DSLR vs Medium Format


Status
Not open for further replies.

darkavgr

New Member
Jul 14, 2002
231
0
0
52
Singapore
Visit site
#1
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
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
 

erwinx

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
2,423
0
0
Visit site
#3
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.
 

StreetShooter

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
4,634
0
0
Katong
streetshooter.clubsnap.org
#4
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/
 

chyeo

Senior Member
May 6, 2002
1,701
0
0
37
Woodlands
#5
How about a medium format camera with digital back? :D
 

nhyone

New Member
Mar 22, 2002
177
0
0
17
Singapore
web.singnet.com.sg
#6
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. :D
 

Blankies

New Member
Jan 18, 2002
250
0
0
NTU
geocities.com
#8
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. :D

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

StreetShooter

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
4,634
0
0
Katong
streetshooter.clubsnap.org
#9
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. :D
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.
 

Xpose

New Member
Jan 23, 2002
254
0
0
36
Visit site
#10
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:(
 

E

el loco

Guest
#11
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. ;)
 

Lennier

New Member
Feb 26, 2002
172
0
0
simpleshooter.clubsnap.org
#13
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.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom