DSLR or Scanned MF

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by chasfs, Aug 10, 2005.

  1. chasfs

    chasfs Guest

    There are those who claim that the 12 and 16MP DSLRs are a match for
    medium format. I was surprised at how well an image from a friend's D70
    uprezzed. But when it gets down to the impact of a print, at 24"x30",
    I'm still sticking with scanned 6x7 slides. For prints that size has
    anyone switched? If so, which DSLR?
    Thanks!
    -chasfs
    http://chasfs.com
    chasfs, Aug 10, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "chasfs" <> wrote:

    > There are those who claim that the 12 and 16MP DSLRs are a match for
    > medium format. I was surprised at how well an image from a friend's D70
    > uprezzed. But when it gets down to the impact of a print, at 24"x30",
    > I'm still sticking with scanned 6x7 slides. For prints that size has
    > anyone switched? If so, which DSLR?


    The best dSLR (the Canon 1Ds mk2) produces 4992 x 3328 pixel images. At
    24x30", that's about 140 pixels per inch. If you or your friend have an A4
    photo quality inkjet, crop out a 1120 x 1400 pixel section of a D70 image
    and print that at 8x10.

    Now note that 24x30 from 6x7 is an 11x enlargement. Get a good 11x14 print
    from a good _35mm_ slide made, since that'll be roughly the same print
    quality as 6x7 at 24x30. I think you'll like the film print better than the
    digital print.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 10, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. chasfs

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <>,
    chasfs says...
    > There are those who claim that the 12 and 16MP DSLRs are a match for
    > medium format. I was surprised at how well an image from a friend's D70
    > uprezzed. But when it gets down to the impact of a print, at 24"x30",
    > I'm still sticking with scanned 6x7 slides. For prints that size has
    > anyone switched? If so, which DSLR?


    You can use a panorama software and for instance stitch together four
    8MP images (arranged as 2x2), which will give you an image in the size
    of 20-30MP, depending on perspective and overlap between images. Such an
    image should easily outperform a MF image. Lots of work to create a
    really seamless panorama though.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
    Alfred Molon, Aug 10, 2005
    #3
  4. chasfs

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <>,
    Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >
    >You can use a panorama software and for instance stitch together four
    >8MP images (arranged as 2x2), which will give you an image in the size
    >of 20-30MP, depending on perspective and overlap between images. Such an
    >image should easily outperform a MF image.


    Depends what you're using it for. A 20-30 MP image won't contain the sort of
    crtical fine detail that you can get from a slide taken on a good 6*7
    camera, such as the Mamiya 7. For a lot of subjects this won't matter (and
    once you get to this level, there is enough detail to sharply fill your
    normal visual field, so it only really matters for grain-sniffing anyway),
    but for some subects, a MF print from a slide will still have a certain
    sharpness when you stick your nose up against it that the 20-30MP digital
    image will lack.

    >Lots of work to create a really seamless panorama though.


    You sound like a man who hasn't tried Hugin.
    Chris Brown, Aug 10, 2005
    #4
  5. chasfs

    Bill Hilton Guest

    > chasfs writes ...
    >
    >There are those who claim that the 12 and 16MP DSLRs are a match
    >for medium format.


    Some say that about the 16 Mpix Canon 1Ds MII, fewer say it about the
    12 Mpix Nikon D2x because the sensor is so much smaller. Then again,
    many don't think the 16 Mpix Canon is a quite match for MF either.

    >when it gets down to the impact of a print, at 24"x30",
    >I'm still sticking with scanned 6x7 slides.


    I like to stop at 20x24" with 6x7 myself but I see your point. I have
    an 11 Mpixel dSLR body and don't think prints from it are superior to
    645 scans, fwiw.

    >For prints that size has
    >anyone switched? If so, which DSLR?


    Those using 22 megapixel digital backs for medium format seem to feel
    the print quality is superior to scanned mf film. Phase One just
    announced 31 and 39 Mpixel backs for mf and it's quite likely those
    would be superior to mf film.

    As for the Canon 16 Mpixel body, here's an interesting comparison of it
    to 4x5" scanned film (Canon lost but not by as much as you might
    think).
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml

    Canon will likely bring out a 22 Mpixel full frame version either next
    February or a year from Sept (if they keep to their 18 - 24 month
    design cycles) and that one might be a good match for scanned 6x7. In
    the meantime I've replaced 35 mm film with 8 and 11 Mpixel dSLR bodies
    but still use my medium format systems for landscape, though I must say
    scanning MF film seems so backwards compared to processing RAW files
    that I'll be glad when I can get similar quality from digital and sell
    off the film bodies.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Aug 10, 2005
    #5
  6. "Bill Hilton" <> wrote:
    >
    >>when it gets down to the impact of a print, at 24"x30",
    >>I'm still sticking with scanned 6x7 slides.

    >
    > I like to stop at 20x24" with 6x7 myself but I see your point. I have
    > an 11 Mpixel dSLR body and don't think prints from it are superior to
    > 645 scans, fwiw.


    Exactly. You only have to scan 645 at 2000 ppi to get 13MP, and while 4000
    ppi scans are pretty funky, one can get a very nice 2000 ppi from film.

    > As for the Canon 16 Mpixel body, here's an interesting comparison of it
    > to 4x5" scanned film (Canon lost but not by as much as you might
    > think).
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml


    Look again at what he's seeing at 30x40. That's a _big_ difference.

    > Canon will likely bring out a 22 Mpixel full frame version either next
    > February or a year from Sept (if they keep to their 18 - 24 month
    > design cycles) and that one might be a good match for scanned 6x7.


    Really? I actually doubt it. At least for wide angle work at, say 24 x 30.
    An enlargement from a Mamiya 7 would be an 11x enlargement, but from the
    24x36 sensor, it's going to be 24x. There's no way a retrofocus lens at 24x
    can compete with a Biogon clone at 11x.

    > In
    > the meantime I've replaced 35 mm film with 8 and 11 Mpixel dSLR bodies
    > but still use my medium format systems for landscape, though I must say
    > scanning MF film seems so backwards compared to processing RAW files
    > that I'll be glad when I can get similar quality from digital and sell
    > off the film bodies.


    I'm still knocked out at what an enormous amount of detail a 4000 ppi scan
    of 6x7 (Mamiya 65/4.0) has. I suspect that 16.7 MP will knock out 645/6x6
    even for landscape work, but not 6x7.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 10, 2005
    #6
  7. chasfs

    Bill Hilton Guest

    > David J. Littleboy writes ...
    >
    >The best dSLR (the Canon 1Ds mk2) produces 4992 x 3328 pixel images.
    >At 24x30", that's about 140 pixels per inch.


    No one who knows what they are doing would actually print it at 140 ppi
    though, they'd upsample to a more printer-friendly number. I usually
    upsample to 360 ppi for my Epson 4000 prints for example, and these
    look much better than prints sent at lower ppi values. One of the
    advantages of digital files over film scans is how smooth they are and
    how well they upsample.

    >If you or your friend have an A4 photo quality inkjet, crop out a
    >1120 x 1400 pixel section of a D70 image and print that at 8x10.


    This won't tell you much because the D70 sensor is different than the
    1Ds M II sensor, because the Canon processing software is different
    than the Nikon software, and because the file should be upsized before
    printed.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Aug 10, 2005
    #7
  8. "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> David J. Littleboy writes ...
    >>
    >>The best dSLR (the Canon 1Ds mk2) produces 4992 x 3328 pixel
    >> images. At 24x30", that's about 140 pixels per inch.

    >
    > No one who knows what they are doing would actually print it at
    > 140 ppi though, they'd upsample to a more printer-friendly number.
    > I usually upsample to 360 ppi for my Epson 4000 prints for
    > example, and these look much better than prints sent at lower ppi
    > values.


    Indeed, that is why upsized images from programs like Qimage look so
    good. Qimage even uses the optimal/native ppi for most Epsons of 720
    ppi (600 ppi for Canon), resampling the original file on-the-fly (!)
    to 17280 x 21600 pixels for a 24x30" output with re-sharpening for the
    actual magnification losses.
    It uses an advanced proprietary ("pyramid") interpolation method to
    achieve natural looking (not pixelized, no artificial edges)
    magnification. Qimage's differences with e.g. Photoshop become even
    larger with larger output size, and again it is not necessary to
    pre-produce large print files for each output size because the print
    spool-file is produced and sharpened on-the-fly. It really boosts
    productivity and quality.

    Bart
    Bart van der Wolf, Aug 10, 2005
    #8
  9. "Bill Hilton" <> wrote:
    >> David J. Littleboy writes ...
    >>
    >>The best dSLR (the Canon 1Ds mk2) produces 4992 x 3328 pixel images.
    >>At 24x30", that's about 140 pixels per inch.

    >
    > No one who knows what they are doing would actually print it at 140 ppi
    > though, they'd upsample to a more printer-friendly number.


    Upsampling does not change the information content of the image, it only
    eliminates unnecessary artifacts.

    Since I print with Qimage, I keep forgetting how easy it is to do the wrong
    thing.

    > I usually
    > upsample to 360 ppi for my Epson 4000 prints for example, and these
    > look much better than prints sent at lower ppi values. One of the
    > advantages of digital files over film scans is how smooth they are and
    > how well they upsample.


    Again, that doesn't increase detail. Get your nose closer than 18" or so to
    a 200 dpi print (however upsampled), and you'll see it's not photographic
    quality.

    >>If you or your friend have an A4 photo quality inkjet, crop out a
    >>1120 x 1400 pixel section of a D70 image and print that at 8x10.

    >
    > This won't tell you much because the D70 sensor is different than the
    > 1Ds M II sensor, because the Canon processing software is different
    > than the Nikon software, and because the file should be upsized before
    > printed.


    It'll get you in the ballpark. The dSLR images are really quite close in
    terms of the amount of detail per MP.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 11, 2005
    #9
  10. chasfs

    HvdV Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:

    >>As for the Canon 16 Mpixel body, here's an interesting comparison of it
    >>to 4x5" scanned film (Canon lost but not by as much as you might
    >>think).
    >>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml

    >
    >
    > Look again at what he's seeing at 30x40. That's a _big_ difference.

    I wonder how much of that should be attributed to that maybe not so great
    Canon lens: were do these red rims come from: chromatic aberration combined
    with too much sharpening?
    >
    >
    >>Canon will likely bring out a 22 Mpixel full frame version either next
    >>February or a year from Sept (if they keep to their 18 - 24 month
    >>design cycles) and that one might be a good match for scanned 6x7.

    >
    >
    > Really? I actually doubt it. At least for wide angle work at, say 24 x 30.
    > An enlargement from a Mamiya 7 would be an 11x enlargement, but from the
    > 24x36 sensor, it's going to be 24x. There's no way a retrofocus lens at 24x
    > can compete with a Biogon clone at 11x.

    This crop was about 12mm from the center with a retrofocus *zoom* lens at its
    short extreme range, might be asking too much.

    -- Hans
    HvdV, Aug 11, 2005
    #10
  11. "HvdV" <> wrote in message
    news:4293b$42fba450$3e3aaa83$...
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >
    >>>As for the Canon 16 Mpixel body, here's an interesting comparison of it
    >>>to 4x5" scanned film (Canon lost but not by as much as you might
    >>>think).
    >>>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml

    >>
    >>
    >> Look again at what he's seeing at 30x40. That's a _big_ difference.

    > I wonder how much of that should be attributed to that maybe not so great
    > Canon lens: were do these red rims come from: chromatic aberration
    > combined with too much sharpening?


    Here's a point I've been harping on lately: It doesn't matter what lenses
    you put on the Canon: at 30x40, that's a 30x enlargement, and no matter what
    lens or how many zillion megapixels, there have never been any lenses made
    (not even Contax G) that hold up to a 30x enlargement with decent MTF. Real
    lenses, even the Hassy Zeiss 80/2.8 and shorter lenses (other than the SWC),
    lose it badly outside the center 30% of the frame.

    >>>Canon will likely bring out a 22 Mpixel full frame version either next
    >>>February or a year from Sept (if they keep to their 18 - 24 month
    >>>design cycles) and that one might be a good match for scanned 6x7.

    >>
    >>
    >> Really? I actually doubt it. At least for wide angle work at, say 24 x
    >> 30. An enlargement from a Mamiya 7 would be an 11x enlargement, but from
    >> the 24x36 sensor, it's going to be 24x. There's no way a retrofocus lens
    >> at 24x can compete with a Biogon clone at 11x.

    > This crop was about 12mm from the center with a retrofocus *zoom* lens at
    > its short extreme range, might be asking too much.


    The 17-40 in the lower half of its range is as sharp as Canon lenses get
    _when tested on a digital sensor_.

    http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/17-40/index.htm

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 11, 2005
    #11
  12. chasfs

    johnboy Guest

    Yep! Digital is better! Bail out of analog now!
    I'm paying $10 a pound for Linhof cameras and branded lenses.
    johnboy, Aug 12, 2005
    #12
  13. chasfs

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <>,
    johnboy <> wrote:
    >Yep! Digital is better! Bail out of analog now!
    >I'm paying $10 a pound for Linhof cameras and branded lenses.


    I'll go to $11, and I'll pay shipping costs to take all that nasty scrap off
    your hands...
    Chris Brown, Aug 12, 2005
    #13
  14. chasfs

    MXP Guest

    I small test I made made myself I found that 24x36 Velvia 100F can
    capture more details than a 8MP Canon (1D MKII). Different kinds of
    street signs taken from long distance is a good test target.

    Max

    "chasfs" <> skrev i en meddelelse
    news:...
    > There are those who claim that the 12 and 16MP DSLRs are a match for
    > medium format. I was surprised at how well an image from a friend's D70
    > uprezzed. But when it gets down to the impact of a print, at 24"x30",
    > I'm still sticking with scanned 6x7 slides. For prints that size has
    > anyone switched? If so, which DSLR?
    > Thanks!
    > -chasfs
    > http://chasfs.com
    >
    MXP, Aug 12, 2005
    #14
  15. chasfs

    David Starr Guest

    On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 10:29:43 GMT, Chris Brown
    <_uce_please.com> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    >johnboy <> wrote:
    >>Yep! Digital is better! Bail out of analog now!
    >>I'm paying $10 a pound for Linhof cameras and branded lenses.

    >
    >I'll go to $11, and I'll pay shipping costs to take all that nasty scrap off
    >your hands...



    $12.50

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
    Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography
    www.destarr.com
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    David Starr, Aug 12, 2005
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. MaK

    Saving Scanned Docs

    MaK, Aug 31, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    486
    Kraftee
    Aug 31, 2003
  2. JB

    Advice please: DSLR or DSLR-style?

    JB, Oct 20, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    583
    Siddhartha Jain
    Oct 21, 2004
  3. Guest
    Replies:
    61
    Views:
    1,370
    Patrick Boch
    Mar 18, 2005
  4. Alan Browne

    [DSLR] rpd.slr-systems is _the_ place for DSLR discussion

    Alan Browne, Apr 7, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    41
    Views:
    936
    David J Taylor
    Apr 14, 2005
  5. Siddhartha Jain

    Which P&S to complement a dSLR (follows "Hamstrung by a dSLR")

    Siddhartha Jain, Jul 5, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    456
    Amamba
    Jul 10, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page