[shots4us]

J'arrive finalement faire une comparaison de photos faites avec mon appareil moyen format Pentax avec pellicule Kodak 100 Asa à 1/1000 Sec et mon Pentax k5à 16Mpx.
Le résultat est épostouflant et joue en faveur du numérique, malgré ma passion et mon acharnement pour le vieux argentique.
Il faut dire que l'argentique a été numérisé eh haute définition avec un scanneur Imacon X5 à 50Mp (presque le maximum).
J'ai comparé les deux images à résolution maximum, jusqu'à faire réssortir la graine de la pellicule. (Au délà on ne fait que agrandir les graines).
On voit clairement que les bords des objets sont plus définis avec la Pentax k5, ou l'image reste propre.
L'image argentique est lourdement impactée par la graine et les contours sont moins nets.
Sans pas compter le stabilisateur d'image qui permet d'avoir des images plus nettes alors que le Pentax 67 avec ses 3Kg d'appareil, fournit souvent des images flou.
C'est un bon coup pour Pentax qui arrive desormais à se mettre en concurrence avec l'un des bastions les plus fermés et plus professionnels de la photographie.
Quel sera le destin de l'argentique, à part le plaisir de travailler avec une pellicule (et le cout conséquent ?)
Il faut pas oublier que un film coute environ 6 euros (12 avec le développement).
La numérisation à elle même coute entre 12 et 40 euros selong le laboratoire, qu'il se doit d'étre quand même professionnel lorsque on travaille en moyen format.
En attendant des comparaisons fiables entre le Pentax k5 et le Nikon D700, dont certains montrent déjà que le Pentax se place au même niveaux, et les tests avec Canon D5 Mark xx..à plus de 20Mpx.

Voire blog:
Comparaison Pentax 67 Moyen format:Kodak 100Asa ES – Pentax k5 | Shots4us's Blog

Attached Images

       

[JonPB]

I would not have expected an APS-C camera to compare to, much less better, a 67 frame. By my eye--for this comparison, this shot, this scan--the K-5 beats the 67. That is stunning. I'm sure the full images both have different characters, and film might be preferred, but I would have expected the film to have more details.

The question remains: how does it look in print? I'm reluctant to think that the 67 won't enlarge better.

Thank you for sharing.

[RawheaD]

Yeah, but let's see the K-5 (or any APS-C cam for that matter) take a shot like this:









Working with larger format film gives you one advantage that even the top-end medium format digital can't give you: the extreme shallow DoF.

BTW, I buy expired reversal film, usually for about $2US a roll, and develop them myself with a Jobo and Kodak E-6 chemicals, spending around $1US per roll, and scan them myself with an Epson V700 (and soon a Nikon Coolscan 8000ED). You will need to put some money upfront (but same with DSLRs), but after that, it's really not that expensive to continue to shoot film.

[RolloR]

no doubt, dslr's can beat film, even medium format, when it comes to pixel-peeping.

printed photos are a different story though, especially black&white prints.

[robgo2]

Yeah, but let's see the K-5 (or any APS-C cam for that matter) take a shot like this:


Working with larger format film gives you one advantage that even the top-end medium format digital can't give you: the extreme shallow DoF.

RawheaD, it's a great shot, without a doubt. But I do believe that with skillful use of a digital blurring filter, it is possible to approximate the shallow depth of field.

Rob

[BOCtunes]

This is not what my experience has been with both digital and film. I do mostly use slide film though, not so much color negative, but I do use a lot of BW negative. I shoot 645 format and scan with Nikon 9000, as well as shoot digital. While I agree that digital has come a long way and 645D image can easily beat a 645 slide scan, my slide scans outperform aps by a large margin. My 30x20 prints look beautiful and sharp from 645 and look stunning compare to aps prints at same size, I would not even dare to go larger with aps, while 645 can handle 40x30 if all is right. Are your samples 1:1 crops ? If so how is it possible that your scan sample appears to be smaller than aps crop ? Have you resized the scan ? If yes than it is really difficult to compare the samples you provided. At 4000dpi my scans from Nikon 9000 are approximately 8600x6400pixels (330m tiff, 55MP), I’d expect scans from 6x7 to be roughly 90-100MP. Were you scanning at full resolution ? I get the best results when scanning at max resolution, I don’t even bother going for less anymore, as it appears that scanning at a setting lower than max messes the image. Anyway, my aps is K200D, I’ll be getting K5 soon, I even tried printing full res samples from net, but in terms of detail 645 scan from Nikon 9000 outperform K5 no sweat, mind you I’m talking large prints here. Prints from K-5 are beautiful, but I would not go beyond say 16x10 unless viewed from distance. Don’t get me wrong, K-5 is fantastic, we all know advantages of going digital/film, all I’m trying to say is that 645 prints look better/more detailed when printed large, I wonder what happened during the scan process on your side. 645 and full frame would be a closer match. By the way, from my experience going digital is wayyyy cheaper/less time consuming, but I do like the film look and large prints. I wonder if and when 645D drops to full frame price point, I know I’ll grabbing it the moment it does J.

[falconeye]

Yeah, but let's see the K-5 (or any APS-C cam for that matter) take a shot like this:
[...]
Working with larger format film gives you one advantage that even the top-end medium format digital can't give you: the extreme shallow DoF.

Why is medium format digital in disadvantage? Because of the MF crop factor? There ar digital MF without. Or how large do you mean "larger format film"?

What camera and lens was your photo taken with?

[nanok]

boctunes: interesting. so you're saying basically that printing a little bit larger than a4 (or letter, in the us) from the k5 is stretching it? i'm sorry, but that sounds like bullshit to me. i've been printing a4 from 6mp images and it looks great. do you look at your prints with a magnifying glass? i'd expect the k5 to handle a3 and above easily, though i don't have the printer to really test that (yet). the same goes for the k7 and k20d.. and k10d

for what it's worth, looking at prints closer than "you should" is pointless and defeats the purpose of printing big. in other words, one should be able to print from a 6mp file at any size, if the intended usage/viewing of the print in question is inline with the size of the print.

don't get me wrong, i love film and medium format, but let's give them what's theirs, not what isn't

--
nanok-if-you-can't-see-the-whole-picture-the-print-is-too-big-or-you're-too-close

[BOCtunes]

boctunes: interesting. so you're saying basically that printing a little bit larger than a4 (or letter, in the us) from the k5 is stretching it? i'm sorry, but that sounds like bullshit to me. i've been printing a4 from 6mp images and it looks great. do you look at your prints with a magnifying glass? i'd expect the k5 to handle a3 and above easily, though i don't have the printer to really test that (yet). the same goes for the k7 and k20d.. and k10d

for what it's worth, looking at prints closer than "you should" is pointless and defeats the purpose of printing big. in other words, one should be able to print from a 6mp file at any size, if the intended usage/viewing of the print in question is inline with the size of the print.

don't get me wrong, i love film and medium format, but let's give them what's theirs, not what isn't

--
nanok-if-you-can't-see-the-whole-picture-the-print-is-too-big-or-you're-too-close

nanok: 16x10 is almost A3, not "a little bit larger than a4 ", it's double that. Yes, it still looks good, but 645 is tack sharp at that size.
I merely compared the two formats when printing larger, with 645 you’re able to go bigger. Please get that printer first (or have it done in a lab), try it yourself, download 645 scan sample and compare with aps-c, our discussion is pointless if A4 is the largest you’ve printed. 645 film 2324 square mm frame vs. aps-c 370 square mm sensor, do your math, but most of all, do your printing, not speculating. I use both film and digital, love them both, when going large 645 prints look better (read sharper, more detailed) period. Not gonna waste my time anymore, comparing prints side by side will close this discussion in a snap.

[Bramela]

This has been a good topical discussion so let's try and be friendly in our responses.
I don't think use of the word Bull...t is quite appropriate.

Thanks, guys!

[RawheaD]

Why is medium format digital in disadvantage? Because of the MF crop factor? There ar digital MF without. Or how large do you mean "larger format film"?

What camera and lens was your photo taken with?

Yup, because of the crop factor. In the same way that a K 50/1.2 lens won't have the true oomph on an APS-C sensor, so would a cropped MF digital not deliver the DoF of the full size.


And, as it goes, the only "full size" MF sensor is the P65+, which is almost native 645 size. But 645 in nothing compared to 6x6, not to mention 6x7, 6x9, 4x5, 8x10, etc.


The shot up there was taken with a Pentax 67II. 645 is the absolute minimum size for MF and there's currently only a $30,000 sensor that will take full advantage of that. 6x6 and larger film will have their place for a long time yet.

[RawheaD]

RawheaD, it's a great shot, without a doubt. But I do believe that with skillful use of a digital blurring filter, it is possible to approximate the shallow depth of field.

Rob

Sure, you could approximate it. You could also approximate the beautiful bokeh of any lens; so why buy good fast lenses at all?? Being able to approximate something in digital != wanting to do it. I have nothing against people who do want to do that. I personally find it seriously un-fun to do that, when I can go out with my 67II and take pictures like that with one shutter depression :-)

[nanok]

sorry for the use of the word bullshit, didn't think people here are so touchy. lighten up

boctunes: i'm not questioning the absolute superiority of the level of detail you get on larger format (if used properly, of course), that would be dumb. if you read carefully, my argument was that, for a certain print size, viewed at it's normal viewing distance, there should be no distinguishable difference. if you look closer, of course you will see it. this is similar to the argument that viewing digital pictures on your computer screen 1/1 is meaningless.

i do agree with you that printing is where it's at, and i respect your experience regarding that. i was merely stirring the pot trying to figure out if i'm missing something obvious (too much stir? )

rawhead: lens, aperture, mate. you won't get away with it so easily, now that you posted that gorgeous picture. so, 6x7, ?lens?, ?aperture_shot_at? ? cheers

[Rondec]

I have printed from the K7/K20 to 16 by 20 with no softness in prints, even looking closely. Would there be more detail with a medium format camera, either digital or film? Probably, but the reality is that, as Nanok says, without studying the print from 6 inches away, you wouldn't see the difference.

Pixel peeping is a lot easier than it used to be, but it isn't necessarily very useful in real life.

[30v iPentax]

Onko anturissa ollut taas tahroja. Vai onko keksitty jokin uusi mystinen kuvauskohde.