Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: DSLR vs Medium Format

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    231

    Default DSLR vs Medium Format

    A friend of mine keeps insisting that nothing can beat his
    6x7 and 6x9 medium formats, not even today's DSLR for sharpness up to 8R.

    I think otherwise.

    What do you guys think ?

    dark

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Depends on the subject matter, what level of sharpness you are looking at. For portrait-type subjects, it might just be possible for today's higher end DSLRs to equal, if not beat medium format for an 8x10" print.

    Regards
    CK

  3. #3

    Default Re: DSLR vs Medium Format

    Originally posted by darkavgr
    A friend of mine keeps insisting that nothing can beat his
    6x7 and 6x9 medium formats, not even today's DSLR for sharpness up to 8R.

    I think otherwise.

    What do you guys think ?

    dark
    Your friend is probably correct, DSLRs can't beat MF at 8x10.
    However, I agree with Ckiang that DSLRs can equal MF at 8x10 in some cases like portraits while a bit weaker at say landscapes with lots of fine detail.

  4. #4

    Default

    He's probably right.

    But with digital, you have the option of stitching together several images to get one very high resolution image that can beat the pants off medium format or even large format. But this is only for static subjects.

    Take a look at what Max Lyons has done:

    http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Woodlands
    Posts
    1,701

    Default

    How about a medium format camera with digital back?

  6. #6

    Default

    Originally posted by StreetShooter
    But with digital, you have the option of stitching together several images to get one very high resolution image that can beat the pants off medium format or even large format.
    Ah, but with medium format I am also able to stitch together several images to get an even higher resolution image that will knock the socks off the stitched digital image.
    (void *) &NHY;

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    12,938

    Default

    true true
    Check out my wildlife pics at www.instagram.com/conrad_nature

  8. #8

    Default

    Originally posted by nhyone

    Ah, but with medium format I am also able to stitch together several images to get an even higher resolution image that will knock the socks off the stitched digital image.

    true...but how much detail can our eye capture?
    nice to have alot of detail lar...i agree alot !!! i like details in photograph!!!

  9. #9

    Default

    Originally posted by nhyone

    Ah, but with medium format I am also able to stitch together several images to get an even higher resolution image that will knock the socks off the stitched digital image.
    Then the question comes down to cost and ease of use.

    I could take 90 digital pictures and stitch them into a better picture than one made with several medium format pictures, at far lower cost and trouble, not to mention retaining the dynamic range that would be lost by scanning a medium format slide or negative. And since you can only do stitching digitally, there is little choice in this matter.

    But this, of course, is only for the sake of argument. Medium format DOES have its advantages, for those who prefer it.

  10. #10

    Default

    Originally posted by StreetShooter


    Then the question comes down to cost and ease of use.

    I could take 90 digital pictures and stitch them into a better picture than one made with several medium format pictures, at far lower cost and trouble, not to mention retaining the dynamic range that would be lost by scanning a medium format slide or negative. And since you can only do stitching digitally, there is little choice in this matter.

    But this, of course, is only for the sake of argument. Medium format DOES have its advantages, for those who prefer it.
    I tot medium formats can have digital backpack added to them that is suppose to capture the image into the digital format and thus not needing the traditional drum scanners and not losing detail at the same time?

    PS: I am not too sure of the realm of medium format cameras, only read a bit here and there about them coz me poor student no money to buy

  11. #11
    el loco
    Guests

    Default

    Certainly digital will catch up with film, it's caught up with APS 24mm film, and it's about there is 35mm, but medium format can't be touched yet.

    You can't actually compare tonal range and color accuracy with film, because if you got it drum scanned, the Dmax range is, or is almost 4.0, compared with about 2.5? (i'm not to sure here) for CCD scanners. The good things about digital cameras are that they tend to capture more shadow details than film, although they overexpose easily which therefore also means that films capture more highlight detail.

    Digital backs on medium format cameras essentially capture as much detail as a good CCD could be expected too. This isn't the same as drum scanning, and certainly yields image quality nowhere near what you'd get for drum scanning.

    Infrared photography seems to work well on digital, but other special purpose photographic persuits fall flat. Orthochromatic and ultraviolet photography for example.

    The advancement of digital in photojournalism is partly due to the web. Since everything hits the internet long before tomorrow's newspapers, nobody has the time to invest an hour

    Other things to note, most digital cameras don't have a bulb setting on the shutter, and don't have exposure times longer than 30 seconds, making them pretty much useless for things like shooting star trails.

    There's also hope that technology will one day advance such that we can get even more detail out of film scans than we do today. Almost the entire motion picture industry shoots in film for this reason.

    Digital, once it's captured has as much detail as you'll ever get in a million years.

    As has been said, digital is cheap. George Lucas saved millions of $$ doing the new Star Wars movies in digital. Then again, with such a large budget anyway, it makes the rest of the industry wonder why he jumped platform so early.

    In terms of what the eye can see, that should be about 200 ppi. Assuming you have 6/6 vision or better.

    Digital vs. Medium or large format? If digital can't beat them on gallery size prints, there's no way it'll beat them on an 8X10. The better single shot capture digital backs only capture 16 megapixels. A 3000 dpi drum scan of a 6X6 (2 1/4 X 2 1/4) piece of film will yield 43 megapixels.

    Of course, for static objects there are "scanning type" digital backs that will get you 190 to 200 megapixel files in RAW format. The thing here is that just like stitching photos together, it only works if your subject doesn't decide to move away.

    On the extreme end of film, Lotus View Cameras makes 20X24 cameras which is scanned would get you the equivalent of gigapixel images.

    In short, quality wise, today's film is still was ahead of digital, it's all about time and money.

    Just my two cents worth.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,464

    Default

    Hi

    maybe with this announcement you guys may want to revisit this topic again

    it's amazing how, within such a short period of time, a lot of wat was said here may need to be relooked in view of new technology
    David Teo
    View my work and blog at http://www.5stonesphoto.com/blog

  13. #13

    Default

    Anything to do with computers and you have to follow Moore's Law. I wouldn't be surprised if, at Photokina 2005, Kodak announces a 88 Mpixel sensor.

    It seems to be however, that we're going to hit a limit whereby the camera lens becomes the limiting factor to resolution.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •