[GregL65]

In terms of detail and clarity, and given the same print size, how would a KP with an excellent lens, and using pixel shift, compare to a late-model Fuji 6x9 120 film camera using, say, Kodak Ektar 100? Assuming both cameras are on good tripods.

[TwoUptons]

That's an interesting question, and I'd love to see a comparison, but I'd suggest they are very different animals.

In my experience, there's a whole workflow element behind the results that will really determine the winner... the theoretical limit of resolution of the Ektar at 6x9 cm is probably higher than the KP's 24 Mp (even when it's been cleaned up with pixel-shift), but a lot there depends on the scanner you use and all that part of it. And how you shoot (what if you need ISO 6400? Sorry, Fuji... you just got creamed).
I normally use a fairly low resolution scan for my medium format film work, since I'm after "the look", not maximum resolution for big prints.

If it's just a matter of resolution, the K1 has more than the KP... and there are options in other brands that have more than that...
But there's something about medium format... if that's what you're after, it may not matter how much resolution you have on the digital side...

What I have noticed is that most of the film shooters here still do a good deal of digital (there are some big exceptions)... so "or" may not be the best approach...

Sorry that doesn't really help...

-Eric

[tuco]

Comparing a digital camera's image to a film converted to digital image is a clue. Film has a mask of grain on it so it does not have the clarity of a digital camera's image. But how much that difference shows up on the print is also a function of scanner hardware quality, scanning experience, type of print paper, etc. That said, I think prints from my Fuji GSW690III look good without getting into picking the fly crap out of the pepper kind of comparison.

[GregL65]

Just idle curiosity. When I first started shooting with my *ist D in April 2004, I noticed a distinct loss of detail compared to the 35mm Fuji Reala I'd been shooting. No special film processing; just standard Costco processing & prints -- they had people then who knew what they were doing, and I thought they did a pretty good job for the price. I noticed the difference the most in the cheeks of a man in his 80s who I often shot holding my young son in his lap. So much more detail in the Reala shots. That man passed away before I upgraded to a better DSLR, and that son is 17 now.

I know APS-C sensors and cameras have come a very long way since that generation of 6MP Sony sensors, and I'm pretty sure the KP could best my old Reala shots. Just wondering how far they've come.

[TwoUptons]

Reala did some wonderful things with skin tone that I loved it for.

It would have been a trick to get an *ist to do that right out of the box...

I remember with my K10, there was a lot of angst at the time about getting the JPEGs right, but I did think it looked as good as 35mm Reala.
And that was with 10Mp...

The KP defaults are better (to me), but it has lots of flexibility to get a good color map, and the improved resolution and dynamic range also help.
I really like it.

-Eric

[stevebrot]

KP with pixel shift compared to 6x9 Fuji 120 film camera

I agree with Tuco (above) that comparison is not really a good thing to do, but it might be enough to suggest that the 6x9 should be able to mop the floor with the KP PS image in a ink-jet print vs. wet print comparison. (Even scanned vs. native capture...probably would still mop the floor...)


Steve

(My experience shooting view camera with 6x7 film holder and/or 4x5 sheets...bottomless detail...)

[stevebrot]

I normally use a fairly low resolution scan for my medium format film work

Me too...I don't have the computer memory or processor to deal with all those pixels.


Steve