View Full Version : New Luminous Landscape 8x10 comparison
Proves - PROVES I tell's ya' - that even 8x10 film cannot compare to a new digital 80 megapixel back ...
From the makers of the world-famous and universally admired, "Canon d30 3 megapixel camera beats 35mm film", and the critical success "Canon 1ds 11 megapixel beats 6x7 film", comes the third edition in the "Film is dead" trilogy ... MARVEL at the 100% comparisons, THRILL at the informed commentary etc etc.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/iq180_vs_8x10.shtml
Snowbuzz
09-22-2011, 07:51
hahahahahahaaaaaaaaa! Shooting some 8x10 Delta today just for that.
Proves - PROVES I tell's ya' - that even 8x10 film cannot compare to a new digital 80 megapixel back ...
From the makers of the world-famous and universally admired, "Canon d30 3 megapixel camera beats 35mm film", and the critical success "Canon 1ds 11 megapixel beats 6x7 film", comes the third edition in the "Film is dead" trilogy ... MARVEL at the 100% comparisons, THRILL at the informed commentary etc etc.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/iq180_vs_8x10.shtml
Thanks for the laugh. I read that article before I came here today and boy those LL articles have a way of ticking me off. Oh! for a mere $20+ grand, I too can make an image that would otherwise cost $5 a pop?! Does LL tend to PO anyone else?
Let's face it, we're all jealous cause none of us has had the creativity to shoot a bunch of blue drums and random cars in front of a couple of buildings with the blinds down!
Let's face it, we're all jealous cause none of us has had the creativity to shoot a bunch of blue drums and random cars in front of a couple of buildings with the blinds down!
Nah, we just can't afford to do it with $40,000 worth of equipment.
Anyway, the author of the article specialises in running workshops in "digital capture and printing" however claims that there was no bias. He wrote a followup article http://www.markuszuber.com/8by10.html
I hope we are not for one instant suggesting that someone with something to sell, may be a slightly, ahem, biased source.
I rank this test right up there in the "fallibility stakes" with the recent test of the Leica 24mm Summilux on the Nex 7, where Michael managed to "prove" that even ON CENTRE, the 24mm Leica lens looks like it wasn't focussed compared to the Zeiss lens, the results were so bad - maybe he was still drunk from the lavish "press junket" bestowed upon him by Sony or Zeiss ?
Stuart John
09-23-2011, 05:13
Strange so soft scans when it was only scanned at 745ppi. I would have though those scans would have been tack sharp. Was there focusing errors, are 8x10 lenses really so soft? Somthing seems a bit off to me.
Stuart John
09-23-2011, 05:20
The grain is also rather large for acros 100.
Looks softer than my 4x5 flatbed scans at 1600dpi...
I'm thinking that they could kill three birds with one stone by simply attaching the Leica Summilux 24mm to the front of their 8x10' camera, and then take a photo of the resultant negative with a Canon d30 3 Megapixel camera and publish the results against an 80 megapixel back ... that way, in one fell swoop, they would have proven ALL of their sponsors and financial contributers to have the best equipment available on the market today !!
shadowfox
09-23-2011, 09:25
Don't get me started. Too late. Does LL tend to piss anyone else off?
When I started with film photography a couple years ago, I read those articles with interest, but you're right, now come to think of it, I left with a slight bad taste in my mouth.
And guess what, I like film more anyways, even when digital has reached even higher level of perfection (quoting the article) than it is now. :)
The meaning of "aesthetics in imperfection" will be totally lost to folks who think like these people.
LL has lots of technically good photographers whose photos lack 'soul.' While I do visit GetDpi sometimes, thats even worse. People constantly upgrading and chasing megapixels. Its as if they don't feel there is anything creative/vision-wise left to learn.
As for the 80MP beating 10x8 they might well be right. I'm not sure what that means though.
I'm thinking that they could kill three birds with one stone by simply attaching the Leica Summilux 24mm to the front of their 8x10' camera, and then take a photo of the resultant negative with a Canon d30 3 Megapixel camera and publish the results against an 80 megapixel back ... that way, in one fell swoop, they would have proven ALL of their sponsors and financial contributers to have the best equipment available on the market today !!
Thats funny as hell...thanks Damen. I don't care what anyone says, good E-6 film on a light table looks a million times better than anything I've ever seen on an LCD.
nathan96
09-23-2011, 20:48
"aesthetics in imperfection" - PERFECT
When people ask me why I bother to use film. Now I know what to say.
Hey ! whats wrong with all you guys, love LL since they proved the cannon G9 (or was it the G10) was good as MF digital etc
ron
digital rules (so my GP says)
ianstamatic
11-05-2011, 23:55
That test was a load of #@&# for so many reasons.
Those scans really ....
How the hell can anything be determined on computer screens? And who cares? If an 8x10 negative can produce a wonderful printed image, who cares? If an IQ180 file can produce a wonderful printed image, who cares?
I'm not quite sure who benefits from these endless arguments other than the equipment manufacturers, and a few egos.
Sorry for my curmudgeonli-ness this morning ... I haven't done my zazen for awhile. :angel:
redisburning
11-06-2011, 09:02
I don't understand the can't see it on a monitor mentality.
I have a fairly modest Samsung LED monitor and at 1280 on the long side and higher (excluding very short panoramas) there is definitely an ability to see differences in lenses. Of course picking between the summicron 50 and planar 50 is still tough, but it's certainly enough to tell if a wide was made for an SLR or a RF, or to see a quality lens versus a zoom.
Granted it's hardly an 8x10 or 11x14 print but it's not non-existent
as for the "article", well I think op-ed might be better as its implications are more fitting IMO.
Reworded: I don't make final evaluations on a monitor, even if it is a critical tool in a digital workflow. I evaluate prints. 99% of the time, 100% views aren't relevant for me. That' just me.
Teuthida
11-06-2011, 13:01
Reworded: I don't make final evaluations on a monitor, even if it is a critical tool in a digital workflow. I evaluate prints. 99% of the time, 100% views aren't relevant for me. That' just me.
Seriously. I've learned never to judge by negatives by how they scan and present on a monitor. Most of my 35mm HP5 scans look like sh*t on a monitor compared to digital capture (pcretty sure its a function of how monitors represent grain) but once printed up they look beautiful.
redisburning
11-06-2011, 13:07
Reworded: I don't make final evaluations on a monitor, even if it is a critical tool in a digital workflow. I evaluate prints. 99% of the time, 100% views aren't relevant for me. That' just me.
that I can agree too!
Why is it this guy gets different results to other people, and why is it the film looks almost pixely in some pictures?
If a 3MP camera can beat film how come I get this result when I compare my 6MP SLR to Ektar?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/ajuk/Stuff/compare.jpg
I would suspect a not-so-well-hidden agenda :(
Hey ! whats wrong with all you guys, love LL since they proved the cannon G9 (or was it the G10) was good as MF digital etc
ron
digital rules (so my GP says)
I thought you were joking until I found it. :rolleyes:
Hang on don't the people at the Gigapxl project use 9x18" film? So that's 162"2 film to get 4GP images, 8x10" has just slightly under half the image area 80"2 someone should tell the people at Gigapxl about this.
Seriously. I've learned never to judge by negatives by how they scan and present on a monitor. Most of my 35mm HP5 scans look like sh*t on a monitor compared to digital capture (pcretty sure its a function of how monitors represent grain) but once printed up they look beautiful.
Most of us work on a monitor of 20" or more (24" wide in my case), and the viewing distance is relatively near.
So if I made a 24x print from a 35mm and had my nose within few inches, I wouldn't really be looking at the photo, I'd be evaluating some technical subset of imaging technology. I've seen people do this with Ansel Adams large prints in an exhibit. It didn't seem like they enjoyed the photos very much.
So if I made a 24x print from a 35mm and had my nose within few inches, I wouldn't really be looking at the photo, I'd be evaluating some technical subset of imaging technology. I've seen people do this with Ansel Adams large prints in an exhibit. It didn't seem like they enjoyed the photos very much.
True - but Adams was severely disadvantaged in the quality stakes by not having access to the Canon G10's alien technology ... :eek:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
http://www.landscapegb.com/2011/10/the-perils-of-testing/
:p Pwned.:dance:
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.