Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Official Stuff The Lounge 
Thread started 20 Mar 2012 (Tuesday) 16:03
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

MF film vs. the best of DSLRS

 
JimAndersson
Senior Member
Avatar
612 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
     
Mar 20, 2012 16:03 |  #1

Well. IQ-wise, is scanned medium format film nothing but a fond memory?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
krb
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,818 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Where southern efficiency and northern charm come together
     
Mar 20, 2012 16:06 |  #2

Define what you mean when you say "IQ."


-- Ken
Comment and critique is always appreciated!
Flickr (external link)
Gear list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JimAndersson
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
612 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
     
Mar 20, 2012 16:12 |  #3

krb wrote in post #14121164 (external link)
Define what you mean when you say "IQ."

Resolution, contrast, sharpness, dynamic range. (All at low ISO ofcourse.)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
krb
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,818 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Where southern efficiency and northern charm come together
     
Mar 20, 2012 16:24 |  #4

resolution: digital wins
contrast: depends on processing
sharpness: hard to separate from resolution
dynamic range: depends on the film, but generally film wins. film also tends to be smoother on the transitions at the edges of dynamic range.


-- Ken
Comment and critique is always appreciated!
Flickr (external link)
Gear list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
roosterslayer
Senior Member
994 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: SF, CA
     
Mar 20, 2012 17:00 |  #5

i think at this point in the game, nikon or canon's best dslr (5d mk iii or d800) can out resolve any medium format film offering but i'm pretty sure the DR of MF film is a lot better than that of full frame digital.

i basically agree with krb hehe.


flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
quiksquirrel
Senior Member
608 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Denmark
     
Mar 20, 2012 18:18 |  #6

Really, this again?

It has been tested to death. in it's native form, the right film can still kick any digital sensor's arse and hand it back to it in a paper bag.
Modern high resolution film is at a point where the glass in front of it is the limiting factor.

The real problem arises when you scan it. Very few scanners will not reduce the quality and those that are indeed up to the job, are most often not in the hands of regular people.

If you wan't to shoot MF film, keep it analog.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JimAndersson
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
612 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
     
Mar 21, 2012 02:18 |  #7

quiksquirrel wrote in post #14121892 (external link)
Really, this again?

It has been tested to death. in it's native form, the right film can still kick any digital sensor's arse and hand it back to it in a paper bag.
Modern high resolution film is at a point where the glass in front of it is the limiting factor.

The real problem arises when you scan it. Very few scanners will not reduce the quality and those that are indeed up to the job, are most often not in the hands of regular people.

If you wan't to shoot MF film, keep it analog.

What's your problem with this thread? Some questions are taboo? A forum is not a place for asking questions and discussing? You didn't have to read it or write in it if you didn't want to. Either way your opinion about film and digital sensors has been noted and, even though you sound patronizing, is of value for me.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AngryCorgi
-Bouncing Boy- a POTN peion
Avatar
11,547 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Surrounded by bunnies, squirrels and a couple of crazy corgis in NoVA...
     
Mar 21, 2012 07:38 |  #8

It's all about equipment. For the average person, you'll get a lot more out of shooting 35mm digital than MF film.

First off, the DR of modern FF DSLRs is actually BETTER than that of most COLOR films. The professional films that have better DR/resolution than digital are all B&W. If you want to shoot B&W and don't mind the immense cost and PITA of buying/processing/prof​essionally-scanning the film and only shoot B&W, then you can beat 35mm digital with MF Film (and even 35mm Film with some of the more exotic films). You can beat the resolution of digital with COLOR film on larger MF cameras such as a 6x9 camera, but not by much. You'll also be dealing with more grain and lower DR for the most part.

If you shoot film and want the "shoulder" that people refer to, you'll need to stay away from slide film. It acts more like digital and doesn't have a really smooth roll-off at the extreme.


AngryCorgi (external link) (aka Tom) ...Tools...

...Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, Wisdom is knowing not to include it in a fruit salad...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JimAndersson
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
612 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
     
Mar 21, 2012 13:58 |  #9

AngryCorgi wrote in post #14124844 (external link)
It's all about equipment. For the average person, you'll get a lot more out of shooting 35mm digital than MF film.

