Originally Posted by Scott Kathe
Frank,
Isn't that about what a Nikon D3 costsI know, I know-not large format.
Scott
A D3 at 12 mpx is not really as good as a good 6x7 camera and a Coolscan. In my opinion.
Frank,
Isn't that about what a Nikon D3 costs
Scott
A D3 at 12 mpx is not really as good as a good 6x7 camera and a Coolscan. In my opinion.
Save even more money and get a Nikon F6 with a Nikon Scanner.Save your money and buy a Canon 5D!
Don Bryant
5D will blow 35mm film out detail wise. If one is looking for larger prints, it makes no sense shooting 35mm film IMHO.
The comparison to MF film is a different story with many feeling they can even achieve nicer looking results with an Epson, though they do claim the digital files can prnt larger.
Shame the LF world is stuck having to buy a high end scanner to get the most out of their images or shoot with larger sheets of film...
I have heard this claim before, it's been repeated a lot. I don't believe it for a minute. Depends a lot on the scanner. I think a lot of these tests were done on a consumer flatbed - or by folks with a sincere lack of understanding. I get 96 megapixels of real data off of a 35 mm. If memory serves, 5D is a 12 megapixel camera. That's quite a bit of difference (8 times the data). One of my assistants has a 5D and we have used it for a lot of things that don't require the extra quality of large prints. It's not even in the ballpark there is no comparison between a real scan, matched to the aperture of the grain and the digital. I'm sorry, but it's a joke, and unfortunately, I think, a bad joke played on a lot of folks by marketing types.
It is a shame, we have to get one more piece of equipment, to get our images into the computer. And it can be expensive. And many of us have had to spend giant amounts of time learning photoshop, how to deal with b&w inks, and all the rest.
However, some of these prints are really spectacular. There are places where the technology doesn't match up and others where it exceeds that of previous technologies. Familiar story in just about every arena there is.
Lenny
EigerStudios
Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing
You've actually done a whole bunch of testing, have you? Because I'd love to see your results. Mine suggest that you can "blow" any digital capture medium out of the water with high rez 35mm B&W film except perhaps for a P45+ - and the contest with a P45 is a lot closer than you'd expect. Even with regular emulsions, there are times when a 35mm piece of film can produce a "better" print. I own several digital camera (including a 5D) and 35mm film cameras and i've actually done a fair bit of testing as well as a lot of real world shooting with both.
Simply regurgitating what you've read, out of context, is not smart.
I think it was Don who posted some amazing 35mm scans from a top of the line Leica using very fine grained film, scanned with a high quality drum... and it was amazing.
It all depends... using what I have, my 35mm Tri-X scanned on a $500 consumer film scanner -- looks like dogdoo compared to a 5D file. But Don's workflow was several notches up the food chain, and I would agree, that high-end 35mm workflow is competitive with any single-shot digital I've seen.
If that is what you choose to believe. I haven't found it to be true however.
And there is the point. You have to know what you are comparing. A 35mm negative on high resolution film scanned with a drum scanner is extraordinary. The comparisons I have seen of Don Hutton's work with 35mm Leica on Adox ASA 25 film, scanned with a Howtek 4500, are about as good as &W from the P45. If the negatives were scanned by Lenny on his Aztek Premier, they would probably be better.
The problem with this stuff about film beating digital and digital beating film is that conclusions are meaningless unless you carefully describe the parameters of the comparison, including type of scan and final print size.
As to the original question, all things being equal 6X7 cm film exposed in a quality MF system like Mamiya 7II or equivalent, and scanned on an LS-9000 or higher scanner, will probably beat the same 4X5 film scanned on a consumer flatbed.
Sandy King
So "35mm" Velvia, Astia, Provia...AND negative based Reala, 160S, Kodak types, etc. films will blow any digital capture out of the water (w/exception of the P45)? Why don't you show us one of your captures that proves this...
I don't care about b/w since it is a pointless discussion given digital is still not on par with film b/w...Saying the Leica M8 is "closest" to it (from your experience with different digital cameras/post-processing/etc.) says nothing when comparing film to digital.
1. Don't shout, unless you particularly like being shouted at. Even my four year old knows that.
2. Don't make a blanket stament and then make conditions after the fact - like you're doing now - if B&W was specifically excluded from your grandiose statement, make it up front.
3. Please do not make quotes around what I have publicly stated out of context. Your statement clearly shows that reading comprehension is not a strengh - read what I stated and challenge that if you can - not what you guessed I said.
4. I've done a lot of testing and shooting to get to my conclusions - you clearly haven't. Reading photo forums and then misquoting or quoting out of context unfortunately doesn't cut it here.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks