I tried a search but couldn't figure out what key words would reveal what I'm sure has been discussed a lot. I've been a MF and LF film shooter for stock. I know either the d700 or 5D's would do great for most of my commercial needs. What I would like to know is what grade 35mm digital camera would I need to match the quality represented in a 20x30 print from lets say a 67 Velvia 50 shot with a Mamiya 7? For 35mm I have used Canon most my career but skipped the whole auto focus generation. I'm free to choose any brand for I need all new glass. For commercial I'm leaning toward Nikon for flash and focus, D700. For landscape and large printing 5Dll. If the D700x would enter that might help my move.
To many of you digital veterans my post may seem lame but your patience and knowledge would be appreciated.
What I would like to know is what grade 35mm digital camera would I need to match the quality represented in a 20x30 print from lets say a 67 Velvia 50 shot with a Mamiya 7?
Depends on the resolution requirements of your subject, for the most part (although there are some tonal considerations as well). The primary point is whether the camera captures the detail you need in the original image.
I shoot portraits. In the past, I used primarily 6x7 and 4x5 film. I found that I needed at least 12 megapixels in 24x36mm format to replace my Mamiya RZ67 cameras for most portraits up to 20x30 at 3/4 length or tighter framing.
You see, a portrait is accepted as sharp if the facial hair is sharp. Moreover, facial hair is easy to interpolate because it's just a featureless line. As long as the original capture resolved the facial hair, you can successfully interpolate it to any size.
I found with the original 5D that the camera could resolve facial hair reliably at 3/4-length, and the resulting image can be interpolated to 20x30 and larger with such success that I had no qualms hanging those prints next to prints from my Mamiyas.
But that wasn't true of 20x30 enlargements of full-length portraits or groups because the camera simply hadn't resolved the facial hair when I pulled the framing back that far and enlarged the images so much. When the headsize gets to 3 inches or so in the print, viewers expect to see sharp facial hair (viewing distance is no substitute for resolution--people will get as close to a photograph as physically possible).
But 21 megapixels meets the bill--I can finally retire my Mamiyas.
Now, for other types of subjects...maybe not. People simply don't want to see any greater resolution in portraits than it takes to render facial hair sharply.
The resolution requirement of landscapes is practically infinite--however great you enlarge it, people want the feeling that there would be more detail revealed if they got a bit closer or enlarged the image a bit more. Viewers are subtly disappointed when the size of a landscape enlargement reveals the limit of detail.
In my opinion you will not be able to match 6X7 film with any 35mm digital body currently on the market, especially not at a 20X30 unless you've done a very poor scan on the 6X7 film. With a drum or high end flatbed scan, no 35mm would even come close. Its not just the resolution, but the color quality too.
From what I've seen, I honestly wouldn't expect the P65+ to keep pace with scanned 6X7. I know the P65+ files I've seen don't even come close to my 4X5 scanned on my Epson flatbed at home.
But that doesn't meant that you can't get good big prints from the minature format.
The good reasons to go with digital all revolve around convenience. Over some period of time, shooting some amount of film, you'll hit a break even cost on a particular digital back. Plus, you'll need to deal with a lab and spend time at a scanner. Those activities eat up time like crazy. But when it comes down purely to quality, you can get a 21+ megapixel file from fine grained 35mm film if the scanner will truly support the resolution. But few people are willing to deal with the hassles and fumes of wet mounting at home and aren't willing to pay the extremely high price charged by places like WCI and these scanners aren't exactly desktop scanners.
I know I'm in the minority here on this issue, but that is my opinion based on the results I've seen. I've seen lots of games played in the "tests" to make it look like digital has better detail, but the more I've learned having gone back to film, the more apparent the faults in those tests become.
Thanks for both of your thoughtful responses. I'm surprised even a fine grained 35mm can match the 21mp. Amazing, I looked up the P65... for near 40 grand! From what both of you mentioned, I will base my digital camera purchase with regards to my commercial requirements and leave my film cameras to my scenic work for now. I still have a freezer full of Velvia 5x7 I need to use up before I'm too weak to haul the camera around. Mrlandewig, would you think using a dedicated MF scanner like the Nikon 9000 would produce better results than messing with wet mount on the Epsen 750 flat bed? Until I enter self inkjet printing I'm probably going to continue purchasing drum scans for large Chromira prints.
Mrlandewig, would you think using a dedicated MF scanner like the Nikon 9000 would produce better results than messing with wet mount on the Epsen 750 flat bed?
Yes, it will (and there is an optional wet-mounting method available for the Nikon 9000, too). There shouldn't be any debate about that, however the question is whether the difference is worth the extra cost to any given individual.
Many thanks RDKirk. I do have the 750 which I've only used to scan for my website. Have not had the need yet for wet mounting. I'm used to seeing the characteristic of Fuji type R printing and now Chromira from my MF chromes. Cost aside and when comparing to Chromira prints 20x24 to 30x40, I'm wondering, if and when I enter ink jet printing, that I will see enough difference to using the 9000 over the epson 750. If you have any knowledge to this I'd appreciate it.
Mrlandewig, would you think using a dedicated MF scanner like the Nikon 9000 would produce better results than messing with wet mount on the Epsen 750 flat bed?
RDKirk wrote:
Yes, it will (and there is an optional wet-mounting method available for the Nikon 9000, too). There shouldn't be any debate about that, however the question is whether the difference is worth the extra cost to any given individual.
I agree with RDKirk regarding the Nikon 9000. It is simply a different class of scanner optimized for medium format or smaller and it will certainly produce an excellent master file from 6X7 film. The key advantages of wet mounting are that it keeps the film flat and it reduces the appearance of grain both resulting in a better scan. But there are better classes of scanners than the 9000 too.
I'm guessing the Imacon is one better yet more expensive. Are there others that you can suggest that are not astronomically more expensive than the 9000 or Imacon? Its been a while since I've done any research on these. Thanks
You'll find that the Imacon, while being considerably more expensive than the Nikon, is not really any better. Nikon has some really great hardware for a mid-range CCD scanner, hampered by some of the worst scanning software and support I've ever seen. The ironic thing is that the more you know about scanning and scanning software, the easier it is to actually bypass the crap and get decent scans off the Nikon.
First thing is that you have to do a custom focus on every scan, but don't set the focus point in the middle or your edges will be out. Try about half way between the middle and the edge.
Second, you absolutely have to go into NikonScan preferences and set the clipping values to the lowest value they will take. From memory I think it's .01. The defaults are crap and will force the software to clip both highlight and shadow detail from your scan. This adjustment alone will turn the scanner into a completely different animal. Unfortunately there is still no way to use a custom input profile in NikonScan, and no way to scan a scanner target without actually going through Nikon's own canned input profile.
For the record, I have used a series of Canon digitals and now use 1DsMKIII's in addition to Mamiya 7 and RZ. A Mamiya 7 Velvia still has better tonality and detail than the MKIII files when drum scanned on my Howtek 8000. The difference in detail isn't great, but it's there.
"What I would like to know is what grade 35mm digital camera would I need to match the quality represented in a 20x30 print from lets say a 67 Velvia 50 shot with a Mamiya 7?"
If you're careful, any of the 20+mp dslr's will be fine for your purposes. I've made 42 inch wide prints that are just amazing from the MKIII. At 30 inches wide, you'll be hard pressed to see a big difference in detail. There will be tonal and color differences, but it's easy enough to get either to do what you want.
Thanks for the link Dave. Being late, I was starting to glaze over from all the comparisons but did see that they found the 16Mp results close to the 645 drum scan which now may be some what similar to the now 20 plus Mp 35mm being close to what I shoot in MF 6x7. Though they point out that MF digital would be less time consuming compared to drum scanned 4x5, considering the cost of MF digital, I would still think 4x5 would be my choice. I skipped the 4x5 format and if I think the scene is worth it and I have time to capture it, I set up my 5x7.
Remember that the Tango drum scanner has a minimum aperture of 10 microns, making any resolution over 2540 ppi interpolated in at least on direction. On films like Velvia that can actually support somewhere in the 5-6000 ppi range or T-Max 100 which can approach 8000 ppi worth of information, you would see even better results from the film. Both the Howtek and ICG scanners use a 3 micron aperture which will yield very close to a true 8000 ppi - there is some loss in the optical system. The actual aperture behind the lens on the Howtek is 25.4 /8000 which is approximately 3.149 microns across.
Even though there is sometimes a real advantage to film, the digital is so seductive in its ease and cost, and for many if not most uses, it doesn't matter very much in the final print. Black and white is another matter...
Thanks again Peter. Hey, thanks to everyone helping me out. It's like I'm in an informational peace planet here compared to some of the other intensely emotional forum sites.
Why is it that FM forums are so much more respectful than, say, those over at Adobe? Anyhow, glad to share my personal experience and hope it helps you out.
Yes Peter, you have been very helpful. I would not include the Adobe forum, which for the few times I have been online with, are great. I spend time in DPReview and for the most part Is very informative, yet more than a few posts there can get very rude and annoying. Take Care. John
Jan 17, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Don't know. I can tell you that I have some 36 inch prints that were only 6 quality mega pixels, and in the right hands (mine) they go head to head with 35mm film. So assuming you do everything optimal (lens, f-stop, exposure, mirror lock up, raw processing, capture sharpening, uprezzing, and custom sharpening for out put) it seems that the 21MP Canons or the Nikon 24MP might do you just fine. Just a guess though.
