D40 vs. D7000 vs. D800 vs. 5x4
- Thread starter Pookeyhead
- Start date
OP
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't think it would massively effect it. The 35mm 1.8G is a great lens, and the 50mm 1.8G is a great lens. I deliberately chose the kit lens on the D40 so I had a very low end entry camera/lens combination, a mid range DX camera and a high end FX camera compared.
I did actually shoot the D40 with the 35mm 1.8G hoping it would make a difference, but at f8 and set to 35mm the 18-55 kit lens seemed to look identical to the 35mm 1.8G.
- Messages
- 983
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm not sure it really made much difference though, the 35mm and 50mm seem very similar on most tests I'v seen and the D40 isnt really going to demand nearly as much from a lens.
OP
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Exactly.... anything will be ok with a D40 
It between the D7000, D800 and 5x4 where it gets interesting, and I suppose most on here will be looking at the D7000 and D800 images.
It between the D7000, D800 and 5x4 where it gets interesting, and I suppose most on here will be looking at the D7000 and D800 images.
- Messages
- 16,767
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
In this test the D7000 fares well, but let's be honest, in real world situations the D800 kicks it's head in. For detail, DR, cropability, I would say colours. contrast, overall look and feel of the image, even pre-processing. I mean, my old D90 would have done ok in this test towards the D7000, but would I say it's anything close to a D800 in terms of delivery? not on your Nelly.
Nothing wrong with the D7000 mind, just wouldn't get overly excited because it fared alright on a controlled test set up.
Nothing wrong with the D7000 mind, just wouldn't get overly excited because it fared alright on a controlled test set up.
- Messages
- 1,675
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
The colours on the Sinar seem a touch muted, is that because of the film choice?
The D7000 certainly fairs well. If anything my biggest take away from this is I'm not getting good enough results from my D7000.
Maybe it's my lenses are lacking (the 18-55, Tamron 55-200 and a Sigma 70-300), maybe it's me. Probably both just to really stuff me up. I used to get nice shots from my D50, which I think is the same sensor as the D40 used here, but the D7000 is often disappointing.
The D7000 certainly fairs well. If anything my biggest take away from this is I'm not getting good enough results from my D7000.
Maybe it's my lenses are lacking (the 18-55, Tamron 55-200 and a Sigma 70-300), maybe it's me. Probably both just to really stuff me up. I used to get nice shots from my D50, which I think is the same sensor as the D40 used here, but the D7000 is often disappointing.
OP
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Film is just less accurate and has inherent colour shifts from emulsion to emulsion... this is why you can buy film plug-ins to replicate various film types. Provia doesn't do blues well, but exaggerates reds more. That's why the pink hues in the college prospectus are more red on the provia.. because the blue content is attenuated. Look how dark the blue on the colour swatches is compared to the digital cameras. Digital cameras are far more linear in colour response.
Being a higher resolution small sensor, the D7000 is obviously going to be more lens critical, yes.
Being a higher resolution small sensor, the D7000 is obviously going to be more lens critical, yes.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,434
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
Something I've always wondered and never asked, why do medium format sensors perform relatively poorly at high iso compared to SLR's? I'm curious because it seems to break the general trend of bigger sensor = better low light performance.
OP
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I can only image it's just not a priority is all. MF is usually used in studios where there's not really any need for more than ISO100-400. Landscape and location work is another use, and again, just use a tripod.
- Messages
- 1,144
- Name
- Gareth
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Detailed images of sediment surfaces, which are used to produce point clouds via photogrammetry. Currently we use large image montages, but the stitching is a real pain. Having movement on a macro lens with a very high resolution sensor would also be useful for some of the particle tracking we do.
- Messages
- 6,434
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
Cheers. I'd sort of guessed that may be where the answer lay. I also wonder if the resources for development might be lower. I guess sales figures are fairly low.
- Messages
- 2,896
- Name
- ...
- Edit My Images
- No
very interesting test thanks for posting it up!
I did something similar back in the Film forum between my bronica 6x6 and D800. What was also apparent was the scanning software, i was seeing quite distinct differences between the 2 app's that i was using (Epson scan and Silverfast) not only in colour rendition but detail as well. Youre sticking a digital image onto a digital medium, whereas youre scanning an analoge negative into digital so you will be limited by hardware. Comparing a 5x4 print from a negative to a print from a D800 / D7000 file would probably show a few more differences.
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=428965
No doubt a far less scientific test but more day to day what id expect to see.
thanks for posting it up!I did something similar back in the Film forum between my bronica 6x6 and D800. What was also apparent was the scanning software, i was seeing quite distinct differences between the 2 app's that i was using (Epson scan and Silverfast) not only in colour rendition but detail as well. Youre sticking a digital image onto a digital medium, whereas youre scanning an analoge negative into digital so you will be limited by hardware. Comparing a 5x4 print from a negative to a print from a D800 / D7000 file would probably show a few more differences.
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=428965
No doubt a far less scientific test
but more day to day what id expect to see.- Messages
- 983
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm guessing a combination of the needs of the average MF user and the sensor tech not having the same investment as FF and smaller.
One alternative way to do these tests would I'd say me to try and actually replace results by using a longer lens on the lower resolution cameras. We know 5x4 outdoes the D800 but by how much? is for example 2-3 stitched images going to equal or surpass it or are half a dozen needed?
D
Deleted member 49549
Guest
I think you have them the wrong way round!
- Messages
- 2,896
- Name
- ...
- Edit My Images
- No
I think the scanning is doing a dis service to the negatives though. Too many variables and sliders to slide up and down at that stage to be consistent. But that's half the problem I guess. If I was printing from the negative then id probably see something totally different. Plus the lens quality on my bronny probably leaves a lot to be desired.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 49549
Guest
Eh, that's what the reply button is for....!
And in that link, do you not see that the '3. Scanned with Silverfast 2400dpi' has the most detail?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 16,767
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
You mean quote button? .... Follow the thread and then you wont get lost.
No, I already said I think the D800 has.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 49549
Guest
Eh - i am following the thread, that's why i'm replying... Don't get your knickers in a twist.
Byeee!
OP
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
very interesting test
I did something similar back in the Film forum between my bronica 6x6 and D800. What was also apparent was the scanning software, i was seeing quite distinct differences between the 2 app's that i was using (Epson scan and Silverfast) not only in colour rendition but detail as well. Youre sticking a digital image onto a digital medium, whereas youre scanning an analoge negative into digital so you will be limited by hardware. Comparing a 5x4 print from a negative to a print from a D800 / D7000 file would probably show a few more differences.
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=428965
No doubt a far less scientific test
No offence... but that's just using a cheap flatbed scanner.
Here's a 6x7 neg scanned on a Flextight X5.. I posted this in the film forum not long ago.
CLICK FOR FULL RES
Mamyia RB67. Mamyia Sekor 90mm. Fuji Provia 100F. Flextight X5 scanner.
The D800 is very close to MF in terms of sharpness, but levels of detail in a decently scanned medium format film still outstrips the D800... but the gap is very close. The above image is a JPEG and it's harmed the skin detail and fabric detail a little. The TIFF is breathtaking. This is the problem with film.. you're at the mercy of the scanner if you want to show it in a digital world
Shooting in MF film and using a cheap flatbed is like sticking a cheap kit lens on a D800.. but 10 times worse.Incidentally... essexash.. how do you manage to get so much dust on your film??
Last edited:
- Messages
- 16,767
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Lol, that's what you're doing man. You jumped on my post like you were on a mission. I'd already said earlier that the 5x4 looked best, but in the other, outdoor examples the D800 just pee's all over the others. In terms of colour rendition, solidity, sharpness, contract, punch, overall detail ...
The old timers maybe work best under controlled, studiolighting. But lose something outdoors?? I don't know ... I just know what looks better to my eye
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,896
- Name
- ...
- Edit My Images
- No
none taken, but it would be what the average joe in the street would use to scan their negatives in. Although the Epson V750 gets better reviews than most scanners its still not going to match "professional" gear. It wont quite match your £15,000 scanner. Not really for home use that one.
hanging it in a dusty room to dry probably
Although ive found a cleaner place to hang them now!And come on chaps, behave. This is an interesting thread.
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
It does... it's very badly scanned. Those outdoor shots of essexash's are in no way representative of what medium format film is capable of.
I know.... and that's the problem. This is why most people think film is crap. It's not... most scanners are crap.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 49549
Guest
Apologies if that's what you thought - it certainly wasn't my intention. Can you accept that it appeared to me you were referring to the OP and move on? Cheers!
- Messages
- 16,767
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Yeah sure! I probably shouldn't have put the "Eh" and "d'uh" in my post, [did edit that out] I meant no harm either. Text can come across much more harsh than ever intended.
I have no doubt that MF film will be superior to Digital FX, no matter the model, in most situations. But those outdoor images did look very washy, and zooming in didn't help either. Check the roof slates for example.
But then you see the in-studio MF shots and they are amazing, even that Jpeg.
I probably shouldn't have put the "Eh" and "d'uh" in my post, [did edit that out] I meant no harm either. Text can come across much more harsh than ever intended. I have no doubt that MF film will be superior to Digital FX, no matter the model, in most situations. But those outdoor images did look very washy, and zooming in didn't help either. Check the roof slates for example.
But then you see the in-studio MF shots and they are amazing, even that Jpeg.
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Nothing to do with outdoor, or location though. It's all down to the scanner. If essexash gave me his transparencies to scan on the X5 you'd see an entirely different result.... I'd clean the dust off first as well
(sorry.. couldn't resist).
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,896
- Name
- ...
- Edit My Images
- No
theyre fluffy, what can i say :shrug:baddabing:
But your using gear that we can only have wet dreams about. I just did a bit of browsing around trying to find a commercial service that would scan at that quality. Havnt found one yet! I think if people are moaning about the D800 file sizes they would have an anneurism when they got back an 8k dpi colour scan, let alone the cost of it. MF film defenitly has the capacity to piddle all over digital as shown there though and im looking forward to the day i get my first sharp image out of my 4x5, though god knows what the files sizes will be!
I do have better scans these days, in my defense But not hugely better, im just limited by the environment and technology and ability which most people will be limited by.
But your using gear that we can only have wet dreams about. I just did a bit of browsing around trying to find a commercial service that would scan at that quality. Havnt found one yet! I think if people are moaning about the D800 file sizes they would have an anneurism when they got back an 8k dpi colour scan, let alone the cost of it. MF film defenitly has the capacity to piddle all over digital as shown there though and im looking forward to the day i get my first sharp image out of my 4x5, though god knows what the files sizes will be!
I do have better scans these days, in my defense
But not hugely better, im just limited by the environment and technology and ability which most people will be limited by.
OP
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
2400dpi from a X5 is 328MB. It's not the file size itself that gives the quality from the X5, it's the optics in the scanner.
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
very interesting test
That's the problem with all of these film and digital comparisons. It ends up as a scanner to digital comparison with the scanner being the weakest link.
Actual prints need to be seen to spot the actual differences... but you can't do that on the internet!
Steve.
- Messages
- 1,675
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
Slight tangent but not too much so.
How would this method http://www.petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/ of scanning relate to the X5 and cheap flat bed? I am guessing somewhere in the middle but closer to the cheaper end. While more work it seems to give reasonable results.
I ask as I have considered a film MF camera but the film and developing costs are bad enough, never mind scanning.
How would this method http://www.petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/ of scanning relate to the X5 and cheap flat bed? I am guessing somewhere in the middle but closer to the cheaper end. While more work it seems to give reasonable results.
I ask as I have considered a film MF camera but the film and developing costs are bad enough, never mind scanning.
The skin on that model looks like a waxwork. Give me an Alpa 12 STC and IQ180 any day over drum scanners and film.
Just talking about sensor sizes etc a few years ago Canon did this giant sensor:
http://www.canon.com/news/2010/aug31e.html
Just talking about sensor sizes etc a few years ago Canon did this giant sensor:
http://www.canon.com/news/2010/aug31e.html
- Messages
- 983
- Edit My Images
- No
Nothing to do with outdoor, or location though. It's all down to the scanner. If essexash gave me his transparencies to scan on the X5 you'd see an entirely different result.... I'd clean the dust off first as well
You mention that but again I recall Tim Parkins tests...
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/large.html
The large format film holds its own outdoors vs the best digital but its clearly superior in the studio.
As has been said aswell the scanner issue is far from a formality, I'm guessing alot of potential MF film users on forums such as this would be drawn to its low cost compaired to FF digital. If your needing to invest 10K+ in a scanner or pay £20+ per shot to have someone else scan them that obviously limates any such economy.
OP
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Which is why I used a £18,000 scanner
Read the thread... the JPEG compression has caused all manner of artefacts... same with the fabric too. The TIFF is perfect. I'll have to re-JPEG it, see if I can improve it to show you. Sorry.. but 5x4 film wipes the floor with a IQ180... and you're talking to someone who uses both. The IQ180 isn't THAT much better than well processed and scanned 6x7 medium format film either.
Quite badly. It would have all the same issues duping slides used to have... which is excessive contrast and loss of sharpness. I'd say it would be even worse than using a decent flatbed.
I'm sorry, but where the camera is located will not make the format inherently better or worse. The only possible variable is contrast control in certain outdoor conditions. Other than that, it makes absolutely no difference. Resolution, sharpness, tonality are the same no matter where you are... good lighting is good lighting no matter whether it's natural or created by you. The camera isn't sentient.. it doesn't know it's in a studio
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,104
- Name
- Samuel
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Palm Imaging have a Flextight scanning service although if you want a 300mb file everytime then your going to have to save up a bit to get a full roll done!
http://www.palmlabs.co.uk/film-processing-services/scan-packages
You can get a decent drum scan done for not too much more and those are the very best you can get (obviously depending on the operator etc).
Last edited:
- Messages
- 983
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm sorry, but where the camera is located will not make the format inherently better or worse. The only possible variable is contrast control in certain outdoor conditions. Other than that, it makes absolutely no difference. Resolution, sharpness, tonality are the same no matter where you are... good lighting is good lighting no matter whether it's natural or created by you. The camera isn't sentient.. it doesn't know it's in a studio
Were the camera is located is of course likely to change the kind of subject your shooting though.
I'v never shot anything in a studio in my life but I'm guessing contrast is generally not going to be as strong as it is shooting landscapes, it certainly doesnt seem to be in those examples anyway.
Tilting movements would I'd guess counter the reduced DOF with large format without needing to stop down too far but your still dealing with longer shutter speeds which could lead to subject movement effecting sharpness outdoors(wind etc).
Last edited: