Possibly the silliest question of the year...

tikkathreebarrel

tikkathreebarrel

Messages
2,168
Edit My Images
Yes
I know we stay with medium format for the size of the negative and trumpet how much richer/deeper/nicer are the images than those produced by the miniature format 35mm. Then we howl with laughter at some of the diminutive sensor sizes in digital formats. (well, maybe not FF in my case:rules:):rules:

But digital backs on MF cameras a la Mamiya, 'Blad and Bron (presumably): what size is the sensor in these highly priced gems -the same size as MF film?
 
As far as I know there are only one or two back where the sensor size is the same as a 645 negative. As far as I'm aware nobody makes a 6x6 sensor for a digital back.

I think the majority of MF sensors are quite a bit bigger than full frame 35mm sensors but not as big as the negatives they replace despite some ludicrous pixel counts.
 
Specifications for Leaf/Mamiya backs here. The sensor size ranges from 44x33mm to 54x40mm. This compares to 36x24mm on the full-frame 5Dii.
 
There are only one or two "true" MF digital backs as far as I'm aware and they're only 645,the rest are essentially crops.

Give me a 6x7 negative any day...
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
There are only one or two "true" MF digital backs as far as I'm aware and they're only 645,the rest are essentially crops.

Give me a 6x7 negative any day...
Click to expand...

idk, the new phase one i series backs are pretty impressive. 2 of them are full frame 645 sensors, in 60 or 80MP flavours, more dynamic range than you can shake an editing stick at, and we're now starting to see usable "high" iso settings

True, they cost more than most cars, but if someone else was paying then a nice contax 645 system with an i180 would do very nicely

I think the old phase one P30+ was full frame as well, supposedly very nice at native iso, but again not a cheap option
 
Thanks everyone for taking time to reply. If I had a spare kidney I might invest, otherwise I'll stick to MF fillum and scan the negs. And hope to detect a difference between the results and those from FF DSLR.
 
tikkathreebarrel said:
Thanks everyone for taking time to reply. If I had a spare kidney I might invest, otherwise I'll stick to MF fillum and scan the negs. And hope to detect a difference between the results and those from FF DSLR.
Click to expand...

In my opinion 35mm Dslr exceeds 645 quality, but still can't touch 6x6 and up. There's something about larger MF and large format images that's difficult to describe, it's often noted as a "3D" esque quality
 
excalibur2 said:
erm isn't a 6X4.5...... a 6X6 with 1.5cm cut off from one side ;)
Click to expand...

Yes. :D

I have an early Phase One Hasselblad H10 back. It's 11 mp on a 24 x36 sensor and it's a full 16 bit which no DSLR is but don't under-estimate the quality you can get from these early backs. Many of them are still in regular use in pro studios today.
 
excalibur2 said:
erm isn't a 6X4.5...... a 6X6 with 1.5cm cut off from one side ;)
Click to expand...

Lol yes. Obviously.

I've had the discussion many times with a few MF film shooters who have the budget to buy the likes of an IQ180 back, but instead still shoot 6x7 and up.

Fred Greissing is somebody I occasionally speak with regarding film and MF shooting. He shoots Hollywood A list celebrities in the US. He shoots film with a Fuji GX680 III and digital on a Canon 5D MkII. An example of somebody who could quite easily shoot a 645 format MF digi back, but advocates shooting larger MF film.

Can quote specs all you want, I can afford an old digital back but IMO film is better. No replacement for displacement fellas ;)
 
Last edited:
Mahoneyd187 said:
Lol yes. Obviously.

I've had the discussion many times with a few MF film shooters who have the budget to buy the likes of an IQ180 back, but instead still shoot 6x7 and up.

Fred Greissing is somebody I occasionally speak with regarding film and MF shooting. He shoots Hollywood A list celebrities in the US. He shoots film with a Fuji GX680 III and digital on a Canon 5D MkII. An example of somebody who could quite easily shoot a 645 format MF digi back, but advocates shooting larger MF film.

Can quote specs all you want, I can afford an old digital back but IMO film is better. No replacement for displacement fellas ;)
Click to expand...

Fred may have many good reasons for preferring to shoot portraits with film - the undeniably greater luminance range and just the different aesthetics of film compared to digital. You really shouldn't base your judgement on someone else's say so Danny - you can't beat your own experience,

I honestly don't know what the answer is. I'm a massive MF fan with the hole in the bank account to prove it and I know what the conventional wisdom on the subject is but I really don't know and prefer to see some evidence before making blanket statements.

How about someone takes a MF film shot at say 50 or 100 ISO and I take the same shot on the H10 back - we link to both shots reduced to the 1:1 size of the H10 file. Some frame filling common household object or piece of text perhaps?

I have no vested interest in the outcome whatsoever, I just think it would be a useful exercise?
 
CT said:
Fred may have many good reasons for preferring to shoot portraits with film - the undeniably greater luminance range and just the different aesthetics of film compared to digital. You really shouldn't base your judgement on someone else's say so Danny - you can't beat your own experience,

I honestly don't know what the answer is. I'm a massive MF fan with the hole in the bank account to prove it and I know what the conventional wisdom on the subject is but I really don't know and prefer to see some evidence before making blanket statements.

How about someone takes a MF film shot at say 50 or 100 ISO and I take the same shot on the H10 back - we link to both shots reduced to the 1:1 size of the H10 file. Some frame filling common household object or piece of text perhaps?

I have no vested interest in the outcome whatsoever, I just think it would be a useful exercise?
Click to expand...

I've spoken to Fred before about his preference to using film and he has very valid points.

My reason for chosing film, was based on his advice, and my own reasoning, that for the money (rz67 + v500), the quality just can't be beaten.

Vincent Peters, my hands down favourite photographer also shoots film through an RZ67. Although my own experience is obviously valid, if I'm using the same equipment as these guys...then the only thing standing between myself and their standard of shots, is my own photographic talent. I prefer to know it's my fault my shots aren't amazing, rather than my equipment.

I sometimes think about things arse about face...granted lol

Please take a moment to look at this link showcasing some of Fred's work, along with 100% crops from the shots. Scanned simply with a V700, dry scan, and in the case of the colour shot, totally unretouched. Film can capture an amazing amount of detail, and I'm nowhere near getting what I want from it but I'll be damned if I'm going to give up.

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=769785
 
I know how good the V700 scanner is - I use one myself. :D

I'm not seeing the 100% crops in the link, but no matter - I know how good 6X7 and 6X6 are. I have no axe to grind one way or the other - just curious. The slowest film I've shot is PanF - probably my favourite B&W film, but I do know that you can see grain in big enlargements - long before you get to the 1:1 file size of the H10, whereas I'm confident that at 50 or 100 iSO you wouldn't see any noise whatsoever in a 1:1 H10 image getting your nose as close to it as you like.

Granted - the grain in the PanF shot may not be objectionable -even attractive so we're probably comparing apples with oranges, but I do think we need to establish what the ground rules are when it comes to IQ and how much of it is just personal preference?
 
Last edited:
I think we often get hung up on image quality and don't look at image qualities. It's perhaps the qualities of film we like so much rather than absolute quality.
 
I'm confused

An image file from a H10 has to be upscaled alot to reach the same size as a 4800dpi scan from a 6x7 negative (108mp), whether you have the 6mp or 11mp back, that's a massive upscale and will result in massive loss of quality at 100%. So the h10 file has already been pushed at least 1000% original image size to match. There's no way the image quality will be identical for enlargements printed when you consider the difference in image size alone
 
Perhaps comparing absolute pixel numbers isn't fair either. I think a better measure would be pixel density.

I can't find the pixel dimensions for the hasselblad but perhaps a scan of a negative should be at the same PPI as the H10. Although the file will be bigger at least the pixel-density (which has a bigger impact on image quality than shear numbers) is the same.
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
I'm confused

An image file from a H10 has to be upscaled alot to reach the same size as a 4800dpi scan from a 6x7 negative (108mp), whether you have the 6mp or 11mp back, that's a massive upscale and will result in massive loss of quality at 100%. So the h10 file has already been pushed at least 1000% original image size to match. There's no way the image quality will be identical for enlargements printed when you consider the difference in image size alone
Click to expand...
What I suggested is both images being posted at the 1:1 size of the H10 back regardless of the scan res of the film shot which would actually favour the film shot (as it would be downsized)
 
Kev M said:
Perhaps comparing absolute pixel numbers isn't fair either. I think a better measure would be pixel density.

I can't find the pixel dimensions for the hasselblad but perhaps a scan of a negative should be at the same PPI as the H10. Although the file will be bigger at least the pixel-density (which has a bigger impact on image quality than shear numbers) is the same.
Click to expand...

Not at all, it's absolutely relevant.

CT brought up the example of printing large enlargements. The scan from a 6x7 negative will require minimal upscaling compared to the resolution available from a H10 image file. eg. a print requiring a 200mp image size needs a 2x upscale from a 108mp scan, vs 18x upscale from 11mp, and 33x upscale from 6mp.

