Canon 5D vs. Medium Format (Film)

I know this discussion has been beaten to a pulp, but why not ask some
things that I hope haven't been touched upon so much...

1) So the "resolution" has been the objective/scientific evidence that
the 5D is as good as medium format. Then again, Rafe or Rafe B?
(forget his name from terrapin) says that his prints from either the
LS8000 scans of medium format and the digital prints are equal or that
the digital exceeds the medium format when it comes to color. Since
the LS8000/9000/Mulit Pro scanners are considered some of the very best
available, it seems we are REALLY talking about putting one format next
to another and comparing the two. The claim, and I don't say that Rafe
said this, though maybe he did at one time, is that the Canon 5D or
better yet, 1DSMKII shows more detail than MF film based cameras. One
pointed out how they could count the hairs on the digital print but not
on the film print. I guess this proves film doesn't actually capture
"reality/objective" world afterall and all this time people using film
have only managed to get "most" of the detail from life. However,
higher end digital is capable of getting that detail the film can never
get.

Question one is: How does the digital camera that competes "resolution"
wise, extract more detail than film, and if this is true, why would
"anyone" with 10K-25K worth of film based equipment still own it when
they will never get that detail a digital camera can get?

2) In terms of the "color" produced by the two formats, pro digital and
mf film, it has been argued that the pro digital cameras excel in color
with some exceptions going in favor of print (C41) based film. I have
to agree that the array of color is simply amazing in what the digital
can do, but is the "flat" look of film that many refer to not what life
really looks like??? I don't know how many shots I have seen by pros
that use the very best digital camera to make a scene look like it is
tahiti when it is just San Diego. Sand is colored brownish when it is
white in life. But these colors obviously have a lot of
appeal/flashiness to them while the film colors look much more
"pale/lifeless" in a sense. It isn't to say the film looks inaccurate,
but is to say that the digital makes things "appear" realistic, but are
much more based on aesthetic appearance and catching the eye...but
doesn't one ever wonder how in the world a bird with beautiful color
suddenly looks like an angel with remarkable color one has never even
seen on this bird??? I don't want to debate the color issues with
digital because you can say the same things about film. I have seen
some of the most saturated or dense looking film based images that are
in no way looking like life, but they surely make for a beautiful
artistic look, just like the digital can do the same. So please pay
attention to this last part where I say that both can exaggerate or
"make" their own color to look a certain way, but that at the same
time, I feel that digital by and large makes life look a lot different
than film when both are aimed to reproduce it in an "accurate" looking
way. *****The primary reason I raise the color thing is because I have
never seen a photo "on the web" from a pro digital camera that looks
like film.***** I can see many are trying to achieve a look of film,
but without the grain, of course...but never have I seen an MF photo
look like a Canon 5D photo. They can look similar in some instances,
but I'm more or less referring to context of streetlife, nature,
architecture/etc.

3) Going back to this resolution thing, and that some claim the 5D or
1DSMKII can outresolve film in MF...what about the counter-argument of
digital "adding" detail to the photo that isn't even there? I know the
example I posted above was about counting hairs and so I take it this
person either counted the person's hairs after the photo was developed
or they just "assumed" from what they saw that that person had more
hairs. Either way, it's interesting that there is a counter to the
notion that pro digital and digital in general "adds" artifacts/extra
information that the film does not. And this obviously complicates
things because one then has to point out that film cannot produce the
information that exists in life whereas digital can...one format, in
other words, can produce what we see in life while the other is either
not capable of doing so or is adding artificial context to the image.

So number 3 deals with my final question: Does digital indeed have the
ability to outresolve film? That is, is film simply not capable of
producing the same detail of life? Again, how in the world can
"anyone" care to use film if they know it is not reproducing life
faithfully and is leaving out details that digital is able to
capture??? I personally care for "the look" of the image, but if I
know my setup cannot produce life, why even bother using it when I can
get "close enough" if not the same "look" from the device that is able
to get more information/reproduce life more faithfully. Why only get
10 of my cat's 12 whiskers when I can get all 12 of them???

The reason I ask these questions is because:

1) If the better pro digital cams can do more than MF film can, it only
takes $2200 plus $1800 in Zeiss/Rollei lenses to completely humiliate
MF film setups that cost upward of $10-$20K!!!...let alone the scanner
that can be drum scanned for rediculous prices or go for the Nikon 9000
which goes for $1800. That's 2-5X the price of the digital setup
which can take a million photos before that MF system can get in 100.

2) Why is there still a market for all this MF stuff if the digital has
proven dominance over it?

3) Why does this MF market continue to maintain stability while the
digital one coninues to drop? Yes, one can say better digi-toys come
out every year, but what about MF stuff...this has been around for tons
of years yet it either increases in price or stays the same. As an
example, to get a Contax 645 system, you must shell out big
bucks...same with a Hassleblad system and how about them Schneider
lenses=$$$$$$$$ Why won't these Schneider lenses come down to
$100-$500 when the digital stuff like the 5D is going to be at $800
soon???


I'm ranting and raving because I'm really frustrated about which
direction to go at this point. To me, in a perfect world where the
Canon 5D is indeed on par or even superior to MF, it makes zero sense
to spend 2-5X the amount of money to get an MF setup. If the 5D can be
disputed by the MF crowd and that 2-5X difference has some kind of
warrant (not for arrest of course), then it seems getting into maybe
even a lower budget MF setup that is capable of competing with higher
end setups in the film MF world would be the better step.

I'll leave this one up to discussion/debate/whatever that can help me
find a decision here on what is the best move to make at this point.

Thanks all!!!

"Progressiveabsolution" wrote:
I know this discussion has been beaten to a pulp, but why not ask some
things that I hope haven't been touched upon so much...

1) So the "resolution" has been the objective/scientific evidence that
the 5D is as good as medium format. Then again, Rafe or Rafe B?
(forget his name from terrapin) says that his prints from either the
LS8000 scans of medium format and the digital prints are equal or that
the digital exceeds the medium format when it comes to color. Since
the LS8000/9000/Mulit Pro scanners are considered some of the very best
available, it seems we are REALLY talking about putting one format next
to another and comparing the two. The claim, and I don't say that Rafe
said this, though maybe he did at one time, is that the Canon 5D or
better yet, 1DSMKII shows more detail than MF film based cameras. One
pointed out how they could count the hairs on the digital print but not
on the film print. I guess this proves film doesn't actually capture
"reality/objective" world afterall and all this time people using film
have only managed to get "most" of the detail from life. However,
higher end digital is capable of getting that detail the film can never
get.

The experience here (lots of MF cameras, a Nikon 8000, and a 5D), as well as
several comparisons on the net, have all been that 11 to 13MP digital is
roughly equivalent to 645 (or cropped 6x6), and is slightly edged out in
detail capture by 6x7 (or 6x6 compared to a square crop from 11 to 13 MP
digital).

Question one is: How does the digital camera that competes "resolution"
wise, extract more detail than film, and if this is true, why would
"anyone" with 10K-25K worth of film based equipment still own it when
they will never get that detail a digital camera can get?

Film has a long "tail" in its MTF response. So you can see fine patterns,
but at low contrast and high noise. Not useful for making photographs, but
very useful for claiming that film captures zillions of MP of information.

Film nuts such as myself still have our cameras because (1) we can't sell
them, (2) the larger format ones still produce better images than 11 to 13MP
digital, and (3) US$600 will get you that lovely Rolleiflex 3.5F that you
always wanted and normal humans can't resist a bargain.

2) In terms of the "color" produced by the two formats, pro digital and
mf film, it has been argued that the pro digital cameras excel in color
with some exceptions going in favor of print (C41) based film. I have
to agree that the array of color is simply amazing in what the digital
can do, but is the "flat" look of film that many refer to not what life
really looks like???

Lots of film types like Velviag. Digital is more accurate than most films
in terms of color rendition, and is more flexible than any specific film,
but may not be able to exactly emulate a specific film.

I don't know how many shots I have seen by pros
that use the very best digital camera to make a scene look like it is
tahiti when it is just San Diego. Sand is colored brownish when it is
white in life. But these colors obviously have a lot of
appeal/flashiness to them while the film colors look much more
"pale/lifeless" in a sense.

You haven't seen much work in Velvia, have youg? That sort of distortion
has been going on in color photography since at least the mid-60s with
Kodachrome.

*****The primary reason I raise the color thing is because I have
never seen a photo "on the web" from a pro digital camera that looks
like film.*****

Look at the images at www.photo.net. I can never guess what camera they come
from.

3) Going back to this resolution thing, and that some claim the 5D or
1DSMKII can outresolve film in MF...what about the counter-argument of
digital "adding" detail to the photo that isn't even there?

That's Foveon and the Leica cameras that produce bogus detail. Canon
includes a low-pass filter and so is at least somewhat honest (I'd prefer it
if they used a stronger one, but at least it's there).

I know the
example I posted above was about counting hairs and so I take it this
person either counted the person's hairs after the photo was developed
or they just "assumed" from what they saw that that person had more
hairs. Either way, it's interesting that there is a counter to the
notion that pro digital and digital in general "adds" artifacts/extra
information that the film does not.

But the vast majority of "film fans" claim that they like grain, and grain
is the ultimate "added detail" (well, added texture). All the smooth areas
in your images have a gritty texture. The same gritty texture everywhere.
And they claim they like it! Complete garbage to my eye.

So number 3 deals with my final question: Does digital indeed have the
ability to outresolve film?

Well, 11 to 13 MP digital is clearly superior to 35mm film, competes with
645, and loses to 6x7.

That is, is film simply not capable of
producing the same detail of life? Again, how in the world can
"anyone" care to use film if they know it is not reproducing life
faithfully and is leaving out details that digital is able to
capture???

Well, I don't undertand why people like 35mm....

2) Why is there still a market for all this MF stuff if the digital has
proven dominance over it?

There isn't a market for MF, other than bargain hunters.

3) Why does this MF market continue to maintain stability while the
digital one coninues to drop?

Bronica is long dead, Mamiya was sold to a software company (and has
discontinued some of their MF cameras), Pentax no longer sells MF cameras in
the EU, Fuji has discontinued their MF cameras, Hasselblad has discontinued
all but their core products (e.g. the 200 series is history), which can be
used with digital.

Yes, one can say better digi-toys come
out every year, but what about MF stuff...this has been around for tons
of years yet it either increases in price or stays the same. As an
example, to get a Contax 645 system, you must shell out big
bucks...

Contax was always ridiculously overpriced, and has been discontinued.

same with a Hassleblad system and how about them Schneider
lenses=$$$$$$$$ Why won't these Schneider lenses come down to
$100-$500 when the digital stuff like the 5D is going to be at $800
soon???

Those lenses are all still usable with MF digital backs.

I'm ranting and raving because I'm really frustrated about which
direction to go at this point. To me, in a perfect world where the
Canon 5D is indeed on par or even superior to MF, it makes zero sense
to spend 2-5X the amount of money to get an MF setup.

Agreed. I moved from the Sony F707 to Nikon 8000 + MF four or five years
ago, and got several good years of use out of it, but I wouldn't recommend
it today. Get a 5D and learn how to use it. I haven't shot a roll of MF film
since the 5D arrived here, almost a year ago.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:57:18 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

white in life. But these colors obviously have a lot of
appeal/flashiness to them while the film colors look much more
"pale/lifeless" in a sense.

You haven't seen much work in Velvia, have youg? That sort of distortion
has been going on in color photography since at least the mid-60s with
Kodachrome.

Many Fujis (probably not the best ones) cater to that crowd. Mine
has three color options. Standard, B&W and Chrome. So nobody need
fear having their Kodachrome taken away. Someone should tell Paul.
Do other cameras have settings that mimic specific films that you
know of? It should be easy to manage, but it would probably be best
implemented in a photo editor. I haven't used the big ones, but I'd
be very surprised if there aren't at least several plugins that do
this if the ability isn't built-in.

ASAAR wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:57:18 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

white in life. But these colors obviously have a lot of
appeal/flashiness to them while the film colors look much more
"pale/lifeless" in a sense.

You haven't seen much work in Velvia, have youg? That sort of distortion
has been going on in color photography since at least the mid-60s with
Kodachrome.

Many Fujis (probably not the best ones) cater to that crowd. Mine
has three color options. Standard, B&W and Chrome. So nobody need
fear having their Kodachrome taken away. Someone should tell Paul.
Do other cameras have settings that mimic specific films that you
know of? It should be easy to manage, but it would probably be best
implemented in a photo editor. I haven't used the big ones, but I'd
be very surprised if there aren't at least several plugins that do
this if the ability isn't built-in.

Even better would be to have this in the raw converter where there is a
larger dynamic range to work with.

Scott

"ASAAR" wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:57:18 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

white in life. But these colors obviously have a lot of
appeal/flashiness to them while the film colors look much more
"pale/lifeless" in a sense.

You haven't seen much work in Velvia, have youg? That sort of
distortion
has been going on in color photography since at least the mid-60s with
Kodachrome.

Many Fujis (probably not the best ones) cater to that crowd. Mine
has three color options. Standard, B&W and Chrome. So nobody need
fear having their Kodachrome taken away.

