View Full Version : medium format vs. 35mm, honest opinions.....
northeast16th
05-08-2011, 17:16
for those who have used both medium format and 35mm, give me your honest opinion on this:
say you shoot 35mm and enlarge to 5x7, and you shoot 6x4x5 and enlarge to 5x7. say the lenses were, for all intents and purposes, identical in quality and characteristics. same film, same subject, same developments etc etc etc.
would an average viewer be able to tell a difference in quality at 5x7 at normal viewing distance? just curious to those who have used both formats.
cheers.....
ne16th
ZeissFan
05-08-2011, 17:24
In general, yes.
The tonality and smoother gradation of tones is usually better in medium format than in 35mm.
To pull out a stupid cliche, size does matter when it comes to negatives.
CK Dexter Haven
05-08-2011, 17:25
You would probably need to consider whether it's b+w or color. And, also the DOF differences. You need more light with medium format, as the lenses aren't as fast (typically), so you may actually need to use a faster+grainier film with MF versus 35mm, so the results can sorta 'equalize' a bit under some circumstances.
Also, MF might appear 'smoother' with more subtle tonal gradiations, but that smoothness may appear to defeat 'sharpness.'
But, if you could even out all the variables, i say Yes, you can tell the difference, even at 5x7. But, that difference doesn't necessarily equal "better."
Steve M.
05-08-2011, 17:45
I don't think you'll see any real difference at that size. I sent some online printing services some files recently. This was a hodgepodge of one digital file, and several 6x6, 6x9, and 35mm scans, all cropped and printed to 4x6 dimensions. Other than a little smoothness difference, as others have mentioned, everything looked very similar. The 35mm especially looked very good, and sharper than the MF probably, but they were taken w/ a Leica lens. Sorta levels the playing field. It just wasn't possible to see much difference at that small of a print size. But these were scans of negs. It might be different w/ straight optical prints.
As a general rule, 35mm lenses are sharper than MF, which are sharper than LF, etc. MF comes into it's own with large print sizes.
Even at 5x7 you can see the difference between the formats. After all, it's still a 5x enlargement for 35mm but a 2-3x enlargement for medium format (depends on 6x6 or 6x7 or 6x9). However, like everything else in life, what camera you carry is a tradeoff between size, weight, convenience of use and quality. If quality were the only factor, we would all still be carrying Speed Graphics, as there is nothing like the negative that you get from 4x5. All magazine covers (and Playboy centerfolds) used to be shot with 8x10 for that reason. In my youth, I could hike with my 4x5 field camera, this is not the case in recent years. Now, I'll use medium format, but if it's going to be real strenuous, I take 35mm.
Based on my experience with traditional B+W wet printing of both formats, there is a noticeable difference even at that size.
First of all, you set the parameters.... All factors being considered as equal, there is no doubt the MF negative is superior, under any equal set of circumstances.
Aside from the fact that 5X7 is slightly off on the ratio for equating to either of the negative sizes, the remaining math favors the MF negative.
The ratio of the 5X7 is 1.4 to one, while the 35mm negative and 645 negative are 1.28 and 1.33 to one. So, some slight cropping is involved.
But the definitive math favoring MF substantially is this:
The 35mm negative is 864 Sq/MM.
The 645 negative is 2610 Sq/MM.
The 645 is 3 times larger than the 35mm film negative.
The 5X7 print is 22,606 Sq/MM (127mm x 177mm)
Results:
The 645 must be enlarged 8.66 times to make the 5X7 inch print.
The 35mm neg must be enlarged 26.72 times to make the 5X7 inch print.
Math proof... 26.72/8.66 equals approx. 3, which concurs with the factor of the 645 neg being 3X greater than the than the 35mm neg.
Given that the criteria is all factors being equal, ie film used, lens used including identical drawing of the lens, etc. .....
How could one possibly defend an argument that 35mm film is an any way as good as shooting medium format. Change the medium format to 6X6, 6X7 and 6X9 and the numbers are progressively in favor of the MF film formats.
Now, I know the virtual impossibility of making this discussion and apples vs. apples discussion. But the math clearly favors MF and leaves 35mm standing in the dust.
Now those who are unwilling to set aside their 35mm cameras, I agree that there are significant factors, like camera portability, need for stabilizing the larger format, etc.
But on the basis of the question, as it was posed, MF simply blows 35mm out of the water.
northeast16th
05-08-2011, 18:52
i never had any doubt that the numbers would prove better for a medium format negative. i was interested in knowing if anyone looking at prints could truly see any difference at that size.
it's like this. you want to catch a badger. you have a net which is 8 feet by 8 feet. this net will catch the badger no problem, and it has proven to be able to catch the badger every time. so why use a 24 by 24 foot net?
the numbers are always in favor of a bigger negative, but if only printing 5x7, i wanted to know if anyone could truly see any difference and it sounds like they can!
Yes. I have shot the same scene with a Nikon F and Nikkor 55mm and a Mamiya 645 and 80mm lens. Both with Kodak Plus X, identical exposure, and developed together. The differences were noticeable and in favor of the medium format.
I've also done the same side-by-side tests with film vs digital, and because film isn't cheap, I hate to say it wins.
Back in winter, I took 2 shots each on 35 mm & 120 films. Similar angle of view, handheld, within 1 minute of each other.
I scanned them for the first time yesterday and honestly, didn't see a big difference on my laptop screen, in fact, I liked the 35 mm better. Mind you tho, there are a lot of variables involved, one of them is my s**tty scanning technique.
Sometime this week, I am planning on printing them at similar sizes, will let you know how they turn out...of course you will have to believe my eyes then. :D
This question makes me think of a shot I took with my 28mm Leica lens on Ilford Delta 100 Pro. It was of a bridge, with a lot of fine detail in the masonry and ironwork. The 8 x 10 print was so fantastic that I had the thought, at the time, that this equals anything I can do with my Hasselblad. But I didn't trade in the Hasselblad. There are times when gradation is king, and the larger negative can still be the deciding factor.
Could I see the superiority of a 645 shot in a 5 x 7 print? I don't think so.
the average viewer would only notice if you put side by side with the other. Infact many experienced photographers wouldn't notice at that size.
But so what. You can print in your own style which may be far removed from what the "fine print" brigade consiider to be good quality. Depends what your aims are. There is nothing which actually says that a bigger negative by definition produces superior results. It is only in the minds of those who believe it to be the case. Go on, try a few grainy as hell prints just for fun. You might find it adds some character and atmosphere to a print compared to boring "subtle and graduated tones".
My answer would be yes, for the simple reason that bigger pieces of film, given lenses of roughly equal quality, will better resolve the very fine and extremely fine details. My rule of thumb is to use 6x6 when my subject is rather far from the camera as in a landscape or cityscape and 35mm when the subject is quite close, as in street and portraits, or for action pictures. In other words, the farther away, the bigger the film.
bensyverson
05-08-2011, 19:55
For color, no way... Not at 5x7. In fact, you won't even be able to tell the difference between the iPhone 4 and medium format with 5x7 prints. Really, there is no reason to use any one camera over another if color 5x7s are your end product.
For B&W, you shouldn't see any difference in sharpness between 35mm and MF at 5x7, but MF will have slightly smoother tones (less grain). A large format 5x7 contact print would be even nicer!
Benjamin Marks
05-08-2011, 19:58
Yes. At least that's what I see in my own negatives. V. unscientific (different films, developers etc.). Film is just such an amazingly rich medium. When you increase the real estate it shows. And this is true at every bump up in size, even in small prints. A 5x7 contact print from a properly exposed and developed 5x7 negative has such a creamy-ness to it. Skin looks like . . . well, skin. The trade off for me has always been about weight of camera and speed of lenses. I generally carry the largest format I can stand, with the fastest lenses I can get. As I have slumped into middle age, this has meant a reliance on smaller cameras. Hey, what's the use of grainless-ness if you have an actual pain in the neck? OTOH, if you are in the studio and have limitless wattage, why not crank up the big boys and give that view camera its head . . .
For color, no way... Not at 5x7. In fact, you won't even be able to tell the difference between the iPhone 4 and medium format with 5x7 prints. Really, there is no reason to use any one camera over another if color 5x7s are your end product.
For B&W, you shouldn't see any difference in sharpness between 35mm and MF at 5x7, but MF will have slightly smoother tones (less grain). A large format 5x7 contact print would be even nicer!
Sorry, not buying the above. There isn't "color" film. There are many color films. I don't really know what to say about the iPhone, but I shoot a good bit more 35mm than MF, but not because it approaces MF in quality, but because it is good enough for what I am doing. I suspect that there isn't a generic 5"x7" print either.
f16sunshine
05-08-2011, 20:10
645v35 at 5x7?