For big enlargements, the bigger the sensor/negative the better....
 
Alastair said:
I think we often get hung up on image quality and don't look at image qualities. It's perhaps the qualities of film we like so much rather than absolute quality.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that's really the answer.
 
CT said:
What I suggested is both images being posted at the 1:1 size of the H10 back regardless of the scan res of the film shot which would actually favour the film shot (as it would be downsized)
Click to expand...

Does downsizing improve image quality?

There's a question.

You spoke of enlargements too. That's what I was questioning

edit- I'm not trying to be a dick by the way. lol. Don't want you to think I'm trying to cause arguments because I'm not.
 
Last edited:
Mahoneyd187 said:
Does downsizing improve image quality?

There's a question.

You spoke of enlargements too. That's what I was questioning

edit- I'm not trying to be a dick by the way. lol. Don't want you to think I'm trying to cause arguments because I'm not.
Click to expand...

LOL Danny no probs at all mate I just find it interesting. I'd rather be shooting film with a film back any day truth be told despite the convenience of the H10. :D\

Generally speaking yes - the shot will look better reduced in size whereas going the other way and interpolating upwards usually impacts image quality badly the larger you go.

A full size file from the H10 is 3992 X2656 pixels and 30.3 mb ( as a tiff) btw. It would make a damned big print at 1:1
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
There's something about larger MF and large format images that's difficult to describe, it's often noted as a "3D" esque quality
Click to expand...

This ^^ still remains. Larger MF and LF have a certain look, not present in cropped format "MF" digi backs which are barely larger than a FF 35mm DSLR. I'm not qualified to say what it is, but I've heard it refered to many many times. Whether its the lenses, or ultimately the area of the recording format.

And there is a difference between 645 (2700sq mm) and 6x6 (3600sq mm), 6x6 is approaching 1.4x the negative area.
 
If you are talking about good use of depth of field, with microcontrast differences and good separation of the subject from the OOF background then I have seen this in all formats, from crop sensors upwards. Perhaps its just easier to achieve with large negatives? I used to see it relatively frequently with my zeiss lenses on my contax G2.
 
^^^ the lens used will of course make a huge difference Jim.
 
menthel said:
If you are talking about good use of depth of field, with microcontrast differences and good separation of the subject from the OOF background then I have seen this in all formats, from crop sensors upwards. Perhaps its just easier to achieve with large negatives? I used to see it relatively frequently with my zeiss lenses on my contax G2.
Click to expand...

Microcontrast, tonality and DOF get my vote yeah. Easier on larger formats but dammit you need to serious light, struggling with my current film preference of acros 100. I really REALLY need to stop looking at ARRI lighting :| gf's gonna kill me one day
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
Microcontrast, tonality and DOF get my vote yeah. Easier on larger formats but dammit you need to serious light, struggling with my current film preference of acros 100. I really REALLY need to stop looking at ARRI lighting :| gf's gonna kill me one day
Click to expand...

PMSL. Enjoy it - it's all part of the fun and challenge. Try some Portra - I'm totally in love with the stuff. :cool:
 
CT said:
PMSL. Enjoy it - it's all part of the fun and challenge. Try some Portra - I'm totally in love with the stuff. :cool:
Click to expand...

I've got 160 portra loaded in my ME super and thats 27 shots in, got some 120 160 portra in the fridge for the big boy. Got some semi decent model tests coming up in a couple of weeks, maybe I'll let them expose themselves on my portra, we'll see, lol
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
I Got some semi decent model tests coming up in a couple of weeks, maybe I'll let them expose themselves on my portra, we'll see, lol
Click to expand...
Man up!.It's a tough job but someone has to do it! :lol:
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
Yeah I know, shame huh :D lol

I'll be sure to post up my results anyway.

Bit more on track....what camera do you use with the H10 back?
Click to expand...

A Hasselblad 501C/M which the back is made for. Can't fit it to the RB67 without an adaptor.
 
CT said:
A Hasselblad 501C/M which the back is made for. Can't fit it to the RB67 without an adaptor.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know, the phase one adapter is £450 2nd hand. And I use an RZ ;)

Where can I see some pics from it?
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
Yeah I know, the phase one adapter is £450 2nd hand. And I use an RZ ;)

Where can I see some pics from it?
Click to expand...

I bought mine off Ed Bray here on TP. the only times I've used it in anger since I've had it are to photograph a jewellery collection and some watches for a customer for insurance so I can't really post them and I haven't kept the full size files anyway.

There's a shot of my Seiko watch in the 'Show Us Your Watch' thread ,but I promise you the full sized file is impressive!
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
This ^^ still remains. Larger MF and LF have a certain look, not present in cropped format "MF" digi backs which are barely larger than a FF 35mm DSLR. I'm not qualified to say what it is, but I've heard it refered to many many times. Whether its the lenses, or ultimately the area of the recording format.

And there is a difference between 645 (2700sq mm) and 6x6 (3600sq mm), 6x6 is approaching 1.4x the negative area.
Click to expand...

You seem to brandish (and you're not alone at all in this...) 645 as a lesser format due to a 6x6 negative being 1.4x (nearer 1.2 btw, a 6x6 negative is 56mmx56mm) times the size yet band 6x6 and 6x7 in the same category despite the relative size difference between a 6x6 and 6x7 negative being bigger than that between a 645 and 6x6 negative. How come this is so?

I don't actually shoot it but still think that 645 is an excellent format given its portability in comparison to the bigger 120 sizes. It still is around 3 times the size of a 35mm frame afterall!
 
Okey dokey, mine turn to play.

My Imacon Ixpress 528C is a 22 megapixel digital back that can capture in 1, 4, or 16 shot modes. The 1 and 4 shot modes produce the same size file (128MB 16 bit tiff), but the 4 shot mode captures individual RGB channels. The 16 shot mode produces a 528MB 16 bit tiff and, like the 4 shot, captures individual RGB channels.

The actual size of the sensor is 37mm x 49mm which is more than twice the size of a full frame DSLR and has a crop factor (if it matters) of 1.1x compared to a film 6 x 4.5cm film back/camera.

I am sorry, but Digital Medium Format quality is just so far ahead of the current DSLR quality it has to be seen to be believed, my 528C back is a 2004/5 technology and it still surpasses the very latest multi-megapixel DSLR on almost every front except size (goes without saying) speed of use and high ISOs.

The 16 bit capture and much bigger pixels give a much smoother colour graduation and higher dynamic range and that is just in the standard one shot mode. Once you start using the multi-shot modes then that improves even more. The main downside of these modes are of course the sizes of the resulting image files.

I'm not trying to be argue-mentative, but the results speak for themselves, there must be a reason why people are willing to throw £35,000 for the latest multi-shot camera (and that is the price without a lens).
 
Sam_G said:
You seem to brandish (and you're not alone at all in this...) 645 as a lesser format due to a 6x6 negative being 1.4x (nearer 1.2 btw, a 6x6 negative is 56mmx56mm) times the size yet band 6x6 and 6x7 in the same category despite the relative size difference between a 6x6 and 6x7 negative being bigger than that between a 645 and 6x6 negative. How come this is so?

I don't actually shoot it but still think that 645 is an excellent format given its portability in comparison to the bigger 120 sizes. It still is around 3 times the size of a 35mm frame afterall!
Click to expand...

Gotta draw the line somewhere with the point I was trying to make. If it makes you feel better, replace 6x6, with 6x7 in everything I've said lol.
 
EdBray said:
Okey dokey, mine turn to play.

My Imacon Ixpress 528C is a 22 megapixel digital back that can capture in 1, 4, or 16 shot modes. The 1 and 4 shot modes produce the same size file (128MB 16 bit tiff), but the 4 shot mode captures individual RGB channels. The 16 shot mode produces a 528MB 16 bit tiff and, like the 4 shot, captures individual RGB channels.

The actual size of the sensor is 37mm x 49mm which is more than twice the size of a full frame DSLR and has a crop factor (if it matters) of 1.1x compared to a film 6 x 4.5cm film back/camera.

I am sorry, but Digital Medium Format quality is just so far ahead of the current DSLR quality it has to be seen to be believed, my 528C back is a 2004/5 technology and it still surpasses the very latest multi-megapixel DSLR on almost every front except size (goes without saying) speed of use and high ISOs.

The 16 bit capture and much bigger pixels give a much smoother colour graduation and higher dynamic range and that is just in the standard one shot mode. Once you start using the multi-shot modes then that improves even more. The main downside of these modes are of course the sizes of the resulting image files.

I'm not trying to be argue-mentative, but the results speak for themselves, there must be a reason why people are willing to throw £35,000 for the latest multi-shot camera (and that is the price without a lens).
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody is saying 35mm dslrs are anywhere near the quality of a MF digiback? You're preaching to the choir with that post mate.

What my point is, is that even though your "medium format" back produces fantastic technical image quality using a cropped sensor, larger MF format, and large format film, are both better. In my opinion of course. Back to the argument of the certain larger format "look", and peoples definition of "better"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top