Digital (Canon 5D/Betterlight/etc.) vs. Large Format Film

[audioexcels]

Don't want to cause any stir in this one and mods, if this is in the wrong section, please get rid of it!

Curious what people think about the different digital options out there vs. large format film?

I have these examples in mind:

Canon 5D vs. LF
Rollei w/digital back vs. LF
4X5 w/Betterlight back vs. LF

I keep hearing the Canon 5D is equal to 4X5 up to a certain enlargement size=20X24. If this is so, then the other digital systems I mentioned surely will be as good and better than a 4X5 analog setup.

I raise this question because why would people put so much time into LF if the digital is as good or better? Starting with the 5D..if it is equal to 4X5 up to 20X24 (quite a large print), and that's about as large as one will ever print, is there any point using 4X5?

I know people will raise the concept of price, but then, add up all of your LF equipment and also those that would have these fancier DSLR-4X5 w/Digital back systems would also have a nice beautiful 5Kish camera along with nice Schneider XL lenses, etc...so money is not that much different especially when you consider the scanner involved, the price of film, etc...

[Ron Marshall]

The first link is to a comparison between 6x7 and 12MP. The second between 4x5 and 39MP:

http://www.diax.nl/pages/start_mamiya_nikon_uk.html

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

A 39 MP back will permit a 20x24 print at 300 dpi. But, and for most poeple it is a huge but, the back is $30,000.

Besides, I may want to print considerably larger than 20x24.

[Sheldon N]

I've got both the 5D and large format (4x5 with good glass). Large format is better resolution by a fair margin, and that's scanning with an Epson 4870.

That being said I haven't printed larger than 16x20, and I don't think that there would be much of a difference at that size (maybe the slight edge to LF). The 5D is very, very good, and very easy to use.

I enjoy the process of LF much more, and that's why my 5D sits on the shelf every time I decide to "go shooting". Now if I'm shooting available light or doing portaiture, the 5D with fast glass is the easy choice.

Horses for courses, as they say.

[audioexcels]

I've got both the 5D and large format (4x5 with good glass). Large format is better resolution by a fair margin, and that's scanning with an Epson 4870.

That being said I haven't printed larger than 16x20, and I don't think that there would be much of a difference at that size (maybe the slight edge to LF). The 5D is very, very good, and very easy to use.

I enjoy the process of LF much more, and that's why my 5D sits on the shelf every time I decide to "go shooting". Now if I'm shooting available light or doing portaiture, the 5D with fast glass is the easy choice.

Horses for courses, as they say.

After reading the post above yours, it's making all the internet stuff so inconsistent that having responses by users of both high end DSLRs, other digital type "back" based systems, and LF film is greatly appreciated. It may be that there will not be a collective response that agrees one way or the other, but I'm wondering if there is.

One curiousity of mine about your post is that you say 4X5 scanned with the 4870 has better resolution by a fair margin over a Canon 5D. But then you say that at the print size of 16X20, which is the maximum size you have printed, the differences are not much and that the 4X5 "maybe" has a slight edg over the 5D.

Did you determine the far better resolution by looking at the two files (one from 4X5 and one from 5D) on the computer by doing magnifications of scenes or some other method to see that 4X5 is producing greater resolution by a fair margin? In other words, from what you can tell, if you were to print both files at a large size, take any print size in mind, that then is when you can really see how much more resolution the 4X5 has?

[Gordon Moat]

. . . . .

Curious what people think about the different digital options out there vs. large format film?

I have these examples in mind:

Canon 5D vs. LF

Okay, a few websites/reviewers have tested the Canon 5D, and C.Perez, et al, have tested many large format lenses. Erwin Puts, Zeiss, Kodak, and Fuji all have published figures for films capabilities, some reachable by mortals, others . . . who knows.

First off, if you fire off that shutter on a Canon 5D while shooting handheld, you will rarely ever reach the true resolution capability of the camera. I do not mean file size, since that is something people too often confuse with resolution; if I pointed a Canon 5D up in the air, what would be the resolution of the sky . . . (rhetorical).

So anyway, seems that 4x5 films and somewhat modern lenses hit near 60 lp/mm capability. Just using one test of the Canon 5D, we see that it hits 2300 lines per height (LPH) horizontally. We know the imaging CMOS is 23.9mm horizontally . . . so about 48 lp/mm. Hmmm . . . . more on this below . . . .

A few things tough to deny: the Canon 5D is potentially easier to use handheld than many 4x5 cameras; more long telephoto lenses are easier to use; the potential for a greater volume of shots could be greater with a 5D, if the photographer wanted that; the Canon 5D (or any D-SLR) is potentially more convenient.

Rollei w/digital back vs. LF

Depending upon which medium format digital back, and which company, then we might consider a few different aspects. First off is that the largest imaging chips are around double 35mm (full frame) sizes. Unfortunately, the individual pixel cell site sizes are in many of these larger than on the Canon 5D; so on a lp/mm resolving basis we could safely assume a lower number, since pixel cell site sizes are somewhat related to resolution (not file sizes). However, for a same size print, the chip total capture area is larger, so the potential is there to retain more detail, just comparing a similar image to one captured using a smaller D-SLR.

So a larger chip should bring one closer to 4x5, only on the basis of less increase/enlargement being required for a given print size. Unfortunately, the detail information contained in a 4x5 frame of film can potentially be quite high. In practice, it can depend more upon how much detail is in a scene, and the print size.

This is a good point to consider human vision and print sizes. In commercial printing, the assumption of perception of detail hovers near 6 lp/mm. Some people can resolve more than that, and might tell the difference between 6 lp/mm and 8 lp/mm on a print (and rare individuals can tell slightly greater detail). So it can become a situation of how much information is thrown away (or perhaps better stated not used). Obviously even a drum scan, and the best enlarger lenses, will loose some resolution. Our tested modern lenses for 4x5 in the near 60 lp/mm, or slightly greater range, might be more like 50 lp/mm . . . or maybe better stated an 8x enlargement might be a better practical limit, or 6x for really critical viewers.

Anyway, sharpening can influence the perception of a print from the viewer that might make one print seem more detailed than another. While sharpening techniques in the darkroom, or in mixed scanning to print, workflows is possible, the idea of controlling sharpening completely in an all digital workflow could potentially be more accessible.

Again there is the convenience factor of a smaller camera package compared to 4x5. The downside for most would be the high initial cost, or a lack of rental availability. of course it could come down to tool choices, or what to do to impress a client (just kidding).

4X5 w/Betterlight back vs. LF

Here the resolution difference is barely different enough . . . so I would call the Betterlight back and carefully done 4x5 too close to pick. So we have a different criteria, which might be convenience. Some people will like the convenience of film over using a digital back, and some will prefer the other way around. I think a well done print from either would be tough for an average (non-photographer) to state one method was better than the other . . . at least technically. Add in moving subject matter, and the Betterlight becomes tougher to use as the movement in a scene increases.

I keep hearing the Canon 5D is equal to 4X5 up to a certain enlargement size=20X24. If this is so, then the other digital systems I mentioned surely will be as good and better than a 4X5 analog setup.

Okay, on a number crunching approach, let us imagine no better than 40 to 48 lp/mm from 4x5; implying a maximum detail level of at least 8 lp/mm on the print, if not better . . . so maybe 20" by 24" is a good limit for 4x5 film and good techniques.

Then we take the 48 lp/mm test results for the Canon 5D, and the 23.9mm height, and spread that out to our 20" dimension on our print. That would leave just under 2.3 lp/mm on the print. So how good would someone's eyes need to be to tell the difference between a 20" by 24" from a 5D and the same size print from a 4x5? To put this another way, for 4x5 film to equal the Canon 5D at that print size, it would only need around 9 lp/mm capability, or in a more practical loss expectation we could state a need of closer to 20 lp/mm on the film . . . I think many people having used 4x5, even with quite old lenses, could probably achieve that.

I raise this question because why would people put so much time into LF if the digital is as good or better? Starting with the 5D..if it is equal to 4X5 up to 20X24 (quite a large print), and that's about as large as one will ever print, is there any point using 4X5?

I know people will raise the concept of price, but then, add up all of your LF equipment and also those that would have these fancier DSLR-4X5 w/Digital back systems would also have a nice beautiful 5Kish camera along with nice Schneider XL lenses, etc...so money is not that much different especially when you consider the scanner involved, the price of film, etc...

I can only speak for myself on this. What drives my imaging choices is not the theoretical potential, nor even the convenience. I am not so old and out of shape that I am likely to complain about carrying a 4x5 set-up, though I understand this is what drives some other peoples decisions. One big aspect for me is the movement potential in a 4x5, especially the selective focus capability. Another factor for me is what I feel is a composition advantage, though I do still use many smaller cameras, so I don't feel a need to approach every imaging problem with the thought of always using a 4x5.

Quite simply, the working method of when I use a 4x5 has more of a feel of me taking a sketchpad on location, and rendering a scene/subject by drawing. The view of the ground glass changes my approach. Even when I was doing fashion and lifestyle shots earlier this year, I chose to interact with my subject by standing to the side of my 4x5. The working methods are completely different. Sure, I could probably have a smaller camera (or D-SLR) on a tripod, and stand next to it with a cable release, but I don't work that way with smaller cameras. Using a 4x5 changes my approach to imaging.

I recall an exhibit at MOPA not long ago that was an all 35mm show. Most people have been driven by current marketing to expect anything 35mm to be an absolute disaster, and simply dire results. The reality is that content can overcome any technical shortcomings.

I have learned from painting that when you give enough detail, the minds eye of the viewer will fill in the details. This marketing driven push for MegaPixels and resolution, or the perceived need of one thing to be better than another, is simply confusing whether or not we can still enjoy viewing images. Pick the camera that becomes an extension of your creative vision, and hopefully does not get in your way; then ignore the numbers and technology . . . just go out and make more images . . . oh, and one more thing: visit museums any chance you get, and look at great images.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[Walter Calahan]

No one camera can do it all. They are simply tools. Canon 5D is a wonderful camera. So is a Nikon F6, or a Leica M7, or a Hasselblad, etc. Large format is a fabulous tool.

Decide what you want to do with your photography, and then choose the tool you need to do it. It's more than resolution, or lines per millimeter. Photography isn't about engineer solutions, it's about self expression.

I've made images on 35mm Fuji Pan 1600 that has grain the size of golf balls when enlarge to 20x24, but the 'look' is right for the mood of the image. I've made 60x40" inkjet prints from a Nikon D2H (4 mp camera) that lack fine detail, but the 'look' is right for the mood of the image. I've made 8x10 contact prints from my 8x10 B&W sheet film which you'd think I should enlarge 'cause the film holds so much detail, but the 'look' was right for the mood of the image.

I wish people would stop getting hung up on the 'right' this, or the 'best' that, or the 'absolute' technical resolving power of a lens or film, and instead concentrate on making an image that pleases the maker and viewer.

When I see great photography, the last thing I think of is what camera was used.

[Bob McCarthy]

Gordon Moat, excellent writeup. You nailed the principal points.

The one fly in the ointment is 4x5 is a static system, not moving forward. No more R&D in film, scanning etc. Digital is still progressing radidly. Better raw converters (with every release of Camera raw), better sharpening, better local contrast control (Nikon Capture by NIK). Its a matter of time before digital surpasses film in every way but tradition.

I have recently begun stacking images in color with a D2x with shift lenses. Stacking in this discussion is stitching. PS3 does this extremely well. I have 6 panel images, that are enlargable to the size of a wall in the house in full resolution. Other than in-frame movement (not a LF strength either) stitching accomplishes everything one would want in a color print.

B&W is another world though. There is a smoothness, a emotional outpouring, that film can only do. Digital can't come close in my opinion. Maybe its the grain, the elemental form of the print to carry it. Digital can;t compete.

Yet,

But then does it really matter. Both can output remarkable work. I still am overwhelmed by any of AA's work in a show, done with 50+ year old lenses. He was a heck of a printer.

[Ken Lee]

"I raise this question because why would people put so much time into LF if the digital is as good or better? "

When time is money, photographers are clever enough to use the right tools for the job.

When you take time and money out of the equation, you end up with a different set of equipment, and a different method of using it: a different way of thinking...

...and if you're fortunate, you end up with a different set of images.

[Ed Richards]

Paul Butzi has some useful comparisons in this article:

http://www.butzi.net/articles/5dprintsize.htm

He moved to a 5D about a year ago from 4x5 and put some effort into working on the differences.

[claudiocambon]

A few months ago I started a thread about whether or not large format optics were unique in terms of their affect:

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=23122

After virulent assertions one way and another, it got into the hard core physics of whether or not lenses of different formats produce unique looking images, or whether or not it is the relative level of resolution power afforded by the camera, be it digital or film. The discussion quickly went into the stratosphere (ie my comprehension was minimal), but I do remember that in the end the physicists decided that it was the former!

Having just returned from a 3 month stint lugging my Technika around (along with my 5D), of course I have an interest in justifying carrying that load. I will say, though, that after looking through contacts of the film, and test prints from the 35mm, they clearly feel like 2 different cameras, and 2 different ways of seeing. In turn, in terms of not just technique, but also content, they feel as if they portray two different ways of looking at time. I love the convenience of the 5D, and it helps me edit as I go, but I also came out of this experience loving my LF more than ever before.