Maybe difficult (for the 5X4 at least) but seeing that everyone bangs on about how critical the lens is shouldn't this test be done with the same lens?
Why didn't you use the 35 on all three DSLRs or don't you think it would have proved much?
Maybe difficult (for the 5X4 at least) but seeing that everyone bangs on about how critical the lens is shouldn't this test be done with the same lens?
Why didn't you use the 35 on all three DSLRs or don't you think it would have proved much?
They will be shooting ISO 50 though, anything over even probably ISO 200 just isn't relevant. You can get DMFBs going up to ISO 3200 though.
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.
What for?
Steve.
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.
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.
Certainly a huge difference there. The D800 annihilates the film shots in your examples!
Eh, no I don't, I'm talking about essexash's examples via the link he gave. I'd already posted re: the original tests.
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?
You mean quote button? D'uh .... Follow the thread and then you wont get lost.
No, I already said I think the D800 has.
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.
Eh - i am following the thread, that's why i'm replying... Don't get your knickers in a twist.
Byeee!
No offence... but that's just using a cheap flatbed scanner.
Incidentally... essexash.. how do you manage to get so much dust on your film??
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 ...
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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
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).
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.
The skin on that model looks like a waxwork. Give me an Alpa 12 STC and IQ180 any day over drum scanners and film.
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?
You mention that but again I recall Tim Parkins tests...
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'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
Cagey75 said: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.