First off, the DR of modern FF DSLRs is actually BETTER than that of most COLOR films. The professional films that have better DR/resolution than digital are all B&W. If you want to shoot B&W and don't mind the immense cost and PITA of buying/processing/prof​essionally-scanning the film and only shoot B&W, then you can beat 35mm digital with MF Film (and even 35mm Film with some of the more exotic films). You can beat the resolution of digital with COLOR film on larger MF cameras such as a 6x9 camera, but not by much. You'll also be dealing with more grain and lower DR for the most part.

If you shoot film and want the "shoulder" that people refer to, you'll need to stay away from slide film. It acts more like digital and doesn't have a really smooth roll-off at the extreme.

What's this 'shoulder'?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
krb
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,818 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Where southern efficiency and northern charm come together
     
Mar 21, 2012 14:06 |  #10

JimAndersson wrote in post #14126874 (external link)
What's this 'shoulder'?

That's part of what I mentioned in my earlier post; the transitions into areas that are beyond the dynamic range of the film/sensor. Specifically it's the transitions on the highlight side of things while the transitions to under exposed black are called "toe".


-- Ken
Comment and critique is always appreciated!
Flickr (external link)
Gear list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nathan96
Senior Member
Avatar
267 posts
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Adelaide, Australia
     
Mar 22, 2012 00:40 |  #11

There are other reasons why people shoot film beside the technical ones.

Sometimes sentimental reasons > practical/technical/lo​gical reasons


flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JDB
Senior Member
400 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Anaheim, CA
     
Mar 22, 2012 03:20 as a reply to  @ nathan96's post |  #12

I shoot mostly digital for my paid work, and mostly film for my personal work... I've found that if you're into pixel-peeping at 100% on a monitor, digital generally wins, especially if you're working with flatbed scans or poor quality lab scans. Once you start making prints though, the differences aren't as apparent.

Technical, pixel-peeping details aside, film simply has a different look, which is often easy to miss if you can't look past the details and see the big picture, figuratively speaking.

I don't think it's as much a matter of one being better than the other, they're just two different tools.


www.JasonBoulanger.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JimAndersson
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
612 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
     
Mar 22, 2012 04:26 |  #13

The reason for me asking is that I really like shooting landscape like photos (tripod, mirror lock up and so on) and printing big. Because of this I would love a MF with digital back. That's impossible though. Would have to sell everything I've got, including my soul and then become a gigolo to afford buying one. That's where film comes in. I could afford MF with film back and maybe later get a used digital back sometime in the future. I have no experience with film though and love digital post processing.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
x_tan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,153 posts
Gallery: 137 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 496
Joined Sep 2010
Location: ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ 'ǝuɹnoqlǝɯ
     
Mar 22, 2012 07:23 |  #14

Get a 5D anything now, and start to shoot ;)
As you need 4 full-time jobs to get MF anything, then you'll have no time to shoot anyway :-(


Canon 5D3 + Zoom (EF 17-40L, 24-105L & 28-300L, 100-400L II) & Prime (24L II, 85L II, 100L, 135L & 200 f/2.8L II; Zeiss 1,4/35)
Sony α7r + Zeiss 1,8/55 FE
Nikon Coolpix A; Nikon F3 & F100 + Zeiss 1,4/50
Retiring  (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
S7000
My brain hurts
Avatar
7,097 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 55
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Sydney
     
Mar 22, 2012 07:41 |  #15

Don't be scared of film. It's worth learning and is a lot of fun! I shoot with a Canon 1N, a Carl Zeiss Contarex and a TLR. I find it a nice break as you really have to think about what you're doing, you can't just click away...

x_tan wrote in post #14131231 (external link)
Get a 5D anything now, and start to shoot ;)
As you need 4 full-time jobs to get MF anything, then you'll have no time to shoot anyway :-(

I picked up 2 Yashica TLR's and didn't break a $100. ;)


Phil | flickr (external link) | Gear | Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,069 views & 0 likes for this thread
MF film vs. the best of DSLRS
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Official Stuff The Lounge 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is aggrey12
1212 guests, 240 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.