High pixel digital V 6x9cm?
Discussion
With around a month left to decide on and purchase a 'proper' setup again, and still dithering, I wonder if any of you have direct personal experience of good quality digital and roll film cameras? The web seems to be awash with comparisons and opinions, but many get slated by others as soon as they appear so I haven't much faith in them.
My experience of digital is limited to APS sized sensors (24mega-pixel Sony) and iPad, either on screen or via some smallish prints. Yesterday I dug out some old slides taken on 4"x5", 6x12cm and 6x9cm and hadn't remembered how sharp they were, and detailed. Plus the colour and smoothness of transitions. True of the smaller 6x9 as well.
I won't go back to large format because iof the cost of film, processing and scanning etc., but am tempted by roll film again as an alternative to a DSLR or 645z. I realise what I'm looking at doesn't include scanning effects, but do any of you work with both and could confirm if a good digital camera really would match the quality of these slides?
My experience of digital is limited to APS sized sensors (24mega-pixel Sony) and iPad, either on screen or via some smallish prints. Yesterday I dug out some old slides taken on 4"x5", 6x12cm and 6x9cm and hadn't remembered how sharp they were, and detailed. Plus the colour and smoothness of transitions. True of the smaller 6x9 as well.
I won't go back to large format because iof the cost of film, processing and scanning etc., but am tempted by roll film again as an alternative to a DSLR or 645z. I realise what I'm looking at doesn't include scanning effects, but do any of you work with both and could confirm if a good digital camera really would match the quality of these slides?
An average 35mm film camera is something similar to 48 megapixels in terms of what you can do with it, from what I've read anyway. There's a lot that digital does with smoothing and processing that loses some of the detail. The best post processing / RAW processor I've found that kind of gets back to what film would have is either Capture One or RAW Therapee, but it's still different, and if you want the level of detail in film, short of buying Hasselblad or a 645D Pentax, just buy a cheap film body off ebay for £20 and load it up with whatever you like. XP2 is still my favourite
I had a good number of 35mm slides scanned, sizes varying but around 20 to 40 mgbits when saved as TIFFS (due to availability of a borrowed PC) from the jpegs the scanners sent. They aren't too bad, but as with the originals nothing like the 120 film slides and probably no sharper on this iPad (mini with retina screen) than the APS sensor derived pictures from the Sony.
I'm guessing that well scanned roll film slides would better that? And, maybe, match something like a Nikon 810 or Pentax 645z? Or has digital got so good at the higher levels that it's surpassed film in more than 'dynamic range'?
I'm guessing that well scanned roll film slides would better that? And, maybe, match something like a Nikon 810 or Pentax 645z? Or has digital got so good at the higher levels that it's surpassed film in more than 'dynamic range'?
andy-xr said:
An average 35mm film camera is something similar to 48 megapixels in terms of what you can do with it, from what I've read anyway.
More like 6-10mpTaking a sharp digital shot and turning it into good sharp output is a different process though.
And digital (mostly) has bayer filters that blur details to avoid moire.
Take one of the new FF sensors without (well kinda) the bayer filter, D800e, D810, a7r etc, take a good shot, process it well and you can have a 36x24 print or larger with stunning detail. From a single frame. Its almost always possible to stitch multiple shots for more resolution if you need it.
Medium format at the same resolution will be sharper given equal levels of lenses. The pixels are bigger, use more glass, any imperfections are less significant.
Processing for digital isnt an easy thing to do properly without some learning. Using the right colourspace, the right bit depth, the right sharpening at the right times. Its an acquired skill just like any dark room antics was.
I do like the sound of the large print size possibilities, especially given that I like to muck around with images, so need files to have some leeway or resilience and often find new views (than anticipated at the taking dodge) with cropping. Thirty six by twenty four should be plenty, to be fair.
I haven't had any large prints from the Sony yet, but remember fondly what I could go (get away with!) with he large and medium format transparency film. The detail in some old slides is amazing, like transmitters on a hillside in the far distance - taking up a minute proportion of the picture - still clean and crisp. I'm just hoping that the is available with the better digital cameras?
I haven't had any large prints from the Sony yet, but remember fondly what I could go (get away with!) with he large and medium format transparency film. The detail in some old slides is amazing, like transmitters on a hillside in the far distance - taking up a minute proportion of the picture - still clean and crisp. I'm just hoping that the is available with the better digital cameras?
If you want excellent quality, dependable and low running costs, get a digital camera.
Most things with a full size sensor produce a stunning picture.
If you want "the magic of photography", get a medium format camera. The biggest issue with medium format is scanning.
I am spending a day at a lab tomorrow scanning some 6x9 work I did last year with some PH members, you will find the results in the East Anglian section of the forum.
Most things with a full size sensor produce a stunning picture.
If you want "the magic of photography", get a medium format camera. The biggest issue with medium format is scanning.
I am spending a day at a lab tomorrow scanning some 6x9 work I did last year with some PH members, you will find the results in the East Anglian section of the forum.
RobDickinson said:
andy-xr said:
An average 35mm film camera is something similar to 48 megapixels in terms of what you can do with it, from what I've read anyway.
More like 6-10mpTaking a sharp digital shot and turning it into good sharp output is a different process though.
And digital (mostly) has bayer filters that blur details to avoid moire.
Take one of the new FF sensors without (well kinda) the bayer filter, D800e, D810, a7r etc, take a good shot, process it well and you can have a 36x24 print or larger with stunning detail. From a single frame. Its almost always possible to stitch multiple shots for more resolution if you need it.
Medium format at the same resolution will be sharper given equal levels of lenses. The pixels are bigger, use more glass, any imperfections are less significant.
Processing for digital isnt an easy thing to do properly without some learning. Using the right colourspace, the right bit depth, the right sharpening at the right times. Its an acquired skill just like any dark room antics was.
I've been doing a lot of thinking, reading and looking back at favourite pictures and think I'm going to go a little 'left field' on this and, in order not to lose the look of my favourite lenses (the dof and bokeh, mainly) am going to get a Leica Monochrom and a Sony.
The Monochrom might sound daft at 18 mp given the subject of the thread, but with pixels dedicated to luminance rather than only one colour each it should punch above its weight resolution wise and when 'processed' well (which is a skill I'll have to work hard to develop) gives BW images unlike any I've seen from other digital sources, more like film. And I'do like a dedicated bw camera to make me think more about what I take, when and how.
For colour I'm hoping Sony will have a second generation A7r soonish, that will address some of the issues people note, maybe with an even higher pixel count, though that wouldn't worry me I suspect, 36 on full frame should be fine? And will let me use the lenses I love. Who knows, Leica might even do a sorted update to the M240 at some point, though given how badly managed the company seems to be maybe they'll have bitten the dust first.
The Monochrom might sound daft at 18 mp given the subject of the thread, but with pixels dedicated to luminance rather than only one colour each it should punch above its weight resolution wise and when 'processed' well (which is a skill I'll have to work hard to develop) gives BW images unlike any I've seen from other digital sources, more like film. And I'do like a dedicated bw camera to make me think more about what I take, when and how.
For colour I'm hoping Sony will have a second generation A7r soonish, that will address some of the issues people note, maybe with an even higher pixel count, though that wouldn't worry me I suspect, 36 on full frame should be fine? And will let me use the lenses I love. Who knows, Leica might even do a sorted update to the M240 at some point, though given how badly managed the company seems to be maybe they'll have bitten the dust first.
Edited by LastLight on Thursday 2nd April 12:08
Any monochrome digital camera will have a considerably higher measured and perceived resolution than a colour one, because of the losses incurred by the bayer pattern filter in colour cameras - which cost you from 20-50% of your resolution, depending on how well processed it is and how you measure it.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff