson, and they do love their Leica. These are legendary photographers.

In fact, for 50mm/35mm and wider, the rangefinder focuses much faster than SLR.

I have prints made from my XPanII (a RF pano) blown up to 52" wide. The focus is fine, as are my Leica and the Mamiya 7II (when I had it).

Jody_S
2-Feb-2015, 09:37
See 36 Megapixels vs 6x7 Velvia (https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/#/) by Tim Parkin at On Landscape (https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/)

Am I the only one who can't access the article? It doesn't load for me.

StoneNYC
2-Feb-2015, 10:19
Am I the only one who can't access the article? It doesn't load for me.

Nope doesn't work for me either I'm going off of the second article posted.

koh303
2-Feb-2015, 10:33
Omer, some (heck, prior to digital - most) of the great documentary / photojournalistic photograph were taken on a Leica (and yes, some on Nikon and Canon). I have personally spoken to people like David Alan Harvey, Peter Turnley, Craig Semetko and Bruce Davidson, and they do love their Leica. These are legendary photographers.

In fact, for 50mm/35mm and wider, the rangefinder focuses much faster than SLR.

I have prints made from my XPanII (a RF pano) blown up to 52" wide. The focus is fine, as are my Leica and the Mamiya 7II (when I had it).

Indeed a leica 35/50mm is fast to focus, and easy t focus. A mamiya 7 80mm or longer is very slow to focus and next to impossible, even on the best of days, with a good calibrated RF. The only reason to use that camera is that is "light"er then other MF options of the same features. Even the 65/50 are hard to focus exactly, but are so wide that everything "aapears" to be in focus most of the time...

StoneNYC
2-Feb-2015, 11:13
Indeed a leica 35/50mm is fast to focus, and easy t focus. A mamiya 7 80mm or longer is very slow to focus and next to impossible, even on the best of days, with a good calibrated RF. The only reason to use that camera is that is "light"er then other MF options of the same features. Even the 65/50 are hard to focus exactly, but are so wide that everything "aapears" to be in focus most of the time...

Shot this on Provia100f doing a one legged squat balanced on a log with the Mamiya7 and 150mm lens... Wide open, perfectly focussed...

128869

Impossible? I think not...

Some people just don't have the skills to use a RF, it's not for everyone, but just because you're not good at it doesn't mean others aren't, you have to know your strengths and your limitations, you're a better businessman than I am, that's your strength.

Peter De Smidt
2-Feb-2015, 12:05
I don't have a Mamiya or Leica, but I do have two Fuji rangefinders, one wide and one with a "normal" lens for the format. I use them mainly on a tripod when traveling, and I'm not shooting fast action. In that situation, they aren't hard to focus at all. Sure, rangefinders can be out of calibration, but so can ground glasses or autofocus systems.

richardman
2-Feb-2015, 12:54
I don't have a Mamiya 7II any more (it *might* be the only camera I would buy again, after selling one). Certainly, the RF is no Leica's. Since the lens are slow @F4, I never used it for "fast action." Anything that I can properly take time to focus, e.g. 2-3 seconds, I had never have problems with focusing accuracy, including the 150mm - but that one may just be lucky that my RF was perfectly calibrated.

Anyway, back to the OP, which I kinda forgot now XD - the Mamiya 7 negs are the best negs I have done, barring from 4x5. It really is spectacular.

koh303
2-Feb-2015, 14:40
Shot this on Provia100f doing a one legged squat balanced on a log with the Mamiya7 and 150mm lens... Wide open, perfectly focussed...

128869

Impossible? I think not...

Some people just don't have the skills to use a RF, it's not for everyone, but just because you're not good at it doesn't mean others aren't, you have to know your strengths and your limitations, you're a better businessman than I am, that's your strength.

Since you dismissed my personal experience of large prints, allow me to dismiss your experience and focusing super powers.

This is a small file, but even so, it clear to see her face is not in focus, so i guess you aimed to have the moss in focus.

StoneNYC
2-Feb-2015, 15:01
Since you dismissed my personal experience of large prints, allow me to dismiss your experience and focusing super powers.

This is a small file, but even so, it clear to see her face is not in focus, so i guess you aimed to have the moss in focus.

Her eyes are definitely on focus... The forum won't let anything bigger, but it's in focus dude.

koh303
2-Feb-2015, 15:15
Her eyes are definitely on focus... The forum won't let anything bigger, but it's in focus dude.

link to high res file, dude.

StoneNYC
2-Feb-2015, 16:07
link to high res file, dude.

When I'm not snowed in and I get home I'll post a crop just for you.

karl french
2-Feb-2015, 18:50
Blah blah blah, medium format. Blah blah blah, medium format and off topic. Blah blah blah, kindling for flame war being lit.

D-tach
3-Feb-2015, 07:48
Shot this on Provia100f doing a one legged squat balanced on a log with the Mamiya7 and 150mm lens... Wide open, perfectly focussed...

Impossible? I think not...

Some people just don't have the skills to use a RF, it's not for everyone, but just because you're not good at it doesn't mean others aren't, you have to know your strengths and your limitations, you're a better businessman than I am, that's your strength.

It seems her hand and the branches in front of her face are sharper than her face