Why does FF vs let's say M43 matter if they both have the same resolution?
Why does FF vs let's say M43 matter if they both have the same resolution?
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
Same resolution but not the same sensor surface.Originally Posted by Alan Klein
It all depends on the lens quality, but in general a larger sensor with available "commercial" optics will deliver a better result. I pixels are smaller the lens is more challenged, in oposition a larger circle also challenges the lens performance, but the sensor size favors performance at the end.
You can play in DXO to see the what different lenses/camera combinations yield: https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon...kon-D5200__850
These are propietary ratings more or less matching common technical criterions, but they are good enough to compare, I've myself checked some of those rating with my cameras and I found they are fair.
We also have to consider that many manufacturers have segmentation in their product range, so they reserve top performance for the FF segment, you will find not many Pro level glass optimized for the DX image circle.
Well I haven't done any testing in this area but I suspect a 20mp m4/3 scan right next to a 20mp 24x36 scan would show very little difference in a small print size or on screen. On the other hand, once you start doing edits you'll run into more noise faster with the smaller sensor. My Fuji SP-3000 scanners have sensors close to APS-C, and a custom made macro lens to match. It uses pixel shift/multi capture to increase resolution as well. If an Olympus camera can do it's pixel shift trick I bet it would be a great way to scan (If it's pixel shift integration has a set of captures that get you to true RGB). What you won't find are 47mp Micro 4/3rd cameras, or 60mp for that matter. I'm not saying that is going to matter to you, but it's a consideration. Similarly APS-C cameras seem to be maxing out at 30mp or so. Again for me I didn't want to have to stitch to get to high res files. Also I use my 'scanner' camera for some wedding and portrait work, where FF is king.
Other more worthwhile considerations are, how supported is tethering? Does it have USB-3 or C? (The K-1 is bafflingly USB-2), does it have a flip screen? (On a copy stand, a flip screen is a big neck saver, trust me).
Tell me one that has that effective yield:
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon...kon-D5200__850
When scanning we have to rely on effective numbers, not in nominal pixels. A Epson is able to deliver a file with 820MPix from a 4x5" negative, but only 150MPix can be effective.
Similarly an APSC with 30MPix nominal with available lenses won't reach much more than 16MPix effective.
Go enjoy your Epson dude. I don't care about your FUD barking.
Presently I enjoy through the negative quality, dude. Optic printing, which places all quality in the negative on paper, not 1/10 of it.
I just found the "Ignore List" feature on this site. I recommend you all take advantage of it. Trolls should not be allowed to post on this forum.
If this 'effective pixel' nonsense were true then my scans should look worse than Imacon scans that I compare them to. Surprise surprise they don't. Nor do they look worse than Coolscans or (low bar) Fuji Frontier scans. All this theory BS is just trolling. Sometimes you have to simply trust your own eyes. Napkin math is no replacement for actual testing. I have a 16x20 print on my wall from a Provia 4x5 that looks absolutely fabulous, and that was scanned with a bayer sensor D810. Hey if I could get a theoretical Hasselblad X10 with a BSI CMOS sensor I would probably do it, but they stopped doing R&D on scanners over a decade ago. Don't let the Photography equivalent of the Comic Book Store guy from The Simpsons talk you out of at least testing out camera scanning, if you're so inclined. There are a ton of excellent ways to scan film, the most important thing is to find what works best for you.
The only other scanner I would consider buying at this point is a Durst Sigma 45 if I can ever find one. And maybe a few more Fuji Frontiers for the lab.
The effective pixel or effective dpi is the way different digital devices are compared, and the way Image Quality is scientifically Predicted for a print size.
Personal testing is also fine, of course, for personal usage.
I'm very interested in this thread. In 2013, I had a show with 21 prints, mostly 30x40 with three at 40x50. I scanned them in NYC on a Flextight in NYC and though I had no experience whatsoever with this workflow (I printed color at Evergreen College) but managed to get the files ready for print and had lightjet prints made. They were fantastic. There was only one print where I was unhappy with the color.
A couple years ago, for a magazine feature I was going to be in, I had a local print shop do some scans for me. They do both Epson and Imacon and I voted for the latter. The scans were great, pretty close color-wise out of the box and were easy to manipulate for other things. A year later, I needed some scans for a show. Because of the short timeline, even though I asked for Imacon, they did them on the Epson. The colors were totally off, they were hard to color-correct and for most of them, I just gave up. Total disaster, impossible to print. Looked like utter crap. I have tried scanning on a couple Epson's and my experience has always been negative. Total pain in the ass and the scans are crap. I own an Epson and I only use it for scanning prints for the web. Mostly I scan negatives on a FlexTight in NYC when I go out there. Still, the Flextight software OS compatibility limitation is a pain in the ass and I'm looking for another way.
Th sounds eminently doable to me. Since I'm not familiar with the stitching concept, are you moving the camera to take multiple shots?
I move the negative, keeping the camera on a very sturdy, stable and well-aligned support structure.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks