MF v's D800

AshleyC

AshleyC

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,956
Name
...
Edit My Images
No
I thought id run some samples to compare my bronica against the D800 and here they be for anyone else interested. Although as i was scanning these in i realised it cant be a true test as i'm limited by the scanning resolution of the scanner, if you were to make prints straight from the negative im sure youd have a hell of a lot more detail resolved plus the vagaries of scanning profiles mean the colours cant be a true reflection of the film, you can see here the difference between scans from 2 different app's. So im not sure what im trying to achieve here :) i just did it out of curiosity, it hasnt and wont stop me using film, i still just love the "physicality" of it all. Ive got a studio shoot next weekend so might try a similar thing with portraits.

Anyway, on with the show i guess. Ive added links at the end for downloads of the original files, they are huge (up to 80megs each) and ive only got a 5gig bandwidth limit on my webspace so dont be suprised if it all stops working at some point if people go for them!

You can also get to the full size jpegs through flickr though which arent far off the originals.

*note* this is in no way as scientific as the scanner test you all carried out, i just bunged this together on a whim so probably just wasting web space :D

The gear was a Bronica SQ-B with 50mm lens and Ektar 100, the D800 with 16-35f4 set to around 25mm to match the Bronica.

1. D800


2. Bronica scanned with Epson Scan 2400dpi


3. Scanned with Silverfast 2400dpi



Link to the originals
http://www.ashleycottle.co.uk/Comparison/
 
essexash said:
I thought id run some samples to compare my bronica against the D800 and here they be for anyone else interested. Although as i was scanning these in i realised it cant be a true test as i'm limited by the scanning resolution of the scanner, if you were to make prints straight from the negative im sure youd have a hell of a lot more detail resolved plus the vagaries of scanning profiles mean the colours cant be a true reflection of the film, you can see here the difference between scans from 2 different app's. So im not sure what im trying to achieve here :) i just did it out of curiosity, it hasnt and wont stop me using film, i still just love the "physicality" of it all. Ive got a studio shoot next weekend so might try a similar thing with portraits.

Anyway, on with the show i guess. Ive added links at the end for downloads of the original files, they are huge (up to 80megs each) and ive only got a 5gig bandwidth limit on my webspace so dont be suprised if it all stops working at some point if people go for them!

You can also get to the full size jpegs through flickr though which arent far off the originals.

*note* this is in no way as scientific as the scanner test you all carried out, i just bunged this together on a whim so probably just wasting web space :D

The gear was a Bronica SQ-B with 50mm lens and Ektar 100, the D800 with 16-35f4 set to around 25mm to match the Bronica.
Click to expand...

That's really interesting. EpsonScan didn't fare too well, but the SilverFast scan looks pretty good in comparison at the display resolution!

Now, if you subtract the cost of the Bronica from the cost of the D800 and divide it by the cost of buying and processing film, I wonder how many rolls you could take before the Bronica got more expensive?:nuts:
 
737 :D

I thought, detail wise, the epson scan was pretty much the same as silverfast. You can still see the same detail in the clock face corners and in the wires on the grill over the window. The silverfast resolves a bit more stone texture though but this could be down to slider settings etc The epson software is a lot more sraightforward to use and it picks out the negative frames perfectly every time, silverfast never manages that and you have to draw them out manually which is annoying. If i can get the exposure a bit better on Epson then id probably use that.

Its just a bit frustrating not knowing what Ektar should look like, im just sliding things up and down till i get a reasonable image. Totally ignoring any colour properties of the film itself.
 
Last edited:
I think this small test with disparate equipment was in some ways very valid and for me just shows that with dedication and conviction of your beliefs in photography you can achieve whatever you want.

#1
very nice D800 shot, not as much punch in the small detail as I would have expected, but good strong colour with a natural feel, very intense, shadow work needs looking at.

#2
Although a little washed the detail is good and the overall impact is very delightful when viewed in isolation, however this would be solved with the sliders as would have happened in the darkroom of old, very nice shadow work, but, must say the crop may have an impact.

#3
To my eye and crappy monitor the best of the bunch, why, because it is so natural and it has the" I am there look" which is so difficult to create with genre's other than film.

Right or wrong that's me.

Richard.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply :) im not sure what you mean by the crop effect though. Nothing has been cropped in any of the shots.

I dunno, maybe i was hoping to get a bit more discussion out of it :) But im struggling at the moment to wander why im using film. These are all just personal opinions but i think if i was printing from the negatives as well then it would justify having all the gear as youd be getting the full effect of the negative. But i dont have the space, room, time etc etc to do it.

