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

[Neil]

I would like to know people's opinions on how the perceived image quality (perhaps a subjective concept, at least to a certain degree) of the Canon 1Ds mk II compares to that of medium format.

For instance, what do you consider to be the relative print sizes possible for (a) the Canon 1Ds mk II and (b) a MF camera using a fine-grained film, if we make the following assumptions: the viewer is looking at the print from 30 cm (1 ft) away; the prints are of similar/identical quality in terms of comparison of equal areas of the prints (eg. a 1 cm square crop from each of the prints) - in other words, the prints are of the same technical quality per centimetre or per inch. I mean, can a digital print get to the same size print from MF while maintaining the quality? Can digital surpass MF?

A couple of comments before we get started: I'm not trying to start a digital vs film war here; also, I know people keep saying that this or that digital camera can match MF quality, but I want to read about your opinions in terms of some kind of quantification (insofar as comparing apples & oranges can be quantified). In addition, I have no hidden opinion on this - I actually want to know what you guys think - as I have not really got into printing either digital or MF for myself as yet (but I want to get into it soon!). I've chosen the Canon 1Ds mk II as the comparison as it is a camera that I do not have, but which I would very much like to buy one day.

[photosbymorgan2]

What size print are you talking about? I have a 30 x 40 print taken with my 20D camera and I am sure I will get a really nice one from my 1D Mark II. For a 1Ds Mark II, I figure the quality would be even better. The only true way to find out which one is best would be to take a picture of a person or scene with a medium format camera and then the same with the 1Ds Mark II. Have both printed to the same size be it 30 x 40 or larger then compare them side by side. Have different people look at both prints without knowing which was shot with film and which with digital and see what type of results you get. I would be interested in knowing how the digital would fair against the film.

[Tim Gray]

Here's a link to an article by Alain Briot compapring 1DSMKII to 4x5* http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml

[Neil]

Originally Posted by photosbymorgan2

What size print are you talking about?

I guess any size print would do - then the question would be, What sized print would you get with the other camera if you enlarged it so as to give the same 'per inch' quality as the first print has?

Originally Posted by Tim Gray

Here's a link to an article by Alain Briot compapring 1DSMKII to 4x5 http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml

Thanks, I'll check that out!

[AndreNapier]

The advantage of MF is not in size of an enlargement of the final output but in the superior drawing of its lenses. Canon 1ds MkII produces images that are equal or sharper than 22mp back but is limited by AA filter install over a sensor and by Canon lenses. Images are dull as compared to digital backs images. Anybody who ever shot female portrait with RZ67 and Mamiya lenses or male portrait with Zeiss glass knows the limitation of Canon glass. There is a reason for pross making a portraits with MF and shooting wildlife and sport with Nikon and Canon.
AndreNapier.com

[Neil]

Originally Posted by AndreNapier

The advantage of MF is not in size of an enlargement of the final output but in the superior drawing of its lenses.

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. I have no idea myself whether or not this is true, but the argument went that it is the size of the enlargement which puts MF ahead...
I have also heard about the AA filter reducing image 'quality' (in terms of resolution at least).

In any case, I would just love to get myself a digital back for my Hasselblad; I would also love to get myself a 1Ds mk II... but, unfortunately for me, both are beyond my finances

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us Andre...

_________________________________________________

By the way, do you have a personal preference between the digital backs vs. the 1Ds mk II, based upon your experience??

[lecter]

being a MF digital back owner and user, there is a difference in the files and the quality.
I have my P25 attached to a Hassy H1. I use the H1 lenses.
The H1 @ 22MP from the P25 eats the 1Ds Mark II (I have this and the 1D mark II and a 20D)
I am seriously contemplating the P45 (for the hell of it)
Life is short and temporary, like money when it's anywhere me.
hehe
Rob

www.1ds.com

[Neil]

Originally Posted by lecter

I am seriously contemplating the P45 (for the hell of it)
Life is short and temporary, like money when it's anywhere me.

Well, what a wonderful attitude to have!! A pity I can't afford to buy these things...

[lecter]

Originally Posted by Neil

Well, what a wonderful attitude to have!! A pity I can't afford to buy these things...

remember it's "only" an upgrade.....

hehe

[Gee]

Originally Posted by lecter

I am seriously contemplating the P45 (for the hell of it)
Life is short and temporary, like money when it's anywhere me.
hehe
Rob

www.1ds.com

The P45 just has too big a file for my liking. Doing all that processing will make your life even shorter. For the landscape guys and the folks shooting for large print size, OK. For me, I have to shoot hundreds of shots or more on a job the last thing I need is files this big. It's overkill. Like shooting 8 X 10 for a shot that will appear 4X5 in a magazine. Most of my images never get bigger than a double page spread. I'd be very happy with just 22 megapixels.* (who thought we'd be saying just 22 megapixels)

G

[lecter]

Originally Posted by Gee

. (who thought we'd be saying just 22 megapixels)

G

could not agree more.... Only only only...... actually the 31 MP looks nice too... If only I could aford one of them too.... then....

Actually I have a problem with my P25... the damn battery is stuck in there.. what a pain..... where o I get it fixed in thailand?? lol

Oh well, it's a nice problem to have I guess.....

Rob

[jwind]

The Canon 1Ds MK II is AT LEAST as sharp as Medium format film. I've seen both printed on an Epson 9600 @ 44X62inches. I prefer the Canon Images actually... but like a previous poster said the advantage to MF is the 'better glass' though that's beginning to change as well.

We also have a Sinar 54M digital back which is still far superior.

BTW, this all brings up a question i've had for a while. Why don't we have a Large Format forum?

[Cool Camel]

Originally Posted by jwind

BTW, this all brings up a question i've had for a while. Why don't we have a Large Format forum?

We now do. Please go post some topics there, as I hate to have unused forums sitting around. I'm ignorant about large format, too, so let me know how I should describe the forum on the main page. Thanks.

[jwind]

Originally Posted by admin

We now do. Please go post some topics there, as I hate to have unused forums sitting around. I'm ignorant about large format, too, so let me know how I should describe the forum on the main page. Thanks.

I for one would be interested in:

-LF applications
-Digital back solutions/problems
-perspective control
-Supporting equipment i.e. monitors, software

Thankyou!

[Alice Morrison]

jwind, why don't you post a topic about each and get things started?

[Wilt]

<<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. I have no idea myself whether or not this is true, but the argument went that it is the size of the enlargement which puts MF ahead...>>

1. Larger format lenses do not need to have same linepair/mm resolution as 35mm lens...merely because to make the same enlargement you need proportionately lower magnfications. For 35mm enlarged to 16x20, that is 16x magnification. If its lens starts with 80 ll/mm on film, it ends up with 5 ll/mm on the final print. If you start with MF 6x6, and if you assume 64 ll/mm lens resolution, with only a 9.2x magnification for the same resultant 16x20, or 6.9 ll/mm on the final print. Similarly, for 4x5 camera lenses, only 4x magnification is required, and if the lens has 40 ll/mm resolution, it ends up needing to deliver on 10 ll/mm on the final print! So you can see that lens requirements are proportionately most demanding for smallest formats.

2. Assuming equal lens performance across the board (which we already have shown is most demanding of 35mm), there is much more film area portraying the same subject filling the same frame. Because there is more area, there is better gradation of tonality. This is best illustrated with a color photo in the newspaper, compared to the same photo in National Geographic. Same photo, much nicer rendition of the subject even though both might be reproduced to the same printed size on the page. For a fixed amount of subject, there is 2.25x as much color clouds on MF film to capture the same subject on 35mm due simply to format size. So the MF image impresses observers much more, even projected to the same size and assuming lenses could deliver the same ll/mm at the viewing magnfication. (I witnessed this more than one in actual slide shows.)

3. In published comparison tests, they always seem to take a 1st generation 35mm digital image, and compare it to a second generation MF digital image...it was SCANNED to be turned into a digital file for comparison. That is hardly an apples-to-apples test! What if the scanner is the limiting factor, and it does not scan everything that is in the original film

So while the pixel count of current dSLR might be on par with a scanned MF image, the tests do nothing to address the relative gradation of tonality seen in larger media (item 2 above).

[jwind]

Originally Posted by Wilt

3.* In published comparison tests, they always seem to take a 1st generation 35mm digital image, and compare it to a second generation MF digital image...it was SCANNED to be turned into a digital file for comparison.* That is hardly an apples-to-apples test!* What if the scanner is the limiting factor, and it does not scan everything that is in the original film

So while the pixel count of current dSLR might be on par with a scanned MF image, the tests do nothing to address the relative gradation of tonality seen in larger media (item 2 above).*

As a commercial photographer, I find that clients that "want film b/c it looks better" : (they have the option of LF digital, 35mm digital and MF film mind you) scan their MF negatives anyway... this day and age anyway.

[k8do]

I am chiming in a bit late here, but I have just seen this topic... I did want to comment on the statement that a 35mm digital print is as sharp as a MF print... I would urge that all read this website:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm#examples
Look carefully at all the example scans... Click on all of the links in the article and draw your own conclusions...
I might mention that I pay attention to the red roof tiles in the motel images in all the scans as they give me the best clue as to overall accutance and accurate reproduction of detail... The other item to look at is the edge of the roof/wall on the bank building images... About 2/3 of the way from left to right along the top of the wall there is a defect in the roof cap... In many of the digital camera pics this is all but invisible.. In the 12 gig digi scans it is better seen, and best seen in the MF negative scans... Just another point on reproduction of texture...

Another point I would make is that visually comparing a digital picture versus a digital scan of a film (2nd generation) or print (3rd generation) on a 72 dpi computer screen is mostly a waste of time... Only gross changes can be seen... The valid comparison would be to make a good ink print from the dig camera file and a good silver print from the MF negative in 8X10 and hang them side by side... You will find that illuminating, especially for those who have never seen an 8X10 silver print from a MF negative...

Now, having made statements that can be interpreted as being anti digital, let me make a few points...
I shoot digital with a Kodak P&S for family pics... It is handy, simple, and gives my wife small color prints for relatives... I happen to like it... I suspect that a 5x7 print would be acceptable for hanging on a wall... I am considering moving up to a better digi camera...
I also shoot an F5 (mostly for the telephoto glass) with both color print and Velvia transparencies...
I also shoot MF in B&W and with Velvia... (Mamiya TLR)
I also shoot 4X5 in B&W and Velvia... (Speed Graphic)
I have no axe to grind here... Digital is coming of age and the 12 Gig sensors make color photos that look awsome at 8X10 hanging on a wall... Digital post processing allows you to do more with the image than you can in a darkroom... But when I compare a digital print to a 35mm print to a MF print to a print from the 4X5, there is just no contest... The tonality and sense of surface texture is best from the 4X5...

The bottom line is that it is "horse for courses"...
If I were shooting pics for Arizona Highways, National Geographic, Smithsonian, etc., I would still be shooting color transparencies, mostly 4X5...
If I were shooting pics for publication on national magazines or the newspaper I would be using one of the high end, DSLR cameras - they are now the only game in town...
If I were shooting Lands End catalogue pics I would be using a MF digital back on my Hassie, et. al...
If I were shooting high school yearbook pics I would be using a D70, or the like...
If I were an enthusiast I would be shooting a digi camera (which one depends on your budget), fixing the file in PS, and printing on a home color printe, or taking the memory chip to the Kodak storer...

cheers ... denny (been destroying cameras for over 50 years)

[Paul Shields]

Good points Denny, and I wouldn't disagree with your findings. I think it is slightly absurd if someone was claiming that digital images resolve better than MF, or even 35mm in most cases - I have many scans of Velvia slides that just keep on going no matter how much I crop them (note that each scan creates a 60MB file). This isn't going to happen with current digital captures as they have a much lower cut off point beyond which they can not be magnified without pixelation. However, I still shoot digital most of the time as the crop sizes are fine for my prints (mostly 7x5 and A4). If you are going for very small crops of a digital capture then you will come a cropper (as we say in the UK).

[jwind]

Originally Posted by k8do

I am chiming in a bit late here, but I have just seen this topic... I did want to comment on the statement that a 35mm digital print is as sharp as a MF print...* I would urge that all read this website:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm#examples

I've had it it out with Ken before on a number of subjects... he's a film man through and through If you ask me. His "comparisons" are less then accurate at best. And about as unbiased as the current U.S. administration

Originally Posted by k8do

The valid comparison would be to make a good ink print from the dig camera file and a good silver print from the MF negative in 8X10 and hang them side by side.

Right on, of course this is what I was speaking of... we (the studio I work at) have done this with a number of prints. The only variation would be size, we printed them roughly 2x as big. Ill stand by my original statement...