Digital vs. Med format

[MSB]

Is it just my imagination, or is digital quality just not up to medium format ?

If allot of the quality comes from the lens, and digital is using 35mm .... i just dont see the same quality I get from my medium format stuff, and the larger, more quality lens. Your thoughts ?

[Alfred D.]

Erm... 'digital quality' and 'medium format' are apples & pears. They've got nothing to do with each other. Like hybrid cars have nothing to do with Formula 1.

[Mr. Pickles]

I would say that digital is not up to the quality you "could" get from medium format. But I haven't looked at dots and charts and graphs and such.

I only look at the images. And medium format pictures have a look to them that digital doesn't. And I like the look.

[sean_buerger]

I guess (negative) film images have generally a different "look & feel" than digital images. Just like TV cameras and Cine cameras. With medium format you up the resolution compared to 35mm film, so that digital looses it's main advantage.

The other advantage being the immediacy and low running costs compared to film of course.

Just my thoughts, Sean.

[michaelhcothran]

While you may be comparing "apples & pears" as someone stated, you can still make a personal choice as to which you prefer. Strictly from a statistical point of view, scanned medium format or large format film is going to yield much greater file sizes. And all else being equal, larger file sizes equals more detail.
Now, comparing DSLR's to medium format digital is a little easier. There is a direct correlation between digital quality and the size of the individual photo sensors. More mega pixels do not equal better quality. This is why you can squeeze 8, 10, or even 12 mp's into the tiny sensor of a P&S camera, but it will lack the final image quality of a larger DX or FX size sensor. And even stretching that further, it is why you can expect such stunning quality from medium format digital - the sensors are larger, allowing for larger photo sites.
In the opinion of many pros who do use high-end medium format cameras, the Hasselblad 16 mp CFV back designed for the older (almost extinct) V series cameras, has one of the best correlations between sensor size and photo site size. The individual photo sensors in this back are an amazing 9 microns, about the largest of any on the current market. And while it lacks the finer detail that a 39 mp back can yield, the clarity and cleanliness of its images are second to none.
Michael H. Cothran

[Latinbob]

Bigger film/imager equals better image quality. Just like in the old film days. Megapixels aren't as important as big photosites, like Michael says above.

MF and LF lenses are high quality, but there aren't as many choices as with 35mm lenses. It is always a trade-off. I'm experimenting again with 4x5 to get that huge negative, and better quality. But my D200 gives good results too. There is room for everything.

Bob

[UnivModels]

End use is the question.

Digital (10-12 mega pixels) is great for printing/promotions.

Film is superior, however, if your going for printing production (poster, billboards, etc.) digital is the preferred format.

Chris

ps Your art is going to end up digital. You shot 35mm to 8x10 in., submit transparency and the production unit makes digital file to go to the printer.

[riha]

So, what ius digital format for you

Medium format is also digital today.

So, i think you have to say "35mm" is not in par with medium or "APS-C" is not in par with Medium.