1Ds MkII v. 10D v. 4x5" film - Resolution Comp.

[Radtech1]

I found this site linked to by someone on the DPReview page. Interesting bunch of shots. Glass is clearly (ar, ar, ar!) the weak link in the system now.

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/oceharb04_comps.htm

[pradeep1]

Wow, nice comparison.

[chris.bailey]

Wow, nice comparison.

I dont think it is fair to compare a film scan made from an Epson 2450 flatbed. It may give a high apparent resolution but thats about it. The 1ds MkII to the 10D is what you would expect

[IncompletePete]

Wow, just OT but good to see someone from sunny Norwich! Just left Norwich to head to university in Loughborough!

[chris.bailey]

Wow, just OT but good to see someone from sunny Norwich! Just left Norwich to head to university in Loughborough!

Still OT, lots of us Norwich folk head in that direction.. I went to Nottingham many many years ago.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I agree on debunking this comparison..

I see two sizeable issue.

For some unknown reason the 1Ds crop is completely diffferent in size?

And the flatbed scanner used is not going to show the 4X5 film at it's best. A dedicated foilm Scanner like a Nikon or Monolta is needed. The Nikon Model that would be appropriate sells for $2,000.00 (save more than 50% with the Minolta)

Seems pricey.. but the camera in question sells for $8,000.00

That said.. the 1Ds MKII may be the equal of 4X5 film.

[Radtech1]

And the flatbed scanner used is not going to show the 4X5 film at it's best. A dedicated foilm Scanner like a Nikon or Monolta is needed. The Nikon Model that would be appropriate sells for $2,000.00 (save more than 50% with the Minolta)

Seems pricey.. but the camera in question sells for $8,000.00

That said.. the 1Ds MKII may be the equal of 4X5 film.

I have looked over his site thouroghly, and read his discussions on his use of scanners. He clearly states that drum scanners are better than flatbed, but of the flatbeds that he has the Epson 2450 has proven to be the highest quality that he has, even higher than more "advanced (Epson 4xxx series)" scaners. Paraphrasing here, he said that if the Drum scanner is 100%, then the 2450 is 95%.

What is of concern to me, is the difference between the 10D, which I have, and the 1DsMII, which I am seriously looking at for after X-mas. What this tells me, is that the ability to crop on the 1DsMII is much much better than the 10D.

Also, I found a DPR user that posted ISO comps. This also verifys the cropabiltiy. http://www.pbase.com/bkksw/1dsmarkii

Rad

[BigRed450]

Yes radtech the 1Ds Mkll is twice the camera as the 10D with more then twice the resolution and 4X+ the price. I would expect no less from such a fine piece of equipment.

In the case comparison between the 11MP older model 1Ds, the 10D actually had a higher pixel density (more pixels per sqr mm) yeilding better crop capabilities, however, the new 1Ds Mkll with 16.6MP should produce a higher density then the 10D, but not likely more then the 20D.

There are numerous comparisons and views on this subject that could go on for days

[RichardtheSane]

I think the only comparison that can be made is a drum scanned negative vs DSLR.

Any other scanner is the weakest link!

[Savagelogic]

I agree with most of the posters about it not being a fair comparison with using a flatbed scanner vs a drum scanner. However, when it comes down to it, doing this comparison to begin with really isn't fair.

Traditionally, 4x5 film is meant for prints, your highest quality print being a contact print. And images from digital cameras always look their best on a high resolution quality calibrated monitor. At this point you have a choice, scan the film in so you can compare it on screen (but this adds the scanner to the equation giving favor to the digital image) or you can print your digital image to compare it to the print from the 4x5 film.

To me, I would think it really comes down to your application of your image. If in the end of it all you are making prints, then you really should compare prints to see how the quality compares. If you primarily need your images on screen and prints are only secondary, then scanning the 4x5 to compare would make sense.

[Saturn]

Hello:

Great comparisons. I've got a few thoughts. Both digital files give a more uniform tonal transition from deep tones to black. Look at the hull of the blue sailboat and the blue hull of the large power boat above and to the right of the sailboat , and the transition from blue to black at the waterline. The digital files make for a nicer transition. Maybe (as you mentioned), if the chrome were drum scanned, it would have been better. I think both digital files exhibit a wider tonal scale at these dark ranges.

My pleasant surprise was the 10D. As the owner of a 10D, and the user of our studio's 20D, I'll say that the 10D (given it's lower resolution) held up admirably.

Given the extreme crop of the "sample-box" shown in your example, I think a bit of sharpening with the 10D file, viewed at a normal viewing distance (for a display print), would not be humiliating at all for a 6mp camera. The 20D would fare even better, again not bad for $1,500 bodies that 5 years ago would've been more than $25,000!

Thanks for the comparison effort.

Saturn