1DS III vs. Leaf 22 & 33MP Backs, vs. Hasselblad 39MP

[David Luttmann]

I am not avoiding the question. The question is simply not relevant to my concerns about quality.

My suggestion is that you do your own comparisons. Asking me to respond to quality issues on the basis of comparisons you present made by others is absurd. You should know this.


Sandy Kiing

Odd response. It appears you understand his workflow, the scanner used, the film, the digital back data, lenses, etc,etc, but when presented with the image, you can't form an opinion? You consider it absurd to do so?

Odd indeed. Let me form it for you. Based upon the samples shown, there is no visible difference in print......at least below 40". Stating otherwise is wishful thinking. But if you have indeed done some testing with the P45 vs MF or LF, please post your images that show Cramer's to be incorrect or flawed.

[Don Hutton]

Yes....the advantage is in films favour. Look at them on screen at 50% and tell me if one "blows away" the other.

Finally, even if the MF is twice as sharp as the 4x5, the 4x5 is about twice as wide, thus making the two equal in rez. Which leads us back to the original samples.....looking at them, does one blow away the other?

Honestly, it would be a joke to try and extract any meaningful conclusion from those two little jpegs.

I own a drum scanner and have done a lot of comparative testing with film formats of various sizes and with my 5D and my Leica M8. Meaningful comparison requires looking at the whole file in detail - crops will almost always skew favor one way or another in an unrepresentative way. On the digital capture vs film scan comparisons, this is a real issue because the different capture mediums have different strenghs. Also, I do find that while digital capture tends to hold up well to a point of magnification, once exceeded, it falls apart very quickly; whereas scanned film deteriorates much more slowly.

I remember a few years back looking at MRs 1DS comparison to MF film scanned on a drum scanner and his crops etc seemed to suport his conclusion (to some extent) - when I did my own tests, I was shocked to see how different they were and how they gave me a completely different answer.

[David Luttmann]

Fair enough Don. However, the original files are available to look at on the Digital Outback site.

One thing I do find odd though.....when these type of samples show the film to be better, they are paraded around here as gospel truth. When they show the opposite, then they are subject to question and almost always considered flawed, incorrect and biased.

I remember MRs article. However, I found his images conflicted his opinion. I thought the MF was indeed better. However, as Raw convertors and sensors have improved, results have changed as well.

And don't even get me started on the silly Provia 100 vs the D30.....

I'm done with this one. Even when some people see it, they still refuse to believe it. Oh well, in a few years they'll claim there was no question and probably own some of the gear as well.

[sanking]

Sandy's "MF rig has an actual film area of about 3976mm2 vs 11460mm2 for 4x5 (the imaging area is well inside the external dimensions of the film) - so it's more like 1/2.8 of 4x5; not 1/4 as you suggest. Secondly, the Mamiya 7 almost certainly maintains way better film flatness than any 4x5 holder. Thirdly, it's well known that the M7 lenses are quite capable of putting close to 100lp/mm onto film. You'd be very lucky to manage half of that with 4x5 lenses which would almost certainly be diffraction limited at typical shooting apertures. So don't jump to a very hasty conclusion about that particular "MF" rig vs 4x5 film. There would seem to be little reason, when using fine grained films that they should produce results much different to each other; provided that you have the ability to extract everything from the film.

BTW, I'm not sure what anyone can really tell from those two horrible little Jpegs - for a start, they seem to be different sizes....

The most important criteria in evaluating results from different formats is the magnification ratio. The difference between 4X5 "(which measures about 12cm X 9.6 cm) and 6X7cm (which measures 7.1cm X 5.8cm) is 1.8.

In other words, for MF 6X7cm to equal 4X5" in terms of resolution, the MF system must resolve about 1.8X the LF system.

Is that possible, or feasible? Well, I can tell you for a fact that it is not only feasible and possible, but with certain high quality MF cameras like Mamiya 7II it is likely. First, the Mamiya lens can easily resolve 80-100 lines/mm on film, in comparison to a best of about 60 lines/mm on 4X5". Second, the film flatness of Mamiya 7 cameras is much superior to 4X5 holders. Third, with MF one can use an aperture of about two stops less than with 4X5 for equivalent depth of field, which reduces the effects of diffraction.

David obviously has not made the comparisons of Mamiya 7II MF 6X7cm to 4X5". I have, and with many films, both color and B&W. In many comparisons 6X7cm wins, and easily.

Sandy King

[sanking]

One thing I do find odd though.....when these type of samples show the film to be better, they are paraded around here as gospel truth. When they show the opposite, then they are subject to question and almost always considered flawed, incorrect and biased.

David,

So why don't you do your own comparison testing instead of parading around the results of others? I truly understand the importance of testing with one's own equipment, and for that reason try to always provide full information re: my results so others can test for themselves if they doubt my conclusions.

Trying to make a point by pointing folks to the testing results of others is, IMHO, insulting. Do you own testing and post the results.

Sandy

[Gordon Moat]

I didn't miss the point at all. With insufficient dynamic range, you CANNOT get the shadows and the highlights in the same image. I said nothing about "better" image, I said you can get the shadow and highlight detail in one image. With sufficient dynamic range, I can expose for the highlights and still have detail in the shadows.

Top level shooters have been using ND grad filters and multiple scan exposures for quite some time. If the DR was there to start with, they wouldn't have had to do that.

I'm not sure why you're having such difficulty getting this. Would you like to capture the image in 1 shot, or 2 or 3? It's that simple.

That's not the way I have ever worked. If I have objects in motion, or that change slightly from one shot to the next, then I am only working with one exposure; not 1, 2, or 3 exposures. While I own one ND grad, it rarely has ever been used. I can also use fill flash when I want, if I want, though that might be another area in which extended dynamic range offers another choice; I like that little catch-light in the eyes, so I don't see replacing fill flash with extended dynamic range capability.

Anyone using E-6 films accepts the lesser dynamic range. I don't think it's a problem, my clients don't think it's a problem . . . in fact thousands of E-6 shooting professionals before me have not had a problem with the results from E-6 films. If dynamic range was such a huge issue, likely there would have been many more C-41 users than there have been in commercial photography, prior to image capture and RAW processing, or even HDR, offering something more.

I have never had someone tell me a final print had either blown out highlights or blocked up shadows. I have no use for extended dynamic range . . . zero . . . nada . . . zilch. If a lack of dynamic range bothered me, or the results were not what a client liked due to a lack of dynamic range, then I would have been shooting C-41 films long before now. I think nearly everyone will agree that most E-6 films have the least (worst) dynamic range around, yet . . . go figure . . . they are still in use.

To suggest that extended dynamic range replaces an ND grad; is it that tough to use an ND grad? To suggest that extended dynamic range replaces multiple shots combined in post-processing; how many subjects change too much to allow multiple captures? Other than HDR images, can you tell when extended dynamic range has been used in a print?

I have shown techno-photographer scans from E-6 where the shadows held great detail, and the highlights were not blown out. People who tout extended dynamic range don't seem to understand that it is possible. I understand things getting overstated on internet forums, but is the hype really so great that it suspends belief . . . why should I be able to surprise anyone that a scan of E-6 has shadow details without blown highlights?

If you think extended dynamic range is the path to better images, then use it. I am not convinced at all, and there is little point in trying to convince me. I don't care if the science states it should be better; technology does not in and of itself lead to more compelling images.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[Donald Miller]

Donald,

Off-topic nastiness seems to be your strong suit.

If you have any substantive information to offer, please do so.


Sandy

Sandy, I meant no nastiness anymore than any of your assorted and sundry posts directed at me have been ...fair enough?

[sanking]

Sandy, I meant no nastiness anymore than any of your assorted and sundry posts directed at me have been ...fair enough?

Donald,

If you have anything substantive to add to this thread, please do so.

Otherwise, please avoid other comments about me, or to me.

Thanks,

Sandy King

[Frank Petronio]

What's the point of arguing? Who the hell can afford to spend $40K on a hobby or even art camera unless they are foolishly wealthy? So who cares whether the new Leaf/Blad/Phase back is good or great?

Besides, that dork with the Gigapixel "Highest Resolution in the Universe" has us all beat anyways ;-)

[Donald Miller]

Donald,

If you have anything substantive to add to this thread, please do so.

Otherwise, please avoid other comments about me, or to me.

Thanks,

Sandy King

I will do that Sandy if you agree to discontinue interjecting your unwarranted and unnecessary comments directed toward me. If you fail to recall those instances,will be more than happy to copy and post those. The ones I mention are threads that did not involve you and you certainly did not contribute anything meaningful.

Thanks.
Donald Miller