You would have to be a photographer with experience or really study both prints to notice.
It makes a big difference for the hybrid crowd ... those who scan then print digitaly.
If you can't afford a megabuck scanner MF is the go IMO ... my poor little V700 doesn't capture much detail from a 135mm negative but it gets plenty from an MF negative.
It makes a big difference for the hybrid crowd ... those who scan then print digitaly.
If you can't afford a megabuck scanner MF is the go IMO ... my poor little V700 doesn't capture much detail from a 135mm negative but it gets plenty from an MF negative.
This is a really good point. My v600 isn't that great with 35mm, but does just fine with medium format.
To answer the question, I see a big difference between MF and 35mm regardless of print size, in terms of spacial rendering and tonality. Obviously the bigger the print the more it's going to stand out too.
f16sunshine
05-08-2011, 20:32
This is a really good point. My v600 isn't that great with 35mm, but does just fine with medium format.
To answer the question, I see a big difference between MF and 35mm regardless of print size, in terms of spacial rendering and tonality. Obviously the bigger the print the more it's going to stand out too.
+1
But at 5x7 print......
I use both of those formats all the time. I also print a lot of 5x7 test prints. There is little to distinguish between 35mm and 6x4.5 at this size. Sure the MF will be smoother but is not that noticeable.
bensyverson
05-08-2011, 20:49
Sorry, not buying the above. There isn't "color" film. There are many color films. I don't really know what to say about the iPhone, but I shoot a good bit more 35mm than MF, but not because it approaces MF in quality, but because it is good enough for what I am doing. I suspect that there isn't a generic 5"x7" print either.
To me, a generic 5x7" color print would be 300 DPI. There are a lot of high end machines (lambda, lightjet, etc) that print at less than that. Because the RA4 process is not as sharp as B&W fiber, even traditional optical color printing is around that ballpark.
An iPhone image is 370 DPI at 5x7... With a standard inkjet, or digital-to-RA4 (eg, Adoramapix), you will not see a sharpness advantage to using 35mm or MF instead of the iPhone. Obviously there are other advantages to film (selective focus, manual control). The point is, 5x7 is absolutely tiny, and you should not make format decisions based on achieving sharpness at 5x7. Your phone has enough sharpness.
Yes, there are many color films, and they all can print to 5x7 without breaking a sweat. 300 DPI at 5x7 means your 35mm film only has to achieve 30 lp/mm, but nearly all of them can do more than twice that. So don't go choosing this film over that because you're worried about printing at 5x7. They can all make nice 5x7s.
If you want to use one specification and ignore other qualities of the film/format/sensor, then you have come to a good conclusion. The answer to the original question is difficult to answer in the abstract. I just shot my first and last Fuji Pro 800Z in 35mm. I find that higher ISO color films look much better in larger formats, even when viewing smaller prints when printed on my Canon pigment ink printer. Of course, the lenses are slower and depth of field reduced in MF. That said, I would need to view the prints critically to note the difference. Shoot your iPhone in poor light without a flash and you might not be so happy with the results. Repeat the above with low ISO materials and print to 5"x7" and I would probably be hard pressed to see a difference, but the film and digital would still appear differently, especially in B&W. Depth of field would vary at a give aperture based on format size. Print everything at the local drugstore and I'm not sure what you have. Anyway, if you shoot low ISO and print to 5x7, I doubt that there would be much of a difference when printing in a hybrid workflow.
When I was doing a "people at work" project, I'd typically have 5x7 color prints made, seek out the subject pictured, and give them a print. I was using several cameras, including Minolta CLE, Contax G2, Bronica RF645, and Fuji GA645W. Film was Fuji 400H or 800Z.
With the 800Z, the 35mm and 645 prints were fairly easy to distinguish, so I mostly restricted it to the 645 rigs with their slower lenses. So a 645 print from 800Z was still "richer" looking than a 35mm print from 400H, same when both were from 400H.
I wouldn't claim to be able to take a random stack of 5x7 prints and separate them 100% into 35 and 645 stacks. They're both very good. But the 645 ones generally have something extra, even at that modest print size.
The "average" viewer, being an ordinary non-photographer? I'd say no chance, I find non-photographers don't notice very much about the technical quality of shots. I consider that a good thing, it's us lot that pixel peep (or grain peep), not the average viewer.
I just ordered a load of 6x4 prints for a holiday photo album, at the that size I don't expect to be able to tell the difference between my film shots and my girlfriend's digital P&S shots, let alone different sizes of film.
If you wet print, you will see a difference even between a 6x7 and 4x5 negative on a 5x7 print, in fact, you would even see a difference between a 4x5 enlargement and a contact print from a 5x7 negative. However, if you print on an inkjet, things will get a little muddy, because the finest detail will be killed off at a certain point. To answer your question in simple terms: if technical quality is your main goal, then choose the biggest format camera that you can use without compromising on the photo content, on the other hand, if the photo content is your main goal, then chose the format which is acceptable given the type of camera which suits you best.
Roger Hicks
05-08-2011, 23:59
For a wet B+W print, using sharp film and a good lens, no question. A trick I quite like is a 3x print off 56x72mm (Linhof's version of 6x7 cm), which if done right can be indistinguishable from a whole plate (6-1/2 x 8-1/2 inch) contact print. Off 43x56mm a 3x print would be 127 x 168mm, or 5 x 6-2/3 inches, near enough half-plate (4-3/4 x 6-1/2 inches). From 35mm, itīs near enough a postcard. Much above 3x, they all start looking like enlargements, though the larger format will normally give better quality.
A non-photographer might not be able to put the difference into words, but they'd probably spot that there was a difference.
Note however that I am talking about top-quality wet printing, not inkjets or commercial colour. For those, the difference is probably visible some of the time but not always.
Cheers,
R.
It's not only about format. The lenses have to be excellent as well in order to make use of the format.
The reason why I do not use medium format any more are the impudent prices the local labs ask for development. (And I do not have a constant darkroom.)
would an average viewer be able to tell a difference in quality at 5x7 at normal viewing distance? just curious to those who have used both formats.
Yes, no doubt whatsoever. I've shot on 6x6 and 35mm film and the difference is there at every print size. MF's biggest forte is skin tones in portraits. There's a smoothness on prints cropped to 3:2 format from 6x6 compared to straight 35mm film that gets noticed by non-photo-savvy people.
Digital has closed the gap somewhat, the color and detail processing in portrait modes takes the harshness out of the image without doing away with the detail. But still, 6x6 remains easier to get good images out of. To be honest though, I've sold my MF gear a couple of years ago because of the convenience of small format.
jsrockit
05-09-2011, 04:16
In general, yes.
The tonality and smoother gradation of tones is usually better in medium format than in 35mm..
He said the average viewer...
He said the average viewer...
Yes he did.. and where is the thread located where you tell us how your new camera is working for you? I hope that you are a happy guy.
It's been shown again and again that most (not all, most) good MF lenses are capable of considerably less absolute resolution (in lp or cycles/mm) than most (not all, most) good 35mm lenses. And it has been shown again and again that it is very straightforward to make a really good 35mm system resolve as much total detail as a decent MF system.
Yet most everyone agrees that even pretty good MF prints often look better than outstanding 35mm prints.
Why should this be?
I strongly suspect that the perceived difference has more to do with what happens at the scanning or printing stage than at the initial capture stage. It is *not* necessarily the case that the MF negative holds more detail information, as mentioned above. Rather, MF is simply more demanding of enlargers and scanners, and requires considerably better technique. With MF you can get away with worse exposure, worse scanning, more dust, more scratches, worse enlarging lenses, less accurate enlarger focus, and still pull out a terrific print. With 35mm, every defect in the image is more apparent, and the human eye is incredibly sensitive to even small anomalies in image structure.
jordanstarr
05-09-2011, 07:36
...I think the "average viewer" would notice something, but not really know what it was. I've had plenty of people look at my prints and say "what was this shot with? It looks different/better" when it was with medium format.
Either way, if you're seriously considering just 5x7 prints, you're really limiting yourself. If it's a theoretical question, I'm not really sure what the purpose is as I know no photographer just making 5x7 prints. I personally only do 8x10 for workprints and then print at 11x14, 16x20 or 20x24. All of which, 35mm and medium format can handle.
