digital vs. medium format

Hey folks -

I was looking at picking up a used MF camera in my area ( ~ $500 ) and
the sales guy was giving me a hard pitch on the digital cameras they
have in stock. Specifically he was harping on the Canon 10D. He showed
me a print that was larger than 2' in both dimensions that was made
from the canon, and I was impressed. When you looked at it very
closely, you saw what looked like weird Quake texture maps, but with
film you would see grain, I guess, so it seems an even trade off.

Anyway, my original thought was to buy a MF camera ( I like working
with film and holding a mechanical device in my hands ) and buy a
digital back for it later on when the prices fell. I asked the sales
guy about the quality of the lenses, and he said they were worse on the
MF, because poor quality lenses wouldn't be as noticeable on MF! Is
this true? If so, it seems I should just go digital. ( or maybe try to
get a deal on a used MF camera if I finance a digital -- I'll bet the
sales guy makes more money of a new digital than a used MF. )

In article .com,
wrote:

Anyway, my original thought was to buy a MF camera ( I like working
with film and holding a mechanical device in my hands ) and buy a
digital back for it later on when the prices fell. I asked the sales
guy about the quality of the lenses, and he said they were worse on the
MF, because poor quality lenses wouldn't be as noticeable on MF! Is
this true? If so, it seems I should just go digital. ( or maybe try to
get a deal on a used MF camera if I finance a digital -- I'll bet the
sales guy makes more money of a new digital than a used MF. )

Medium format is traditionally less fussy about lenses than the 35mm and
digital stuff, because you're not enlarging the results as much.

As for comparative image quality, the large prints from the 6/8mp DSLRs do
indeed look very good, but similar medium format prints look better, a lot
better, IME.

If you want to give it a try, you could do far worse than pick up a second
hand Twin Lens Reflex, such as a Rolleicord, Rolleiflex Automat, or Yashica
Mat 124 for not much money, shoot off a few rolls of slides or negatives,
and see if you feel comfortable with the format. You can pick up a decent
"starter" TLR on eBay for less than the price of all but the cheapest lenses
for a DSLR.

If you're happy with the fixed lens, manual focusing and exposure, and not
being able to do macro, then a twin lens reflex really is a joy to use, and
will produce some truly stunning results.

Good luck!

Here's a little calculation for you to look at. Let us say you got a
6x4.5 format MF camera. And let us say the lens for it was indeed
poorer such that you could only get a maximum resolution of 45 lp/mm on
film so assume its maximum theoretical resolution was double that at 90
lp/mm so that the film sensors must be able to pick up 180 patches per
light per mm (since a line must have dark and light elements to be a
line). So a 6x4.5 (really 57mmx42mm) will have this many effective film
sensors:

57*180*42*180 = 77,565,600 sensors

Now for digital cameras, the current design is to have colored masks
over the sensors so one picks up green, one red and the other blue
light so it takes 3 digital sensors to give a true color so a digital
camera back would need:

77,565,600 * 3 = 232,696,800 pixels

So when 232 megapixels backs for MF cameras are firstly made and come
down in price to a sensible level then you can buy one to stick on the
back, knowing it will give you just as good results as film.

"RolandRB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Here's a little calculation for you to look at. Let us say you got a
6x4.5 format MF camera. [...]

Here's my assertion - pure digital capture is cleaner and capable of higher
resolution color fidelity than scanned film of the same size as the sensor.
Have fun with that.

"jjs" john@xstafford.net writes:

"RolandRB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Here's a little calculation for you to look at. Let us say you got a
6x4.5 format MF camera. [...]

Here's my assertion - pure digital capture is cleaner and capable of
higher resolution color fidelity than scanned film of the same size
as the sensor. Have fun with that.

I think that's clearly true in the current state of the arts (both
film and sensors change, after all). And I love it.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

But I think scanners will improve as well as the editing software. From
what I have experienced, color slide film starts to look poor if
enlarged linearly by 10x for the best films and 6x for more grainy film
due to the graininess/speckliness but good detail will be there. If the
editing software is improved then I think the speckliness could be
removed without softening the detail and losing resolution. I think
that better software would already be there if it were not for the
emphasis on digital. I used to write software packages for what later
became the PC twenty years ago and am now out of it, but I have thought
about learning one of the new Windows languages like C# and getting
back into it and trying my hand at writing my own editing software. I
am sure I could do a better job than what is currently on offer but
I'll probably never get round to it due to work. So here is something
for you to think about - if you can see better detail on film than is
currently possible with a digital capture then it is conceivable that
in the future you will be able to fully exploit that extra detail and
transfer the image to a digital format.

On 23 Mar 2005 23:49:01 -0800, "RolandRB"
wrote:

But I think scanners will improve as well as the editing software. From
what I have experienced, color slide film starts to look poor if
enlarged linearly by 10x for the best films and 6x for more grainy film
due to the graininess/speckliness but good detail will be there. If the
editing software is improved then I think the speckliness could be
removed without softening the detail and losing resolution. I think
that better software would already be there if it were not for the
emphasis on digital. I used to write software packages for what later
became the PC twenty years ago and am now out of it, but I have thought
about learning one of the new Windows languages like C# and getting
back into it and trying my hand at writing my own editing software. I
am sure I could do a better job than what is currently on offer but
I'll probably never get round to it due to work. So here is something
for you to think about - if you can see better detail on film than is
currently possible with a digital capture then it is conceivable that
in the future you will be able to fully exploit that extra detail and
transfer the image to a digital format.


I don't think you'd enjoy software or firmware
after being away twenty years. Trust me on this.

As to "better scanners" -- yes, it may be possible
technically but I think that market will soon be gone,
as film falls into disuse. It never was a huge
market anyway. How many Imacon scanners were
sold, total?

There are only one or two manufacturers of drum
scanners nowadays. Yes, CCDs are now excellent,
but there's not too much more resolution to be
had from MF film using CCDs, and less again for
LF film.

What you do see is scanning technology getting
ever-cheaper.

I wish it weren't so. I'd really love to be
able to get a top-notch, modern scanner for
4x5 film, but I don't think one exists -- that
I can buy without a new mortgage.

Alternatively, I'd love to see affordable
scanning backs for MF or LF - especially the
latter.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

On 23 Mar 2005 23:49:01 -0800, "RolandRB"
wrote:

But I think scanners will improve as well as the editing software. From
what I have experienced, color slide film starts to look poor if
enlarged linearly by 10x for the best films and 6x for more grainy film
due to the graininess/speckliness but good detail will be there. If the
editing software is improved then I think the speckliness could be
removed without softening the detail and losing resolution. I think
that better software would already be there if it were not for the
emphasis on digital. I used to write software packages for what later
became the PC twenty years ago and am now out of it, but I have thought
about learning one of the new Windows languages like C# and getting
back into it and trying my hand at writing my own editing software. I
am sure I could do a better job than what is currently on offer but
I'll probably never get round to it due to work. So here is something
for you to think about - if you can see better detail on film than is
currently possible with a digital capture then it is conceivable that
in the future you will be able to fully exploit that extra detail and
transfer the image to a digital format.


I don't think you'd enjoy software or firmware
after being away twenty years. Trust me on this.

As to "better scanners" -- yes, it may be possible
technically but I think that market will soon be gone,
as film falls into disuse. It never was a huge
market anyway. How many Imacon scanners were
sold, total?

There are only one or two manufacturers of drum
scanners nowadays. Yes, CCDs are now excellent,
but there's not too much more resolution to be
had from MF film using CCDs, and less again for
LF film.

What you do see is scanning technology getting
ever-cheaper.

I wish it weren't so. I'd really love to be
able to get a top-notch, modern scanner for
4x5 film, but I don't think one exists -- that
I can buy without a new mortgage.

Alternatively, I'd love to see affordable
scanning backs for MF or LF - especially the
latter.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

jjs wrote:

"RolandRB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Here's a little calculation for you to look at. Let us say you got a
6x4.5 format MF camera. [...]

Here's my assertion - pure digital capture is cleaner and capable of higher
resolution color fidelity than scanned film of the same size as the sensor.
Have fun with that.

Depends upon the colour. The problem with Bayer filtering is that it masks
many colour areas. Another issue is that some direct digital, backs or SLRs,
use file colour spaces that are limited below printable colours. While red
performance has improved recently, there are still issues with green, yellow,
and cyan colour ranges. Generally, most newer direct digital systems have been
optimized to try to produce somewhat accurate skin tones.

Higher resolution is a separate issue. Some newer direct digital systems can
accomplish nearly 50 lp/mm. However, just like using any film camera,
resolution drops when using these hand held. Just because the file has a
finite number of pixels, does not mean every image records at the maximum
resolution possible.

High resolution with film means that you need to get that information off the
film in some manner, and translate that into a printed piece. Really good
scanners, or companies that do scanning, are not cheap, and rarely quick.
Enlargers are another area, though even then the enlarger lens and overall
assembly can further reduce resolution.

I think it is tough to put absolute on any of this comparison. Quite likely
many photos are made with hand held cameras, and quite often the printing of
photographic images involves cost and time compromises. The reality is that a
few direct digital methods are "good enough" to satisfy many professionals and
critical viewers. Film is also "good enough" to satisfy the same people in
many situations.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

jjs wrote:

"RolandRB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Here's a little calculation for you to look at. Let us say you got a
6x4.5 format MF camera. [...]

Here's my assertion - pure digital capture is cleaner and capable of higher
resolution color fidelity than scanned film of the same size as the sensor.
Have fun with that.

Depends upon the colour. The problem with Bayer filtering is that it masks
many colour areas. Another issue is that some direct digital, backs or SLRs,
use file colour spaces that are limited below printable colours. While red
performance has improved recently, there are still issues with green, yellow,
and cyan colour ranges. Generally, most newer direct digital systems have been
optimized to try to produce somewhat accurate skin tones.

Higher resolution is a separate issue. Some newer direct digital systems can
accomplish nearly 50 lp/mm. However, just like using any film camera,
resolution drops when using these hand held. Just because the file has a
finite number of pixels, does not mean every image records at the maximum
resolution possible.

High resolution with film means that you need to get that information off the
film in some manner, and translate that into a printed piece. Really good
scanners, or companies that do scanning, are not cheap, and rarely quick.
Enlargers are another area, though even then the enlarger lens and overall
assembly can further reduce resolution.

I think it is tough to put absolute on any of this comparison. Quite likely
many photos are made with hand held cameras, and quite often the printing of
photographic images involves cost and time compromises. The reality is that a
few direct digital methods are "good enough" to satisfy many professionals and
critical viewers. Film is also "good enough" to satisfy the same people in
many situations.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com