4x5" and 8x10" - Quality Differences?

[Corran]

A Nikon D800 at optimum aperture compared to 4x5 at an equivalent aperture for DOF scanned with a pretty standard scanner will produce very similar results.
I did the test and my results are HERE. Note I didn't use equivalent apertures so the test is skewed towards 4x5.

You can disagree or whatever but as far as I'm concerned Paul is correct, especially with the equivalent apertures used. As I mention a drum scan might pull more information out (note I was already using a better scanner than the ubiquitous V700) but I doubt it would be really significant.

[StoneNYC]

A Nikon D800 at optimum aperture compared to 4x5 at an equivalent aperture for DOF scanned with a pretty standard scanner will produce very similar results.
I did the test and my results are HERE. Note I didn't use equivalent apertures so the test is skewed towards 4x5.

You can disagree or whatever but as far as I'm concerned Paul is correct, especially with the equivalent apertures used. As I mention a drum scan might pull more information out (note I was already using a better scanner than the ubiquitous V700) but I doubt it would be really significant.

Unfortunately you're comparing apples to oranges, this is about the difference between upgrading from 4 to 5 to 8 x 10, this has nothing to do with digital, sure if you're going to compare digital to film there is going to be a difference in quality per square inch of area. The current discussion is about diffraction with smaller f-stops which you can't use digital to compare to film because you're also getting possible differences in the view of pixel edges.

If you're truly going to compare 4 x 5 to 8 x 10 and the difference between diffraction when you stop way down, you need to keep the recording medium as a constant and have a separate control (in this case I would suggest also another image taken at the same time not stopes down) all focussed at the same point etc. Can't have digital in the equation.

[Corran]

You haven't followed the conversation here, that you even participated in. Go re-read Paul's post, and then read my post. Paul is talking about a DIGITAL 35mm camera.

This has nothing to do with 4x5 vs. 8x10, but instead diffraction vs. format size. And he is right, using a 150mm at f/32 on 4x5, and then a 300mm lens at f/64 on 8x10, should technically yield identical images as well as close to the same resolution, in a perfect system.

[StoneNYC]

You haven't followed the conversation here, that you even participated in. Go re-read Paul's post, and then read my post. Paul is talking about a DIGITAL 35mm camera.

This has nothing to do with 4x5 vs. 8x10, but instead diffraction vs. format size. And he is right, using a 150mm at f/32 on 4x5, and then a 300mm lens at f/64 on 8x10, should technically yield identical images as well as close to the same resolution, in a perfect system.

Same resolution per square inch or total resolution?

And again, using digital doesn't work, you can't compare that, because the digital sensor that is used in a 35mm is a different design than a digital scan back or the 9x11 or whatever digital back that that guy created. It's like saying delta100 in 4x5 is better or the same resolution than HP5+ in 8x10.

I still think diffraction is overrated as an issue, Ansel Adams seemed to do all right at f/64 and seems pretty clear to me.

[gmfotografie]

my primary question was:

do we really need a 8x10 if we don´t exceed 70" pictures (longst side)?
i ask this question more from a point of view if we will see those differences in the picture when it is hanging in front of you.
some objective meanings.

see most of the visitors those differneces?


thank you, i´ve got my answers via some posts and several pm´s ;-)

[8x10 user]

Thanks for posting this comparison.

I just want to note that macro work will favor smaller formats more then non macro work.

Also the Nikon micro lens is considered to be one of the best macro lenses for digital, while the Symmar S is not a macro lens, and is a generation behind the newest large format lenses.

A Nikon D800 at optimum aperture compared to 4x5 at an equivalent aperture for DOF scanned with a pretty standard scanner will produce very similar results.
I did the test and my results are HERE. Note I didn't use equivalent apertures so the test is skewed towards 4x5.

You can disagree or whatever but as far as I'm concerned Paul is correct, especially with the equivalent apertures used. As I mention a drum scan might pull more information out (note I was already using a better scanner than the ubiquitous V700) but I doubt it would be really significant.

[Corran]

You are certainly correct re: macro.

Stone, you aren't really seeing the point. I'm not going to argue further about this here.

[StoneNYC]

Thanks for posting this comparison.

I just want to note that macro work will favor smaller formats more then non macro work.

Also the Nikon micro lens is considered to be one of the best macro lenses for digital, while the Symmar S is not a macro lens, and is a generation behind the newest large format lenses.

What's the generation after the Symmar-S in that class of lenses by Schneider? Besides the APO Symmar-S? Thinking of replacing my Super-Angulon MC with a Symmar-S MC

[8x10 user]

The Apo Symmar and Apo Symmar L are newer versions with ED glass, the L version is more environmentally friendly (lead free). The Super Symmar HM and XL are wider angle variations with some ULD elements. The Macro Symmar HM also incorporates some ULD elements. The Symmar S is a lens with "normal" coverage while the Super Angulon has a "wide" angle of coverage. The Super Angulon has since been replaced by the Super Angulon XL, and the Super Symmar XL.

Newer offerings from Rodenstock include the Apo Sironar S, and Apo Sironar W. The newer macro lens from Rodenstock is the Macro Apo Sironar. All three use ED glass, while the Apo Sironar N does not, neither does the Schneider Symmar S.

[8x10 user]

The Apo Symmar and Apo Symmar L are newer versions with ED glass, the L version is more environmentally friendly (lead free). The Super Symmar HM and XL are wider angle variations with some ULD elements. The Macro Symmar HM also incorporates some ULD elements. The Symmar S is a lens with "normal" coverage while the Super Angulon has a "wide" angle of coverage. The Super Angulon has since been replaced by the Super Angulon XL, and the Super Symmar XL.

Newer offerings from Rodenstock include the Apo Sironar S, and Apo Sironar W. The newer macro lens from Rodenstock is the Macro Apo Sironar. All three use ED glass, while the Apo Sironar N does not, neither does the Schneider Symmar S.