Having to scan, even scanning on a good scanner you still dont get the full impact of what the negative can give you. By having to scan detail is lost, you cant get the proper colour effect of whatever film your using which defeats the point of using it, you might just as well use the cheapest sort if youre just going to slide things up and down in the computer anyway and you lose some of the tonal range.

Coupled with the fact that i never take the film camera out on its own so i end up taking similar shots with both. The combined weight of the two setups makes it impossible to take on hikes so why am i bothering :D thats the big question for me. I still love it, but maybe, sub consciously its just a willy waving exercise to say "look at me, ive got a medium format film camera"

Landscapes look gorgeous though, like you say there is a defenite look to film that digital will never ever replicate. But i dont have the confidence to take it out on its own, the sheer convenience of digital is too much of a deciding factor.

I might send a few off for printing just to see what they look like properly so to speak. If nothing else, it would give me a proper colour base to aim for when setting up scans.
 
The key difference between the two is the nicer, less extreme perspective the medium format offers over the smaller format D800. The use of longer focal lengths of course, is why I generally like medium format over 35mm
 
MindofMel said:
Maybe going to be out on my own here but the D800 has produced a much nicer image IMO. But hey - it should: it's a cutting edge £2500 system.
Click to expand...

Nope, I agree - the D800 image is best to me as well. It represents the absolute cutting edge in full frame sensor and DSLR technology at the moment, compared to an Epson 2450, which really is the weak link.
 
well to be honest i prefer the foliage of the D800 and the church of the Silverfast and the all round ease of use of the epson when scanning lots :) I posted a few landscapes in the film shot thread and, to me, they blow the D800 away when seen on a webpage whereas a lot of the others are just going to be deleted to save disc space.

I just think the PC is the limiting factor when dealing with film though becuase your wiping out a lot of the "character" than the film posseses by turning it digital. Even if i splurged out on a Hassleblad and some top glass i would still be scanning it at the end of the day. Consistency of digital is a huge plus over the vagaries of film for me at the moment.
*edit* i think ive contradicted myself far too much so far , i just cant make my mind up what i want.
 
Last edited:
Digital gets really boring, having said that I still have mine....just in case.....:shrug:

just in case what ?


no idea..


anyway, you don't have to choose do you, shoot both..:)


I would say that maybe the d800 image could be less distorted if it was shot at an equivalent focal length to a 50 on 6x6, I think 25 is a bit wide, and you lost a couple of hundred pixels on the full size scans between scanning with epson and scanning with silverfast, either that or you weren't too fussed when you did your cropping..:)
 
joxby said:
I would say that maybe the d800 image could be less distorted if it was shot at an equivalent focal length to a 50 on 6x6, I think 25 is a bit wide,
Click to expand...


I take that back looking at it again, you get extra width which you could easily crop and leave very similar result, without the height..
 
Right...

to qualify that, I'm having trouble with the d800 image, I've been a square for so long now, its never gonna look right in my eyes..:shrug:
I mean, its added width but cropped the height, its like looking through a slot, like some bodys left the sun visor down in the car and it isn't even sunny...
 
i think the d800 was within a mm of the equivalient focal length. 50mm on the MF would be around 25mm FF so its just extra width thats throwing you off. I probably wasnt standing in exactly the same spot, it was more a case of just getting a similar image for comparison.

just in case.....

just in case what ?

no idea..
Click to expand...

Thats why i lug around both though, just in case of something.
 
Last edited:
oh I never actually use it, let alone lug it around, but I still have it.....just in case...:lol:
 
this would have been a better test with fuji pro, ektar has horrible colour casts and I find comes out a bit too grainy - really dont understand the fascination with it!
 
"The act of observation changes the state of the item being observed." Isnt that something to do with quantum particles or something? So you never actually know how what your looking at should look like.

Film scanning clearly falls into the category of quantum physics. My point being that regardless of colour properties youll never get it right due to all the variables involved in scanning it in. You just have to find something youre happy with.
 
essexash said:
"The act of observation changes the state of the item being observed." Isnt that something to do with quantum particles or something? So you never actually know how what your looking at should look like.

Film scanning clearly falls into the category of quantum physics. My point being that regardless of colour properties youll never get it right due to all the variables involved in scanning it in. You just have to find something youre happy with.
Click to expand...

I think that's the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle... which appears to have a lot to do with my photography, as well! :nuts:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top