Medium Format vs the Canon 1Ds Mk II: A Comparison of Image "Quality"

[Wilt]

Originally Posted by Neil

I have read elsewhere (and I cannot remember where) that, in terms of resolution per millimetre, MF lenses are not as good as some 35mm-format lenses.

It is true that generally the lenses for larger formats do not have as high a line-pair/mm specification as 35mm...but they don't NEED it!!! For example, a 35mm format lens might need 64 ll/mm resolution for good (not superb) performance, but a Med Format camera needs only about half that to achieve superior results because the images from 35mm have to be magnified about twice as much merely to make the same size final print. Similarly Large Format lenses need only 1/4 the lens resolution simply to equal 35mm format lenses since the film size is 4x larger!

Having said that, the true superiority of larger formats comes from the fact that MORE NEGATIVE (in the case of film) portrays the same subject, so that there are more color clouds or more silver grains per unit area of the subject, allowing the film to have visibly superior tonality. I showed MF slides projected to the same size as others' 35mm slides, and immediately the oohs and aahs were coming from the other photography workshop attendees because the slides were much more lifelike and striking to the viewer!

--wilt

[Jim Jones]

Image quality can be analyzed on a basis of contrast, color fidelity, pixels, l/mm, MTF. etc. However, there is more. The conditions under which an image is captured also affect image quality. The end use of the image affects quality. Intermediate steps affect quality. Limited finances can limit image quality.

The DSLR is portable, and great for moving subjects. It excells for sports, where chance can be important. Some clients demand many, many images. Super long lenses are more practical on the DSLR. Thus, the DSLR may produce better images in some applications.

Where the shoot is slower and more deliberate, the MF camera shines. The best MF cameras of a generation ago still excell at this work. Unlike state-of-the-art digital gear, used MF cameras are affordable. For scenery the LF view camera is still supreme. Even a 50-year-old press camera that might sell for $200 or $300 can produce fine scenics. Photographers who use high quality and perhaps old LF equipment, and print directly from the negatives, appreciate this.

[fotofactus]

I don't think the following link has been suggested, but I thought it was quite interesting and informative, though a little long:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/368633

[Wilt]

When the comparison was 35mm film vs. Med Format film, those who could see shots on the SAME FILM projected onto the same screen could see the advantage of MF film shot in its better tonality and color rendition and realism and even detail. The question then was NOT 'resolution' necessarily, with film. Now with digital, everyone seems to FORGET the past, and they think ONLY about resolution! Come on, folks, wake up! If you could take Velvia and shot with both formats and see that the MF shot was superior then, why would it be diffferent today, with the same lenses and (big presumption, admittedly...) identical pixel pitch (which requires higher total pixel count in the larger format sensor, of course)?

Yes, comparisons tend to be DSLR vs. Med Format film...comparing apples and oranges. Most people don't know what makes for a 'better' shot, so it is understandable that 'DSLR shot quality is as good as Med Format' discussions abound, and that they all seem to talk about resolution or detail as the criteria. It is a bit like comparing al dragster to a Ferrari and debating 'quicker'...acceleration is not the same asr top speed and 'quality' is not merely 'resolution' alone.

Digital has some advantages that film cannot hope to achieve...speed of results, ability to fix problems and save shots that otherwise would be in the waste basket on film. It is those reasons, and others, that causes pros to abandon Med Format for 1DSII, not quality alone! If you can get results faster, with less per-shot expense, and still please your customers, why not take advantage of the 1DSII and put the Med Format on the shelf!?!?! But for ultimate image quality, the rule in the past has been 'larger is better'. Maybe with digital that axiom may not remain as true, but for now 'as good as' is still a very mushy concept in most minds!

[kgphoto]

The real question should be for the type of work and enlargements you do, which of these cameras produce the best image AND have a work flow you can live with.

If the speed and convenience of digital allows you do to more work and make more money and the client comfortably pays you money for that level of quality, then you are done.

On the other hand, if you want the best possible image, regardless of cost of time and materials, then just shoot the same subject and make 8x10's or your most common size and pick the one you like best. Simple.

Years ago, I couldn't get the same image quality out of 35 mm as I could from 120. So I shot MF. Now if I am going to make prints from scanned MF film and it isn't any better than 35mm Digital, then I am wasting time and money shooting MF film. If I am going to order Enlarger prints from MF film, and I get better images, then that is worth it.

So who has tried the above experiment and what were your results?

[student]

Originally Posted by kgphoto

The real question should be for the type of work and enlargements you do, which of these cameras produce the best image AND have a work flow you can live with.

If the speed and convenience of digital allows you do to more work and make more money and the client comfortably pays you money for that level of quality, then you are done.

On the other hand, if you want the best possible image, regardless of cost of time and materials, then just shoot the same subject and make 8x10's or you most common size and pick the one you like best. Simple.

Years ago, I couldn't get the same image quality out of 35 mm as I could from 120. So I shot MF. Now if I am going to make prints from scanned MF film and it isn't any better than 35mm Digital, then I am wasting time and money shooting MF film. If I am going to order Enlarger prints from MF film, and I get better images, then that is worth it.

So who has tried the above experiment and what were your results?

After: shooting dslrs, scanning 35,645,6x6,6x7,6x9,4x5,5x7,8x10 negatives, printing 35, 645..yadda,yadda...8x10 negatives, I find that the best quality is obtained contact printing, in descending order, 8x10, 5x7, 4x5....next is enlarging 4x5..yadda,yadda...35mm...next is scanning and digitally printing same formats in same descending order.... and lastly, shooting with a 35mm-type dslr. Disclaimer: I shoot black and white film EXCLUSIVELY.

Addendum: although I primarily shoot 4x5-8x10, I just acquired a Fuji s-5, and therefore no longer shoot 35mm film. In my opinion, better than previous digicameras I have owned: d1x, d2x, d70, 20d. Looks like film. Really. I have actually begun to shoot color....because of the extraordinary colors this camera delivers.

[kgphoto]

At a recent trip to a local super pro lab with LADIG I found the best images were digitally scanned from film images. They had the best color, contrast and exposure and resolving detail of anything else. I am trying to pin down whether is was 4x5 or medium format originals. My gut tells me it was 4x5.

They also had excellent images from 35mm Dslrs, but they couldn't compare to the others.

[lecter]

I did get a P45....
A Hassy is more fussy and tricky for shooting wildlife etc. Even getting it up a Namibian dune with a tripod...

but "wow", love the files.

Rob

Below is a file Lightroom rejected. Three P45 images stitched.



Dune 45 Pano ....

[UnivModels]

What is you ultimate use? If your going to be printed there going to scan to art for publication. Maybe you can save a step and provide digital files.