D40 vs. D7000 vs. D800 vs. 5x4

[Cagey75]

I wanted it to be dramatic. Only in Ireland do we use that one perhaps?

Heh, well, say the D7000 is like .... Naseem Hamed, D800 is more like Tyson ;D

 

[Pookeyhead]

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.

In a studio, the contrast is as strong, or as weak as you want it to be You're in control.

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).

Well. yes, some cameras are better suited to indoor use because of stability etc, but it never stopped Ansel Adams or Gregory Crewdson We're talking about the quality achievable here, not their practicality. Large format is impractical even in the studio compared to a rigid body camera.

 

[Laudrup]

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.

Using an £18k scanner to get a jpeg like that seems a waste of time. As for 4x5, well 8x10 will wipe the floor with that, but who wants the expense and messing about? I wouldn't use it if you gave me it for free.

Give me an IQ180 or Hasselblad 200MP Multishot any day.

 

[Steve Smith]

As for 4x5, well 8x10 will wipe the floor with that, but who wants the expense and messing about? I wouldn't use it if you gave me it for free.

I would. I will even pay the postage!

Give me an IQ180 or Hasselblad 200MP Multishot any day.

Luminous Landscape made the ridiculous claim that an IQ180 was equal to or better than 10x8 film. The IQ180 is 80MP so to be equivalent to film that would be 1MP per square inch of 10x8.


By that reasoning, a 35mm frame of 1.33 square inches would be equaled or bettered by a 1.33MP digital camera. This is clearly nonsense.

Using an £18k scanner to get a jpeg like that seems a waste of time.

I sort of agree. For me, the reason for taking a photograph with whatever format and technology, is to get a print. Therefore I would use my enlarger to print from 5x4 and contact print from 10x8. Not everything has to go into a computer then onto the internet.

The files from digital cameras are very good at producing colour prints using modern printing methods. I think for colour, digital has the edge now. However, for black and white, digital doesn't even come close to a real print made with an enlarger and traditional materials.


Steve.

 

[Laudrup]

I want to see what I've shot straight away, I don't like surprises.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Using an £18k scanner to get a jpeg like that seems a waste of time.

LOL.. you think I used a X5 to create a JPEG?? Please read my posts properly. The TIFF is flawless. If I could upload a 300MB TIFF to Flickr, I would. I didn't take the shot for the internet, I took it to print. However, you have to JPEG stuff in order to post it online, and a 300MB TIFF takes some fair old JPEGing to get it to a manageable file size if you are to keep the resolution the same.. I mean.. seriously.. you think I scan to JPEG????

As for 4x5, well 8x10 will wipe the floor with that, but who wants the expense and messing about? I wouldn't use it if you gave me it for free.

Give me an IQ180 or Hasselblad 200MP Multishot any day.

Can afford a Hasselblad 200MP can you? Ever used one?.. I mean properly, not at a PR event? IQ180? I use one of those all the time. Yeah, it rocks... but I wouldn't say it's as good as 5x4 film. Anyway... each to their own. This thread isn't about is large format better than £20+k MF systems, it's about is the D800 all it's cracked up to be.

I want to see what I've shot straight away, I don't like surprises.

If you know what you're doing, why would you get surprises? Maybe you need more practice

 

[AshleyC]

This thread isn't about is large format better than £20+k MF systems, it's about is the D800 all it's cracked up to be.

Indeed. I think i took it off a little bit and set the ball rolling, so apologies for that, this is all about comparing each at their best which is the only way to make a comparison.

 

[Steve Smith]

If you know what you're doing, why would you get surprises?

Exactly!


Steve.

 

[Moreorless]

Can afford a Hasselblad 200MP can you? Ever used one?.. I mean properly, not at a PR event? IQ180? I use one of those all the time. Yeah, it rocks... but I wouldn't say it's as good as 5x4 film. Anyway... each to their own. This thread isn't about is large format better than £20+k MF systems, it's about is the D800 all it's cracked up to be.

..of course some of the scanners your using on MF/LF film are pushing £20k but I spose you need not buy them or rent them just send off the odd shot you want scanned to that res.

The main advanatge of the MF systems seems to be portability and the ability to capture moving subjects more easily than LF but then again the D800 offers more of both of those at a much lower price.

Again for me what really prevents me from giving LF or panoramic a try(besides my bank balance) is the feeling that if I'm going to that much trouble why not just stitch with the D800? Honiestly with my 550D I was getting results I was happy with hand held, not done much of it on the D800 yet as the standard resolution is enough for my needs.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Because you can't stitch everything... only landscapes and things that don't have any movement. Even on a windy day you're going to struggle stitching a landscape because the grass and trees are constantly moving. Also. I'm not just talking about large format. 6x7? You've seen what that can do further up the page. A Mamyia RB67 is portable, and costs around £300 on ebay

Anyway... I'm not here to sell film to anyone. I hardly use it myself any more.

 

[Moreorless]

Because you can't stitch everything... only landscapes and things that don't have any movement. Even on a windy day you're going to struggle stitching a landscape because the grass and trees are constantly moving. Also. I'm not just talking about large format. 6x7? You've seen what that can do further up the page. A Mamyia RB67 is portable, and costs around £300 on ebay

Anyway... I'm not here to sell film to anyone. I hardly use it myself any more.

I'd argue the kinds of subjects that can be more easily stitched are also the kinds of subjects LF has tended to be used for in recent decades(landscapes, still life etc).

As you've said with MF film though your looking at very high end scanners to get digitalised results similar to the D800 which limates the potential saving.

Seems to me that MF films main benefits over a D800 would be for those who want the resolution but don't shoot in very high volumnes to the degree that film/processing/drum scanning will not eat up the saving.

 

[mpe]

One word for you... Scheimpflug

Stop fixating on the film box

Then you should possibly give D800 a chance to shine and use perspective correction lens with the D800

The film box is the best part of your scene where you could judge the level detail.

Yes, the face looks beter on large format, however, you can't really say from that how much more details are actually there. Would be great to have something better in the scene.

 

[Steve]

wow...just came across this thread and what an interesting read.

Thanks to the OP for taking the time to complete and post the tests..very useful.

As has been referred to several times in the thread is the weakness of scanners in the process.

In the Talk Film and Conventional section, there are several posts complaining about the poor quality scans users have recieved from 'professional scanners' who claim to use £40k scanners.

Is it really that hard to get a good scan of a negative?

 

[Cagey75]

Knowing you need such extravagant scanners to get the best out of these MF film bodies takes a lot of the magic away.

Looks like the D800 stands up more than well enough and is the much cheaper option all-round!

 

[Steve Smith]

Knowing you need such extravagant scanners to get the best out of these MF film bodies takes a lot of the magic away

No. You add extra magic with a light source, a lens, some photo paper and a darkened room (well, lit with a red light). And some trays of stuff for the magic to happen in!


Steve.

 

[Cagey75]

That's not magic, that's .... film photography. The magic was that it didn't cost a fortune, but now we're talking 40K scanners??

 

[Laudrup]

LOL.. you think I used a X5 to create a JPEG?? Please read my posts properly. The TIFF is flawless. If I could upload a 300MB TIFF to Flickr, I would. I didn't take the shot for the internet, I took it to print. However, you have to JPEG stuff in order to post it online, and a 300MB TIFF takes some fair old JPEGing to get it to a manageable file size if you are to keep the resolution the same.. I mean.. seriously.. you think I scan to JPEG????

Post a better jpeg or host the TIFF. It can't be that hard surely?

Can afford a Hasselblad 200MP can you? Ever used one?.. I mean properly, not at a PR event? IQ180? I use one of those all the time. Yeah, it rocks... but I wouldn't say it's as good as 5x4 film. Anyway... each to their own. This thread isn't about is large format better than £20+k MF systems, it's about is the D800 all it's cracked up to be.

No more than you could probably afford an £18k scanner. If I ever did want to spend that type of cash on a hobby or even commercially it wouldn't be shooting with film. I don't think you can ascertain if the D800 is all it is cracked up to be based on one photo.

If you know what you're doing, why would you get surprises? Maybe you need more practice

Norman Jean Roy shoots for Vogue and makes mistakes, Rodney Lough Jr makes mistakes. Maybe you should show them how it's done?

 

[s162216]

In the Talk Film and Conventional section, there are several posts complaining about the poor quality scans users have recieved from 'professional scanners' who claim to use £40k scanners.

Is it really that hard to get a good scan of a negative?

The complaint about the scans is not usually the quality per say regarding colour balance etc but the size of the scans as many labs charge a lot extra for scans larger than about 6 mp in size from any film format even though the 40K scanners like those by Noritsu can produce scans many times larger than that.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Then you should possibly give D800 a chance to shine and use perspective correction lens with the D800

Just compare the other parts of the image that are within DOF!!! Does the fate of the D800 hand in the balance on the strength of a box of 35mm film??

The film box is the best part of your scene where you could judge the level detail.

Nonsense... there's tons of stuff in here.

Yes, the face looks beter on large format, however, you can't really say from that how much more details are actually there. Would be great to have something better in the scene.

Go do your own test then.

How ungrateful! I spent hours doing that and all he can think of is to complain that I didn't have a PC lens to hand. I don't know why I bother sometimes.

No. You add extra magic with a light source, a lens, some photo paper and a darkened room (well, lit with a red light). And some trays of stuff for the magic to happen in!


Steve.

Red light for colour printing?

That's not magic, that's .... film photography. The magic was that it didn't cost a fortune, but now we're talking 40K scanners??

40K?

No.. Steve's point is that you can always get a used colour enlarger off ebay, some colour processing gear too, and do some real printing.

The down side to that is you don;t get the benefits of post processing the image digitally.. it's straight from camera to paper.

Post a better jpeg or host the TIFF. It can't be that hard surely?

Flickr seems to re-JPEG anything over 30MB.... I just tries and it ends up looking the same, and the file size is still the same even thought I uploaded a 60MB JPEG. It's done the same with the 5x4 JPEG too, but that only seems to be apparent in the fine gradation from shadows to white... not worth re-doing.

I don't think you can ascertain if the D800 is all it is cracked up to be based on one photo.

I think it gives a fair indication. Why are you being so negative? It's a comparative test that shows detail, sharpness and tonality. No, it's not an exhaustive test, but it's interesting to see side by side differences between low end, mid range and high end stuff, as magazines and reviews only test like for like mainly. There aren't many tests between LF and the D800.. not ones with full on hi-res.

You go out of your way to do something interesting and informative, and all people can do is bitch about it.

You want a full on exhaustive test under every conceivable scenario.. go do your own, I'm a busy man.

 

[PaulButler]

Well I have found this a very interesting read and appreciate the OP taking the time to do it ... if I was only ever going to take photos and print I would certainly consider using MF or LF, only thing would be the convenience of other formats ...

I think what it does show is just how good the little old D40 was I believe it is the same sensor as the D70 and I really liked mine (D70 that is, never owned a D40).

One question, how accurate was the colour reproduction compared to the colour checker? They all look decent enough on my screen, but I don't have a colour checker here! (monitor is calibrated btw ).

 

[Steve]

Well this thread has removed the last thread of doubt I had about buying a film MF camera.

Been wanting one for ages, but the confirmation that the images are that good is the final encouragement I need.

 

[Steve Smith]

Red light for colour printing?

No!

I have only ever printed one colour picture (thirty years ago) and I have no plans to do any more. It's all black and white for me.

Steve's point is that you can always get a used colour enlarger off ebay, some colour processing gear too, and do some real printing.

The down side to that is you don't get the benefits of post processing the image digitally. it's straight from camera to paper.

There's no downside. The advantage is you learn how to get it right without any technical trickery. Although I am reading one of Tim Rudman's printing books at the moment and he appears to be a master of optical trickery at the printing stage.


Steve.

 

[Pookeyhead]

One question, how accurate was the colour reproduction compared to the colour checker? They all look decent enough on my screen, but I don't have a colour checker here! (monitor is calibrated btw ).

All the digital cameras gave a good account of themselves, but the D40 is the least convincing, being slightly oversaturated in the reds. The D7000 and D800 are very accurate compared to the real chart. The film is obviously not that accurate in the reds and blues.. but each film has it's own characteristics... they're all different. It's one of the things that makes film have a "look" to it. You choose your film according to the job in hand.

 

[trevorbray]

Great thread. Thanks Pooky.

Really fancy 5x4. But gonna stick with 35mm and some MF (film). Cannot justify the cost in £'s or time at the moment.

 

[PaulButler]

All the digital cameras gave a good account of themselves, but the D40 is the least convincing, being slightly oversaturated in the reds. The D7000 and D800 are very accurate compared to the real chart. The film is obviously not that accurate in the reds and blues.. but each film has it's own characteristics... they're all different. It's one of the things that makes film have a "look" to it. You choose your film according to the job in hand.

Thanks for that Been a long while since I shot film seriously and then only 35mm.

 

[POAH]

nice comparison of IQ between the different cameras

 

[timparkin]

I recently got the Mamiya 7 film scanned at a higher resolution and thought the comparison between this and the IQ180. A few weeks later we shot the same distance with the same focal length using a D800. The angle of the Hasselblad is different but it's enough of a comparison to show the difference. The Mamiya 7 is stunning lens and camera system so don't expect quite this from an 'average' medium format system.

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/portra400_cms_06mic_8000-vs-4000-100percent.jpg

We also did a side by side between the D800E, Mamiya 7 with Velvia 50 and Mamiya 7 with Adox CMS20 (a microfiche film).

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/velvia50-mamiya7-cms20-d800e.jpg

Velvia 50 isn't the highest resolving film in the world, using Provia 100F or even better Velvia 100F would get better results and the Velvia and Adox in that test were only scanned at 4000dpi. The film results would be better at 8000dpi or more.

As for scanning costs, I run a drum scanning service which charges £12 for a 4000dpi 16bit drum scan. I don't make a huge amount of money on this but I believe in film and like want it to continue and I hope cheap drum scans can help with this.

Tim

p.s. The test looks good but I wonder what aperture was used for the large format result? Isn't the highest optical resolution of the Imacon 2040dpi? Anyway - good test showing the quality of the Nikon 7000 in particular.

 

[Pookeyhead]

p.s. The test looks good but I wonder what aperture was used for the large format result? Isn't the highest optical resolution of the Imacon 2040dpi? Anyway - good test showing the quality of the Nikon 7000 in particular.

It was a Schneider 150mm Apo Symmar L at F22 if I recall correctly.

yes, it's 2040dpi when scanning 5x4 film. 3200 with medium format, and 8000 with 35mm.

 

[BacktotheFuji]

Superb comparison, that 5x4 looks incredible!