I donīt know what it is, but I tend to think that MF prints in certain cases have a certain 3D feeling to them (if well composed, exposed and discerningly focused) that is not apparent on enlargements from 35mm. That and a smoother tonal graduation. But then again I donīt subscribe to 6x4.5, if Iīm to bother with MF at all I prefer 6x6 and bigger.
Brian Legge
05-09-2011, 08:17
It's been shown again and again that most (not all, most) good MF lenses are capable of considerably less absolute resolution (in lp or cycles/mm) than most (not all, most) good 35mm lenses. And it has been shown again and again that it is very straightforward to make a really good 35mm system resolve as much total detail as a decent MF system.
Sure, if the lens is the limiting factoring. Shooting with faster film though, grain often limits the amount of perceivable detail. Once you hit that point, MF wins.
I can see your argument if we're talking about using a tripod with iso 50 or film but with 400, I don't think lens resolution is necessarily the gating factor.
at 5 by 7, who would really care about the slight differences (in MF's favor); who would care at thumbprint size either.
BUT the main difference is when you enlarge. A 6 by 6 negative will not break up, but continue to give ever more detail, tones, resolution until you are above 30 by 30 inches or thereabouts, while the 35mm can possibly do 12 by 18 max (without scanning and fractals ..)
So, if you want really good large prints: forget about 35mm even with Zeiss/Leica glass. For 5 by 7, who cares.
And to boot, who actually cares about ho-hum pics anyway. A terrific capture on 35mm will still shine at 20 by 30 inches while a blah 6 by 6 stays blah even at 12 by 12.
I am using a Contax G1 setup (4 lenses) in 135 and a Rolleicord V with a Xenar 75/3.5 in MF (I also have a Mamiya 330f setup with 3 lenses, but that is semi-retired right now due to weight). Using Nikon IV scanner for the 35mm and a Epson 4990 for the MF and Kodak 100 speed slide film (E100/Elite) in both. From my experience it matters on 5*7.
Subtle nuances in green tones (e.g. grass or foliage) can be quite mushy on 135, they are way better reproduced from the Rollei.
For 135 film, the Nikon scanner beats the Epson by a long margin.
northeast16th
05-09-2011, 09:15
i like to think that i don't notice the difference in formats on flickr, but somehow it even seems possible to notice on a computer monitor. if you get rid of the distinctive frames of large format, and hasselblad with its double V's on one side, or square vs. rectangle, etc, it still seems possible to notice a difference, so i'm not surprised so many are coming back saying it will be noticeable at 5x7 on an actual print.
granted, there are so many factors with scanning that a large format can look like crap and 35mm can look great, but for someone who knows how to scan, large format just pops, even on a monitor.
so, like someone said, size does matter.....
i would love to shoot large format, but the inconvenience is just too much to deal with when outdoors as compared to a tlr with a 500th shutter speed.
buzzardkid
05-09-2011, 09:18
Dear ne16th,
When the same lenses, same film and same settings were used to shoot both pictures, the DOF on the MF would be quite different from the DOF on the 35mm. It would be much shallower.
Usually that is one of aspects I look for when judging a picture, how does the DOF look. And differences are quite distuingishable.
shadowfox
05-09-2011, 09:33
for those who have used both medium format and 35mm, give me your honest opinion on this:
say you shoot 35mm and enlarge to 5x7, and you shoot 6x4x5 and enlarge to 5x7. say the lenses were, for all intents and purposes, identical in quality and characteristics. same film, same subject, same developments etc etc etc.
would an average viewer be able to tell a difference in quality at 5x7 at normal viewing distance? just curious to those who have used both formats.
cheers.....
ne16th
Average viewer? no.
They may like one over the other, but they won't be able to tell you which one is which, or why.
Non-average viewer (meaning has spent considerable amount of time thinking and doing *film* photography) however, will definitely be able to pick some things up.
Sure, if the lens is the limiting factoring. Shooting with faster film though, grain often limits the amount of perceivable detail. Once you hit that point, MF wins.
I can see your argument if we're talking about using a tripod with iso 50 or film but with 400, I don't think lens resolution is necessarily the gating factor.
Lens resolution is a red herring. It's worked out using very high contrast ratios. i.e. 1000:1. In the real world your subject, in nearly all cases won't have alternating black and white lines with the sort of lighting needed to produce measurable 1000:1 lighting ratio. Infact the edge contrast of most details in your neg will have much much lower contrast. Maybe only 1.6:1 which is what Fuji use in their data sheets. So a film capable of 125 lpmm at 1000:1 is only capable of 50 lpmm at 1.6:1 contrast ratio. And that means the high resolution figures banded about don't exist in the real world. And your MF lens gets as much resolution on film as your small format lens does because thats all there is in the subject and thats all the film is capable of at those contrast ratios.
So the idea there is more on small format film to enlarge from is wrong in most cases.
For color, no way... Not at 5x7. In fact, you won't even be able to tell the difference between the iPhone 4 and medium format with 5x7 prints. Really, there is no reason to use any one camera over another if color 5x7s are your end product.
I personally see quite a difference between the two when printed that small. I've even shown 4x6s from medium format stuff to non-photographers and had them first remark that they've never seen photographs look so clear and lifelike.
bensyverson
05-09-2011, 15:36
I personally see quite a difference between the two when printed that small. I've even shown 4x6s from medium format stuff to non-photographers and had them first remark that they've never seen photographs look so clear and lifelike.
In color or B&W? If it's B&W it's perfectly understandable. If it's color, they were just responding to the DOF or some other image aspect.
coelacanth
05-09-2011, 15:42
I definitely see the difference between the two when I work in darkroom. You'll feel "wow that's THIN!" when you switch from MF to 35mm and try to get same print size. The projected image is way way darker with 35mm because it has to be elevated way far up compared to MF film. It's not necessarily a bad thing though. I do like the grainy, softer look of 35mm a lot with street stuff. They are just two (and more within MF) different formats that I can choose from. I don't think one is "better" than the other.
Just different.
MF can be creamier. 35mm can be grittier.
Different looks for different purposes.
MF/LF cameras are way cooler ... have you ever seen a 35mm camera that looks as good as a Linhof Technika?
sbelyaev
05-09-2011, 16:03
I used to print 35mm and 6x4.5 negatived in a wet darkroom. There was no visible difference at 5x7.
I used to print 35mm and 6x4.5 negatived in a wet darkroom. There was no visible difference at 5x7.
That's weird. I do the same and do see a noticeable difference.
When I was wet printing, I had a much better-quality enlarging lens for 35mm negs than I had for 645/120. Still for B/W the tonal range in MF prints appeared better to casual viewers when enlarging, say, Delta 100 in both formats, and printing on the same grade papers.
Now that I'm doing hybrid work there's no question in my mind (or my wife & kids') that the V500 I use does a far better job on MF than on 35mm - both in terms of detail and tonal range, and yes - printed at 5x7.
I was finally able to scan and post a few images.
Leica M4
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3524/5711470403_e925b101eb_b.jpg (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/%3Ca%20href=)
Fuji GA645
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2265/5711470301_d2c4aab6a5_b.jpg (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/%3Ca%20href=)
Leica M4
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2338/5711470371_2fd1e8bdb9_b.jpg (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/%3Ca%20href=)
Fuji GA645
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2164/5712028970_3bd98f849d_b.jpg (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/%3Ca%20href=)
This is in no way a scientific test as you would notice the difference in the FOV/composition. AFAIK, these photos were taken within 5 minutes of each other and scanned similarly.
I intend to print these 4 photos tomorrow as I am very curious to see the difference (of lack thereof) between the 2 formats.
Comments and opinions are welcomed and encouraged.
ColSebastianMoran
05-11-2011, 18:44
DanP, thanks for the samples. Pls tell how these were scanned.
DanP, thanks for the samples. Pls tell how these were scanned.
Scanned them with V600 at 2400 dpi and resized for web in PSE7.
Now that I'm doing hybrid work there's no question in my mind (or my wife & kids') that the V500 I use does a far better job on MF than on 35mm - both in terms of detail and tonal range, and yes - printed at 5x7.
As I and others mentioned above, scanning or enlarging 35mm is *far* more demanding than MF. I have and regularly use a V500 and a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000. For 35mm, the V500 is just a bad joke. I only use the V500 for quick posts to Flickr, etc., and even then the stuff out of the Sprintscan is just vastly superior.
For pure resolution, most MF cameras are limited by their lenses (which are seldom optimized for shooting at wide apertures) but even more so by their lack of film flatness. But resolution pretty obviously does not account for the quality differences that we're talking about here. Indeed, some of the tonality benefits of MF are visible even with a Holga. No one (or at least no one who is sane) is going to argue that that's due to resolution!
It makes a big difference for the hybrid crowd ... those who scan then print digitaly.
If you can't afford a megabuck scanner MF is the go IMO ... my poor little V700 doesn't capture much detail from a 135mm negative but it gets plenty from an MF negative.
That is an excellent point, Keith.
Bob
I did a similar test of small images last week.
Which is from a Nikon D90 (to remove scan issues) and which is from an uncoated 1950s 6x6 Ansco Speedex Special (V700 scan)?
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_d9rdtJje0Mk/TcWFFvAOyfI/AAAAAAAAHEA/OZpyFBOPp_E/s720/dandy.jpg
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_d9rdtJje0Mk/TcRFfTGyVqI/AAAAAAAAHCU/gYIgpA3J7us/s512/Gardening5b-sm.jpg
NickTrop
05-12-2011, 09:25
Medium Format?
C'mon - everything about it from an IQ standpoint is noticeably, obviously, and clearly leaps and bounds better than 35mm and small, APCS, full frame (except low-light) digital.
So why doesn't everyone just shoot medium format? Why did 35mm replace "roll film"?
Medium format cameras are expensive
Medium format cameras eat film (that is, use a lot with ony 12-16 exposures per roll)
Meduim format cameras are large - except for folders.
- and most folders were Jurassic in terms of feature by the 60's
Medium format lenses are slower than their 35mm counter parts
Medium format lenses are big and expensive...
Medium format film is harder to get and more expensive to process...
Medium format slides were a rarity.
But - nothing tops medium format in terms of sheer image quality with cameras that don't have to be pretty much mounted on a tripod. Large format is a different animal alltogether.
The bottom one is from the V700 scan. The EpsonScan software's sharpening algorithm is atrocious.
Roger Hicks
05-14-2011, 00:52
I did a similar test of small images last week.
Which is from a Nikon D90 (to remove scan issues) and which is from an uncoated 1950s 6x6 Ansco Speedex Special (V700 scan)?
And which is on a flaky monitor?
There are big differences between good-quality wet prints, but all bets are off when you're talking about monitor pics and scans with a cheap scanner. Or even scans with a half-decent scanner off the best wet prints you can make.
Cheers,
R.
Ronald M
05-14-2011, 04:17
Use slow film and average viewer will not see a difference unless you put one next to the other. Keep in mine the small camera will be with you a lot more than a big one.
Todays slow films are so good I wish I could start again from 1958. That said, bigger is always better, tele lenses, car engines, and some other things.
skibeerr
05-14-2011, 04:22
Based on my experience with traditional B+W wet printing of both formats, there is a noticeable difference even at that size.
I am with Frank on this one, printing at that size the difference will be minimal. In my opinion printing at 5x7 the convenience of 35mm is preferable over the better iq of MF
Wim
loquax ludens
05-14-2011, 19:59
I've made myself a note to try this soon. I think that I could tell the difference between a 5x7 print from a 35mm negative and one made from a 6X4.5 neg. But that could just be my biases and pre-conceived notions fabricating a simulacrum of reality. I've never actually tried to do a comparison like that. Should be fun.
A reason why 35mm breaks down when compared to MF at same print size.
Lets take a 24x24mm crop from a 135 neg compared to a 56mm x 56mm neg and make a 12x12 inch print. We'll set enlarging lens aperture to F5.6.
That's a 12.7 times enlargement for the 135 neg and 5.44 times enlargement for the MF neg. We'll use a 50mm lens for the 135 enlargement and an 80mm lens for the MF neg.
Because an enlarger is a macro camera and we are getting real close up to the subject (the negative) we need a lot of lens extension. When you add that lens extension you alter the effective aperture. So much so that for the 135 neg the set aperture of 5.6 becomes an effective F65.5. At that aperture you get are going to get a lot of diffraction showing in the print.
With MF neg the lens extension makes the effective aperture F24 so you get a lot less diffraction in the print.
And if you use a 4x4inch crop from 4x5 neg with a 150mm lens for same 12x12 print which is 3 times enlargement, you get effective aperture of F11.2which is very close to the optimum of the lens.
So I think a big reason why larger format negs look smoother when printed(at same size) is due to less image breakdown caused by diffraction which is like saying because of less enlargement only taking the explanation a little further.
I may be wrong cos I'm no optics expert but I think it's right.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.