Interesting comparison between 4x5 and digital

[Rick Heitman]

I have both, a 4x5 and a Nikon D1x. Send me an address, and I will give you an 8x10 from the toyo with a schneider 360 symmar,, and then and 8x10 shot with a Nikon D1X and a 80-200 2.8 nikon lens shot in RAW and then converted to 8 bit ( which actually cuts my file in half) ,and both shots printed from Reed photo here in denver and then I will ask you to pick the 4x5 shot. I love my 4x5, I am learning digital, I am not sure how a lab prints either pic, dont really care, but at 8x10 my Nikon will stand up to the toyo looking for a rumble in any dark alley. Just my 2 cents, I will never quit the 4x5 scene becuse it is too fun.

[Ron Mc]

At work we are putting together a cheerleader catalog now that up until last year had been shot on film. As with most catalogs, some older images are being picked up for this version. The difference in detail between the scanned medium format shots and the digital ones are comparable to a 8x10 from 35mm film and one from 4x5. The digital is so much softer with less detail. FYI the digital shots were from a Nikon D1x shot in raw mode.

Ron McElroy

[George Stewart]

The two main advantages of digital, as I see it, are convenience and lack of grain.

Many years ago when I shot 35mm and MF only, I shot only slow, fine-grained films (Etar 25 and Technical Pan). The reuslts, in large prints were indeed fantastic. Grain in 24x enlargements was invisible on close inspection. The only issue at hand was a lack of fine detail.

Upon moving forward to LF, I have found Nirvana - the smoothness of fine grain films with higher ISOs as well as fine detail. IMHO, there is no comparison to a fine grain (or digital) 35mm image printed to 8x10 and that from 4x5 film- the 4x5 wins!

So, why do some say digital is better than film, and the big one that the EOS 1DS is better than MF, or that MF digital rivals and will soon exceed LF? I have a theory. I boils down to plain old eye sight. As we age the quality of our eyes drop, and we have problems focusing and resolving fine detail. I've been blessed with eyes that test better than 20-12.5, and I've seen those with poorer eyes rant and rave about sharpness and detail that simply wasn't there to me. If the goal in a print is sharpness and detail, it must be louped to ensure that our old eyes are brought up to snuff. In otherwords, the ultimate test of quality(why we shoot LF) is if it passes the test for the most discriminating customer. Those with poor eye sight, even if correct, will most likely not appreciate the full quality of a contact print.

[Mike Chini]

The most amazing photographic quality I have ever witnessed or used are contact prints (color or BW Azo) and Epson inkjet prints from 11 - 22MP medium format backs. Done right, both can provide exceptional, almost surreal quality although I MUCH prefer the control allowed by digital techniques when it comes to color printing.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

If this test were done using a Canon 1Ds or 1Ds mk2 with a piece of 'L' glass, the differences might be less significant (at the same 8.5 x 11" print size). I use a 1Ds as well as 4x5 gear. This comparison, though, is never conclusive due to the great range of qualities rendered by the various LF scanning machines.

[Glenn Kroeger]

One big advantage of digital is wind? With 4x5, I don't have any color films faster than ISO100 (without pushing). So add a polarizer and I am usually at 1/4 second exposure or longer. If all of the leaves and grass are moving in the wind, the exquisite resolution of my Schneider lens is worth squat! A Canon 1DsMkII gives me a 4 stop advantage at the same DOF shooting at ISO 200. The net result, may actually favor the Canon at larger print sizes where the movement is detectable. Even with movements, DOF is often a larger factor in the overall result than the inherent sharpness of the imaging system. So as they say, "horses for courses".

[ADG]

Wherever DSLR's end up in image quality, I think it unlikely there will be one that allows the user to twiddle a couple of simple controls and see the plane of sharp focus run from the foot of the tripod legs to infinity, and the vertical buildings and trees to be vertical etc...
We are not comparing apples with apples are we?

[Glenn Kroeger]

ADG:

Guess you've never seen a Canon TS-E lens!

[Frank Petronio]

I built a special custom cameras that uses an array of 162 Canon 1Ds Mk2 cameras to form an imaging array over 9x18 inches. The result is the HIGHEST RESOLUTION CAMERA IN THE UNIVERSE, and the New York Times is going to interview me about it next week. If you want to see the results, I have a photo of a mountain with sharp blades of grass in the foreground. The horizon is tilted not because I didn't level my contraption, but because I aligned my camera's vertical axis with the Earth's true magnetic field. It is much more accurate than using a primative bubble level. It's a rather large download: 7.76 gb - if you have a dial-up connection it might take awhile.

[Glenn Kroeger]

Quick Frank, patent it!