Analysis of the 8x10 / IQ180 comparison

[Scott Davis]

The answer is "whichever is the right tool for the task". If the task is to produce giant, oversaturated Photoshopped landscapes, then the umpty-gigapixel digital camera is the right tool. If the task is an 8x10 contact print, then an 8x10 camera is the tool. If the task is to produce a quantity of images within time and budget constraints, a DSLR is the tool. If the task is an image that is hand-printed and possibly unique, a film camera is the tool. Why people get their panties in such a bunch over which tool is "better" still boggles the mind - as a tool user, why would I want a hammer if I need a screwdriver? As an artist, why would I care if someone else paints in oils if my desired goal is a watercolor?

I find the testing interesting if only as a demonstration of the evolution of digital imaging technology, but it still appears as if 8x10 film is the benchmark against which digital is comparing itself. I'd like to see the tests done with the lenses set to the lens' optimum aperture as a control, and the resolution/sharpness tests conducted on an image area at the point of focus for both, instead of something somewhat peripheral that may fall farther outside the point of sharpest focus with one camera system than the other. Put a block of text in the image center, or a brick wall or something similar.

[toyotadesigner]

Stop your tests, please. Use whatever you want to use, but make some meaningful photographs instead of needless comparisons.

Order this book, read it and learn from the masters, then you will finally (hopefully?) understand why your comparisons are superfluous and a waste of time:

http://www.amazon.de/Photographien-K...8527466&sr=1-1

[timparkin]

The answer is "whichever is the right tool for the task". If the task is to produce giant, oversaturated Photoshopped landscapes, then the umpty-gigapixel digital camera is the right tool. If the task is an 8x10 contact print, then an 8x10 camera is the tool. If the task is to produce a quantity of images within time and budget constraints, a DSLR is the tool. If the task is an image that is hand-printed and possibly unique, a film camera is the tool. Why people get their panties in such a bunch over which tool is "better" still boggles the mind - as a tool user, why would I want a hammer if I need a screwdriver? As an artist, why would I care if someone else paints in oils if my desired goal is a watercolor?

I find the testing interesting if only as a demonstration of the evolution of digital imaging technology, but it still appears as if 8x10 film is the benchmark against which digital is comparing itself. I'd like to see the tests done with the lenses set to the lens' optimum aperture as a control, and the resolution/sharpness tests conducted on an image area at the point of focus for both, instead of something somewhat peripheral that may fall farther outside the point of sharpest focus with one camera system than the other. Put a block of text in the image center, or a brick wall or something similar.

The 'test' is not particularly to find out which camera is better - it's to find out which camera you prefer (for whatever value of you) if you can't get your hands on the cameras to make the tests yourself.

We were donated a license for imatest for a very reasonable fee and will also be included transparencies on a lightbox, receding text in various colours, textiles plus a few other things.

If you have any ideas, please let us know.

We will also be shooting a scenic on various cameras and films. (plus DSLR's etc - might even throw in an iphone!)

[Ken Lee]

Order this book, read it and learn from the masters, then you will finally (hopefully?) understand why your comparisons are superfluous and a waste of time...

Could you share a brief summary of the book ? Everyone likes to learn from the masters

[timparkin]

Stop your tests, please. Use whatever you want to use, but make some meaningful photographs instead of needless comparisons.

Order this book, read it and learn from the masters, then you will finally (hopefully?) understand why your comparisons are superfluous and a waste of time:

http://www.amazon.de/Photographien-K...8527466&sr=1-1

I'm not a fan of straw man or ad hominem arguments but these comments come from someone who reviews cable releases on their website and has four articles on the 'resolution of film'.

I manage to make meaningful (to me) photographs *and* run tests. It's the combination of art and craft that make photography interesting to me - you can have either of them on their own but most of the best photographers have struck a balance between the two.

and... if you aren't interested - why are you still here?

Tim

[Thom Bennett]

Tim, good luck with your testing; looking forward to seeing the results. Glad to see you aren't letting the naysayers nay you into an early grave.

We recently were able to test a LEAF IQ180 back and compare it to our LEAF Aptus 65 and Valeo 17. Unfortunately, because of time constraints, we were unable to shoot an 8x10 transparency for comparisons sake. However, in comparing our 5 year old Aptus to the new IQ180 I have to say that I am surprised at how well the Aptus and even the Valeo held up. You really start to see the benefits of the IQ deep in the shadow areas and very subtly in the highlight transitions but, for our purposes, which is catalog reproduction, the cost does not outweigh the benefits. We plan to run our digital backs into the ground and then upgrade.

Sorry if I missed this in this thread but when do you think the results will be posted?

[regorrengaw]

Stop your tests, please. Use whatever you want to use, but make some meaningful photographs instead of needless comparisons.

Order this book, read it and learn from the masters, then you will finally (hopefully?) understand why your comparisons are superfluous and a waste of time:

http://www.amazon.de/Photographien-K...8527466&sr=1-1

Absolutely, seems they have lots of Time to loose!
Best.

r.r

[rdenney]

It's the combination of art and craft that make photography interesting to me - you can have either of them on their own but most of the best photographers have struck a balance between the two.

I've recounted this before. I once asked the symphony tuba player with whom I was studying which was more important: Musicality or technique? (In musical terms, this is exactly "art or craft?") His answer: "Yes."

Rick "accurate resolution of fine detail is still the primary reason to use a larger format" Denney

[Lenny Eiger]

Rick "accurate resolution of fine detail is still the primary reason to use a larger format" Denney

That may be true for you. However, for me the real reason is the extra textural representation, the smoothness of tones, etc. As Sandy has often pointed out, the Mamiya 7 lenses are unbelievably sharp. They are sharper than my Sironar S, or at least as sharp. The extra size of the film gives me more tones, however. This is almost never discussed in these comparisons....

Lenny

[rdenney]

That may be true for you. However, for me the real reason is the extra textural representation, the smoothness of tones, etc. As Sandy has often pointed out, the Mamiya 7 lenses are unbelievably sharp. They are sharper than my Sironar S, or at least as sharp. The extra size of the film gives me more tones, however. This is almost never discussed in these comparisons....

No argument. But most people use large format to get a sense of endless detail even in a large print. Note that preservation of smooth tonal transitions is part of what makes that detail believably endless, which is why I said "accurate resolution of fine detail". Sometimes fine detail looks brittle and unnatural when made with a digital sensor and enlarged too much, even if it seems sharp.

But this has always been true. The duotone lithograph of Adams's Tenaya Creek, Dogwood, Rain that is in my copy of Yosemite and the Range of Light is about the same size as my Special Edition print of the same image. The reproduction in the book looks sharper than the print. This confused me at first, so I studied them with a loupe. The lithographic screen on the reproduction actually produced false edges in the smooth transitions, particularly in the highlights, and that made it look sharper. But when you get close enough, the screen pattern causes the sense of endless detail to, well, end. We can, of course, do much better than those lithographic duotones, even with an inkjet printer. But it illustrates the principle important to both of us, that endless fine detail is both a matter of resolution and a matter of extra textural representation and tonal smoothness.

Rick "agreeing" Denney