ROFL. As I mentioned before, the "Landscape" picture mode on the current
Canons (and any older Canon that produces RAW files via DPP) does the Velvia
electric greens quite nicely. Although, you have to expose carefully, since
DPP doesn't let you adjust exposure after the fact and Landscape mode blows
highlights really easily, just like Velvia. Sigh. (It lets you adjust
exposure, but doesn't give you back any of the information it threw away in
it's first conversion step. Grr. RSP allows you to get highlights back by
using the "Fill light" slider to reduce overall contrast and then fine
tuning the highlights with the exposure compensation.)

Someone should tell Paul.
Do other cameras have settings that mimic specific films that you
know of? It should be easy to manage, but it would probably be best
implemented in a photo editor. I haven't used the big ones, but I'd
be very surprised if there aren't at least several plugins that do
this if the ability isn't built-in.

There used to be plugins that emulated various B&W films for B&W conversion,
although that is a somewhat different question.

Again, the Canon "picture modes" do that (although they're pretty limited:
"Faithful" and "Landscape" are the only useful ones; e.g. "Neutral" is too
low contrast). The late and lamented RSP RAW converter (killed by Adobe:
they didn't like the competition so just bought it) had a "Vibrancy" slider
that was very nice. Presumably there are others.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Thanks guys.

Seems like MF still has a place IF you can afford the expensive Nikon
8000/9000 scanner. But if you add up say a nice setup from Hassy or
Rollei and the scanner, like I say, it can be way overpriced compared
to the Canon 5D and nice Zeiss/Rollei/Schneider/etc. lenses. Add on
top of that the fact that you get to work images on a consistent basis.
I can see why the 6X7 would be good for use on serious blowups, but
I'd still want a 6X7 that has rangefinder glass such as
Contax/Leica/Hexar AF on it. I like the Fuji ok, but don't consider it
as good as the other brands. But then again, with a serious blowup,
I'd certainly take the Fuji over anything else at this point in
digital/film photography.

Regards to all and now to sell the house to buy a nice Canon 5D and
some good ole Zeiss glass...! Oh...I need batteries and a 4gb CF
too, right?

Stacey wrote:
ASAAR wrote:


Do other cameras have settings that mimic specific films that you
know of?

From what I've seen, the sensor is a larger part of what determines the kind
of film a digital camera mimics. You can do things in PS to adjust this but
each "flavor' of sensor looks different from what I've seen.
The sensors are all pretty much the same, differances come from the
cameras
processing of the data.

Scott

ASAAR wrote:


Do other cameras have settings that mimic specific films that you
know of?

From what I've seen, the sensor is a larger part of what determines the kind
of film a digital camera mimics. You can do things in PS to adjust this but
each "flavor' of sensor looks different from what I've seen.
--

Stacey

Progressiveabsolution wrote:
Thanks guys.

Seems like MF still has a place IF you can afford the expensive Nikon
8000/9000 scanner. But if you add up say a nice setup from Hassy or
Rollei and the scanner, like I say, it can be way overpriced compared
to the Canon 5D and nice Zeiss/Rollei/Schneider/etc. lenses. Add on
top of that the fact that you get to work images on a consistent basis.
I can see why the 6X7 would be good for use on serious blowups, but
I'd still want a 6X7 that has rangefinder glass such as
Contax/Leica/Hexar AF on it. I like the Fuji ok, but don't consider it
as good as the other brands. But then again, with a serious blowup,
I'd certainly take the Fuji over anything else at this point in
digital/film photography.

Regards to all and now to sell the house to buy a nice Canon 5D and
some good ole Zeiss glass...! Oh...I need batteries and a 4gb CF
too, right?

Man, where do you live?? s. I can't buy a dog house in the Bay Area
for the price of those items! I would go with one extra battery, and a
couple of 1 or 2 Gig cards to start with. When you really need to have 4
Gigs, the sweet spot will have moved in your favor.

Good luck and good shooting!

--
John McWilliams

Stacey wrote:
ASAAR wrote:


Do other cameras have settings that mimic specific films that you
know of?

From what I've seen, the sensor is a larger part of what determines the kind
of film a digital camera mimics. You can do things in PS to adjust this but
each "flavor' of sensor looks different from what I've seen.
--

Stacey

Stacey...since you are aware of the Kiev setup and the Olympus setups,
how would you compare firstly the Kiev setup with proper Zeiss glass
(Flektogon/Sonnar w/newer versions with 5 digits for serial number) to
a DSLR w/12MP like the 5D?

Second...how would compare the last produced Olympus DSLR (E330)
w/11-22mm and 50-200mm glass to the Canon 5D or other 12+ MP cam
w/similar glass?