20D vs film for large prints

[tim]

I like to get a few of my photos blown up quite large - one meter across is the kind of range i'm looking at, or the slightly smaller A1 size. The 300D does pretty well in RAW mode, and I have to guess the 20D will do a little better. With the 300D if you're closer than one meter away you can see it's not perfect, but 1m+ it looks great.

I've been wondering if getting a film camera to use for these occasional shots that I want to get blown up. Would a camera that takes 35mm film be much better than the 20D? Or would I have to move up to a medium format camera? Medium format sounds pretty expensive, not being able to reuse my lenses would bne annoying.

Thoughts?

[Andy_T]

Tim,

if you're really interested in medium format, look for threads by a certain RDenney!

He has a Kiev 66, which is an affordable medium format camera (made in Russia) with a wide selection of lenses ('Pentacon 6' mount). With an adapter, these lenses can even be used on the Canon EOS system (manual focus only, of course)!

Like ... the world class 2.8/180 Carl Zeiss Sonnar lens that you can have on eBay for about 200$ ...

Best regards,
Andy

[tim]

Thanks Andy. I don't really want to get into film cameras at all, it sounds like a lot of hastle. Medium format would be even worse than 35mm. Does anyone know how 35mm film comares with the 20D?

[DocFrankenstein]

Does anyone know how 35mm film comares with the 20D?
My guess is that it's "close" to 35mm

Plus you'll need a quality enlarger...

IMO this is a good call to get that MKII

[tim]

I just got the 20D! I don't see another camera in my future for at least a year... once the full frame sensor cameras come down in price. Here's hoping the 30D has a 1.3 crop sensor, or even full frame, but I don't think it's likely :(

[FlyingPete]

Here's hoping the 30D has a 1.3 crop sensor, or even full frame, but I don't think it's likely :(

Unfortunately with the introduction of the EF-S lenses, it looks like Canon is settling on the 1.6 cropped sensors as a standard alternative to the full frame sensors for now.

[tim]

A cropped sensor is one way to distinguish the prosumer and pro cameras apart. I'd have a hard time justifying a 1D series camera, the 1D Mk II costs US$4K compared with the 20D's $1.5K. That's a bit much for a hobby.

[michael.luczkow]

A cropped sensor is one way to distinguish the prosumer and pro cameras apart. I'd have a hard time justifying a 1D series camera, the 1D Mk II costs US$4K compared with the 20D's $1.5K. That's a bit much for a hobby.
+1

[rssfhs]

Wait 3 or 4 years. Full frame sensor cameras with over 10 megapixels will cost around $1,000.

[tim]

Maybe.

Anyway, has anyone compared the images from 35mm film with a 20D?

[BDM]

Maybe.

Anyway, has anyone compared the images from 35mm film with a 20D?

I have a 300D but for what it's worth, here goes. I have been a film based photographer for many years and have a full darkroom for B&W and color work. I think it depends on the film speed and type (negative color or slide film). As far as color negative films go, at 100 ASA, they are very good and will make almost grainless prints up to at least 8X10. But bigger than that I would look to medium or large format if you want grainless prints with a good tonal range. ASA 800 and higher 35mm films have always been rather grainy for me, even at 8X10 print sizes.

At least up to 11X14 print sizes, I think the 300D holds its own with ASA 100 color negative film. I believe it is superior to 800 ASA film for prints up to that size, primarily because of the grain from faster color negative film.

Slide film is a different animal. I have not used it for making prints so I can't comment, but the most practical approach would be to scan it and make prints from the scan. That would involve a number of additional steps and equipment.

If you really want the very best prints at the meter wide size, you probably ought to be looking at medium format or even large format film cameras . . or maybe a 1Ds Mark II!. But all of those options are expensive.

The bottom line is I would stick with the 20D over 35 mm film for color work. Film is expensive, printing is more expensive and if you intend trying to do it yourself, there is a learning curve and quite an investment in laboratory equipment. If you intend to have film prints done at the local 1 hour photo emporium . . . forget it.

Bruce

[HKFEVER]

Maybe.

Anyway, has anyone compared the images from 35mm film with a 20D?
Couple days ago, I saw a thread here mention about the film and digital different with a colour chart. But I can find it now and can't remember the title. You can try to search it.

[HKFEVER]

I found it.

Try this two:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56772&highlight=velvia
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

[ScottE]

Theoretically there should be more resolution from a fine grained 35 mm picture than from a 20D.

I have shot 35 mm slide film for years and had many enlargements up to 16x24 inches made. I consider that to be about the upper size limit for 35 mm if you want to resolve fine detail.

Practically, if you make the same size print from a D60 the resolution is almost the same as for commercial prints from 35 mm. You might be able to get a little bit better resolution on prints from 35 mm by using a very expensive pro lab. I haven't had any prints larger than 13x19 inches made with my 20D yet, but from what I have seen it is slightly better than the D60.

Also, you should not just judge a print on fine resolution. I have found that there is much more shadow detail in a digital print that an Ilfochrome print from slide. Colour and uniformity of tone can also be slightly better from the 20D if a good RIP program is used to make large prints. Good composition and technique have much more to do with making a good, large print than whether it is shot on 35 mm or a 20D.

For wildlife photos I often use ISO 400 or even 800 in low light. Because slide film has considerable grain at those speeds, even the finest grain Provia, prints from the 20D have much less noise. I would rate the 20D better than 35 mm for ISO 400 or higher and large prints.

If you want to make prints one meter across you are pushing the limits of either 35 mm or the 20D. The best thing for prints that size would be a large format camera such as a 4x5 inch view camera. Even medium format cameras are not going to match that for prints that large.

I would be reluctant to start spending money on a medium format system at this time. I have read several reviews that claim the 1DS Mk II has about the same resolution as a medium format camera and better colour. It will probably be only a few years before a consumer grade camera is available that will match that performance.

[tim]

Thanks guys, I think i'll stick with the 20D. The 300D did a print at 30x20 that i'm quite happy with, so at the same size i'm sure the 20D will be even better :)

[Bob_A]

To match the resolution of ISO 100 negative film you would need a digital camera capable of 25 megapixels. However, the actual resolution you need depends on the subject matter and viewing distance. And resolution, while important, is only one part of what makes a great print.

If you need to get high enough resolution such that someone is going to be quite close to the print looking for details of the leaves in a picture of a forest ... then 35 mm film will easily win out over the 20D. And, at the size you are looking for, 35mm film won't be that great either (you need medium format).

I still have a B&W darkroom and doubt that I will be able to match the quality of prints that I've been able to make with 35mm negative film with my 20D. However, I gave up on color darkroom work years ago (too expensive) ... and using a DSLR allows me to finally have some control over how my color prints turn out (plus I'm having a blast with this thing). Also, since I probably won't be making many digital prints over 8x10, I won't be able to see a difference unless I crop a lot of the picture away.

You may find that even if you got a 35mm camera your pictures won't come close to matching the 20D because you have no control over the "post-processing" (lab work). It's pretty nice to be able to have a camera that gives instant feedback via the histogram as to if the shot is close to being correctly exposed ... then be able to adjust it to tweak things so it looks the way you remember the scene.

Just my $.02 ...

Just a thought ... you may be able to rent a medium format camera for the rare occassion that you want to try making these monster sized prints.

[HKFEVER]

I would be reluctant to start spending money on a medium format system at this time. I have read several reviews that claim the 1DS Mk II has about the same resolution as a medium format camera and better colour. It will probably be only a few years before a consumer grade camera is available that will match that performance.

I sold all my MF gear for 1DSMKII, just because this reason. Plus 35mm is way more easy to carry arround (not need to carry the tripod all the time).

[Olegis]

Tim, why don't you do what I did - I bought an old Pentax ME Super 35mm SLR with a 50mm f/1.7 lens on eBay for about $70. That thing is over 20 years old, but it's built like a tank and looks and operates beautifully. I bought it to play with some B&W film because no matter what I did in PS, I couldn't match the level of prints that my friend with a film SLR could produce, even in a local minilab (although it's quite good minilab). That kind of camera is cheap, reliable, offers you all the control you'll ever need (aperture-priority and manual modes, exposure compensation etc.) and has very high-quality optics - that Pentax 50mm f/1.7 is very highly regarded all over the internet. Give it a try and if you don't like it - sell it for the same price you bough it, these things are so cheap that there is almost no price reduction on them, no matter how many owners the camera had. But I promise you - once you look into the viewfinder, you'll fall in love with it - it's HUGE compared to the 10D/300D, extremely bright and is fully capable of very precise manual focussing.

I'm still on my first roll of film in it ... ;)

[tim]

Thanks for the info guys. Having to muck around with film is the last thing I want, I was really just wondering how much better 35mm or medium format would be. Given my "why take one shot when ten will do" style of shooting I think film would get pretty expensive pretty quickly.

The idea of hiring a medium format camera when I want huge prints is a good idea though. It'd cost US$80 per night, or so, at my local store, so even that wouldn't be cheap.

[mbze430]

As I have stated in the post "http://photography-on-the.net/forum...ighlight=velvia" The only reason I still have a 35mm film camera is that I can't produce the same color from Velvia 50, Provia 100F, NPH, and NPS from my 20D. Until there is some "action" or "plugin" that I can batch process 100-200 photos to match those type of films, it is just easier to shoot from those films.

As for enlargement with digital, take a look as Genuine Fractals. you can enlarge your 8.2MP 400-800% Actually using this plugin I was able to make very large prints with 35mm scanned on a Nikon CoolScan 5000 ED.

[Lesmac]

I think you need to consider a different angle on this, a 20D with a good lens (important) is capable of a similar quality to a 35mm scanned slide.
The 1DS MKII similarly is comparable to a medium format camera.
Rather than focus on comaparisons, concentrate on your post processing workflow, consider how you upsize an image, sharpening, noise removal etc. Get this right, and the results will follow.

I have some A3+ prints from my 1DS MKII that stand beside medium format prints, but, it took me a while to get my workflow right to achieve this.
My two pennorth

Les

http://lesmclean.photoblink.com/

[Ajay213]

I think you need to consider a different angle on this, a 20D with a good lens (important) is capable of a similar quality to a 35mm scanned slide.

I'd go with that for the most part, although a slide scanned on a real high-end scanner will give you more resolution and theoretically a larger blow-up. In the real world...well I doubt the differences would be easily visible to the eye, maybe if you shot just the right kind of picture the film would pull ahead (but for every one of those we can make a shot where the digital is far ahead) and that's ignoring the fact that I doubt anybody wants to take their slides/negatives to a lab that has mega-dollar scanners when "good" scanners are available at the consumer level (quite easy to find 4800 "real" dpi scanners around).

The 1DS MKII similarly is comparable to a medium format camera.

Let's not get crazy here. If you want to talk only about quality and image size capabilities then MF get's the nod (and large format blows them both out of the water). You are simply starting the whole process from a larger negative (or sensor in the DSLR's case), about 2.5x larger for 645 and 3.5x larger for 6x6.

Of course we all live in the real world where all the other pro's and con's do come into play and have been covered very well by other posters. And there are plenty of MF users who have dumped their systems for the 1ds simply because for their needs that little extra chunk of resolution and detail wasn't needed over the "pros" of using a 35mm based system.

Andrew

[D Boone]

I think unless you get into high end film, in perfect conditions, the rebel/d20 does better. I have scanned 35mm negatives, but you can see the grain... especially when the film was iso 400. My rebel takes crisper images. I haven't had access to a darkroom in a few years, but I had been interested in putting one back together...( most everything I need is going unused in my dads attic), but I don't have the space right now. I had toyed with the idea of getting one of the inexpensive seagull brand medium formats off B&H just to play with large B&W prints in a darkroom.

[Nabil-A]

Sorry to cross thread but i recently blew up a photo to 36"x24" off my G6 and quality was almost flawless even at less than 1 metre.

I believe as has been mentioned, workflow is key. Sticking with basics in terms of printing and editing and upsizing in tiff format at all times. For my most recent work, i outputted from raw to a 16bit tiff file then enlarged this file to 10800x7200 which would give 36"x24" at 300dpi and then optimised the image etc via photoshop filters.

[HKFEVER]

Sorry to cross thread but i recently blew up a photo to 36"x24" off my G6 and quality was almost flawless even at less than 1 metre.

I believe as has been mentioned, workflow is key. Sticking with basics in terms of printing and editing and upsizing in tiff format at all times. For my most recent work, i outputted from raw to a 16bit tiff file then enlarged this file to 10800x7200 which would give 36"x24" at 300dpi and then optimised the image etc via photoshop filters.
How many min. your Photoshop spend to up size the original raw file?
How long the pro lab spend on the printing?

[mvrekum]

Last week I blew up an A70 photo (3.2MP) to A0 format. The quallity was pretty good, but up close you could see the individual pixels.

However I still needed this image a bit larger, so I rasterized it and plotted it again:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~mvrekum/IMG_1461.JPG

It's 3.25 by 2.5 meters. Not bad for a 3.2MP camera.

[tim]

That impressive from an A70 - I have one too. Since I got an SLR it stays in the cupboard. I tried it ones, but it's so slow and the pics come out so poor compared with the 300D/20D I don't bother with it any more.The 300D/20D is a huge step up in image quality (which is guessable, given the price tags).

[MrChad]

Tim you have a really nice collection of glass. Even with the 20D I think you should pick up an old Canon A2 or Elan body. You can really do some nice prints ISO 100-160 print film or 50-100 ISO slide film. Some times the color vs. digital will just blow you away. Don't you want to see the part of your lenses you have been missing by not shooting full frame? :)

I find the best film results are ..... get the film and have it developed at a good quality lab, the results can amaze you. Get the roll developed as some 4x6 prints or slides and have larger prints made from the ones you like. Just remember, 36 frames is alot less then a 1g CF card. :lol:

I started with Kodak B&W film and an old Pentax in middle school so the wonders of film still hold a special place for me.

[tim]

I might see if I can borrow or hire a canon film camera some time, and see how things come out. I can do all my test shots with the 20D, then take a couple with film and hope for the best. Thanks Chad :) I'm just getting started on my lens collection btw ;)

[MrChad]

Thanks Chad :) I'm just getting started on my lens collection btw ;)

Well I think you picked some good starter lenses.

You don't need to preshoot, jump in with both feet. :p

Borrow a film body (That's an even better idea, duh...)and just blow a roll or two for fun on your next outing anywhere. I'm sure someone you know would gladly lend you a film body for your 300D for week. :lol:

But if you do pre-shoot, your 18-55 on the Digital will make a great test lens if you have the Tamron on the film body.

Purchasing the Sigma 18-125mm for my drebel was ideal because it let me match having a 28-200 on my Elan. Then, if need be, I could switch seamlessly between the two cameras and still keep the same field of view.

[tim]

I read a LOT on this site, thanks to everyone here I got some good lenses. Since I got the USM 100mm lens i'd be tempted to go purely with Canon lenses in future, for quality and speed. I'm tempted to get the 70-200F4, but I wonder if i'd be better off with a x-300mm lens... 200 doesn't seem that much. Maybe a 1.4TC would do the job... except I don't really have a use for one! Well, occasionally I do, not often enough to bother. A F4 IS model would rock :)

Good point about FOV/lens on film/digital bodies, i'll keep it in mind if I manage to borrow a film camera.

[mphoto]

Steve Hoffman's website has a fairly comprehensive article on camparing prints made from scanning 35 mm, medium format and 4x5 film and those from DSLRs. Note that he is not making comparisons of prints made from film in a chemical process. Still, his results are interesting. As other posters have commented, there is more to print quality than the total number of pixels in the source file. See
http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm

[tim]

What a great site, thanks mphoto! To be eye it looks like the 10D is as good as the 35mm film, but it depends on the scene. The 1Ds Mk II seems to be similar to the 4*5 or 6*6 film.

Thanks for the link, it answers my question perfectly :)

[rufis6]

If you want to see a pretty good discussion of this subject, go to the "Marketplace" forum and from there to the second page to a thread "Want detail - go back to film." There are some very good comments, and some not so good. But there is also a good link which attempts to explain the matter in a more objective fashion. See: http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html. I hope this will be of assistance to you.

[donhdefl]

be careful how you enlarge digital pictures. i have used one photo enlargement program with great success called imagener. it goes far beyond GF and costs less.

As for enlargement with digital, take a look as Genuine Fractals. you can enlarge your 8.2MP 400-800% Actually using this plugin I was able to make very large prints with 35mm scanned on a Nikon CoolScan 5000 ED.

[donhdefl]

that photo is awesome. how did you get it printed out so large? what did you use to blow it up? i am using a product called imagener - ever heard of it?

Last week I blew up an A70 photo (3.2MP) to A0 format. The quallity was pretty good, but up close you could see the individual pixels.

However I still needed this image a bit larger, so I rasterized it and plotted it again:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~mvrekum/IMG_1461.JPG

It's 3.25 by 2.5 meters. Not bad for a 3.2MP camera.