[ekaphoto]

I know this is ever changing with technology and it is apples and oranges but, has anyone done a quality comparison with the new 645 digital vs 67 film with a drum scan? I know they are different looks. I have been shooting a digital SLR for years now but wondering a couple things between the two formats. If possible the 67 vs 645 D vs 645 Z

File size comparison Drum scan vs 645 D vs 645 Z

Dynamic range digital vs slide vs print film and 645 d vs Z

Color representation. I know used to be analog could capture more colors than digital and is probably so. The thing is most photos are put on the web so it would be a print comparison. Also what is the difference of the 645 d vs Z ?

Last but not least is the 645 Z worth the extra cash over the D? I am not a professional so it would have to be a significant difference. For reference my current digital camera is a Canon T3i. I am sure both would be a big step up in quality not to mention price.

[officiousbystander]

I'm also not a professional. I bought a Mamiya 645 and 80mm lens for $200AUD a few years ago from a pawn shop. Beats $10,000+ for a Pentax Medium Format kit. Doing something like that would be a cheap way of answering a lot of your questions. There are qualities in medium format which go beyond colour reproduction and dynamic range. These are flatbed scanner scans:

[ekaphoto]

Ask the "Google" and you'll find answers to all your questions. And for the price of a used T3i, you can rent a 645Z and make your own conclusions. None of which addresses the question of what is it you want to accomplish. A well made image from your current camera can easily make a beautiful print that's plenty large for a home. I recommend buying a copy of Bryan Petersen's Understanding Exposure, a monitor calibration device, shooting in Raw and spending time to learn and understand the properties of light and making a lot of prints before making further purchases. You made no mention of lenses so I'm betting you've kit lenses. While they are perfectly service able, a good quality upgrade in lenses can make a big difference.

The problem with google is well I don't trust everything you read on the internet. I understand the photography process and printing and have been doing photography since the mid 1980's.

The thing is when digital first came out it did not compare in quality do a good high quality film. Is that still the case. What I like about the 645 system is you can get adapters so I can use my 67 lenses on them. In fact I use my 67 lenses on my T3i.

My question is has digital surpassed medium format 67 in quality? The problem with many film photos is people use a flat bed scanner and it is compressed into jpg Also may photo labs do not get as high a res scan as they could. Now this is fine for the internet and even large prints many times but very few do a drum scan to get the entire quality from a 6x7 negative.

Here is an example. Many years ago I took a photo of the redwoods shooting down a river. In the photo there was a fishermen on a point. When I enlarged the photo to 11x14 the fisherman was about 1/4 in high max, possibly smaller.. Now that is not the amazing thing, not you could see the sun reflecting off the fishing line going into the water, very fine detail. That was taken with a 165 ls lens. Now is digital capable of getting that kind of detail? I know even with 32 bit color it will not capture the subtle colors of film. How about detail? I know you can shoot three exposures of digital and merge them ie -2 stops correct and +2 and you will get better shadow and highlight detail. Does the medium format capture that detail without having to merge three exposures?

---------- Post added 01-20-18 at 04:44 PM ----------

I'm also not a professional. I bought a Mamiya 645 and 80mm lens for $200AUD a few years ago from a pawn shop. Beats $10,000+ for a Pentax Medium Format kit. Doing something like that would be a cheap way of answering a lot of your questions. There are qualities in medium format which go beyond colour reproduction and dynamic range. These are flatbed scanner scans:

Beautiful shots. I really like the detail in the water.

[pentageek]

has anyone done a quality comparison with the new 645 digital vs 67 film with a drum scan

I did something similar - albeit not exactly with formats you are interested in. I compared Mamiya 645 (analogue) against Pentax K-S2, and quality of image (mainly in terms of resolution) was similar. Currently I use Mamiya RB 67, and 'scan' resulting negatives using K-1. These 'scans' definitely have intriguing quality, and whole endeavour makes sense. I second officiousbystander: you may give analogue camera (be it a 645 or 67) test ride and see how it handles. There many aspects beside image quality - Mamiya RB, for instance, is huge and heavy, by comparison Mamiya 645 1000 handles 'almost' like 35mm SLR (remember, by comparison to RB). There are also rangefinders, like Fuji GSW 690, but again, I think you should try it and see what works for you.

[officiousbystander]

My question is has digital surpassed medium format 67 in quality?

Beautiful shots. I really like the detail in the water.

Thanks Ekaphoto. And apologies for misunderstanding your first post. I thought it was a MF film or digital question, rather than a question of whether digital MF now equals or betters film. From a purely technical standpoint you'd have to concede yes. But with digital I could spend ages in post trying to get that elusive film quality, or just shoot film.

[desertscape]

Now that is not the amazing thing, not you could see the sun reflecting off the fishing line going into the water, very fine detail. That was taken with a 165 ls lens. Now is digital capable of getting that kind of detail?

Yes, the D and Z show amazing detail. The 67 can show amazing detail as well but only if one is using the best lenses of the lineup, at the best apertures, the finest grain film and a drum scan. To use a Plustek OpticFilm 120 scanner and a 67 slide, the 645D & Z will way outperform the 67. The Plustek 120 + 67 combination has trouble competing against a 20 MP digital camera. A Hasselblad X5 scanner + 67 slide does much better than the cheaper scanners but shows slightly less detail than a drum scan. I recall seeing a 67 shot from a drum scan that was about 36 X 46 Inches and was sharp and I'm sure the D or Z can do that.

[Silent Street]

I know this is ever changing with technology and it is apples and oranges but, has anyone done a quality comparison with the new 645 digital vs 67 film with a drum scan? I know they are different looks. I have been shooting a digital SLR for years now but wondering a couple things between the two formats. If possible the 67 vs 645 D vs 645 Z

File size comparison Drum scan vs 645 D vs 645 Z

Dynamic range digital vs slide vs print film and 645 d vs Z

Color representation. I know used to be analog could capture more colors than digital and is probably so. The thing is most photos are put on the web so it would be a print comparison. Also what is the difference of the 645 d vs Z ?

Last but not least is the 645 Z worth the extra cash over the D? I am not a professional so it would have to be a significant difference. For reference my current digital camera is a Canon T3i. I am sure both would be a big step up in quality not to mention price.

The questions are largely smudged by the big array of variables that are incidental to each medium. In film, the drum scan size is optimised for the print output to avoid bloating and loss (for either RA-4 or giclee output); your question about comparing file sizes between the 645 formats is like asking, 'how long is a piece of string?'. My own drum scans are 66Mb for an 80cm across RA-4 hybridised print from 6x7 (also 6x6). It could be anything in terms of size, but it will be matched to the print size and resolution of the printer (typically 300dpi). .

Slide film, e.g. RVP50, has a very, very narrow latitude (Provia 100F has a bit more) and cannot be compared directly to the expandable dynamic range of digital cameras. The palette/gamut is wider than digital, but it is clipped during the transition from scan to print, where the gamut is converted in absolute or colourimetrically-combined [print] profiles. Images destined for the web are straight conversions to the RGB colour space of typically AdobeRGB or sRGB, or custom profiles (rare for web use, but more common for printing).

When a drum scan is prepared correctly from a very well executed transparency, it will beat anything out of digital,. without floss or fanfare (HDR, sliders, sharpening, selective light, stars shining in the sky on a bright sunny day...). In other words, it is not about the format that can make images successful, but the skill and knowledge of the photographer to see with the camera, rather than through it.

Print film has a much wider dynamic range (10+ stops) than slide film (+/- 4 stops from baseline, can be extended with specialised spot metering technique) and easier-going contrast. Sunny16 can be used with print film, but it is unwise to use it for the more temperamental E6 emulsions previously mentioned, which require a knowledge of interpreting the scene's contrast and brightness to fit the limited dynamic range of the film. Photographers will a background in print reprographics and photogravure will prefer to use, and have a solid understanding of, slide film and its suitability for printing over using negatives

I can think of many things more useful than to lose $6,000 on a 645Z (at current used market prices). It's possible to buy a serviceable car for that price! Unless you are a professional, successful, have produced and sold work and have a solid foundation in traditional photography then no, the 645Z is not a good buy, but would be a waste of money.. There are professionals who lease/hire the 645Z and lenses for their use, though I've noticed a lot moving to Phase 1 recently (a much bigger financial proposition!).

I am not familiar with the Canon T3i.

[ekaphoto]

Thinks for the info. I have had my 67 in storage for years now shooting digital but decided to duast it off lately. . The T3i is an 18 mp consumer grade DSLR. I used to shoot a lot of E-6 back when there were lots of local places to take it to along with print film depending on what I anted to do. I even used to have my own dark room. I will hold off with the 647 for now.

I have been very impressed with the 67 system since buying mine in 1998 or so. I really like the look of a good film shot but the cost. I put a couple of of my old photos I shot with my 35mm in the 90's below. Its not the best copies so a lot of detail was lost. The beach scene print came out black and gold when it was originally printed. I have never been able to get a print like that from the digital scan. Hopefully I can some day just need to dig out the negative. Thanks for the feedback.

[destroya]

I just printed a few days ago an Ektar shot taken on my P67ii with the 75mm f4.5 lens, printed to 16x20 on kodak endura metallic. my friend took the same shot same from the same tripod with his nikod D8?? something camera. he also printed his on his epson ink joy printer.. I scanned with my nikon coolscan 9000 to an uncompredd TIFF as i wanted to see how much loss would come from scanning vs a wet pinrt, so I had BAY photo print it for.

looking at the prints his was a sharper print, but thats expected as digital can get sharper, but it was bordering on too sharp, you know the over-sharpened look many did users go for. but where i totally destroyed his prints was in tonality. just many more smooth color transitions a much more natural look. A small part of the print had some blown out sunlight, no way to get around it, but the digital made it a total mess while the film rolled off nicely and made it much less distracting. not sure how much time he spent on post. i have my scanning workflow down pretty good. yeh it takes a while but I start the scan, go watch the hockey game and come back when its done. do a little spot healing, a small amount of sharpening and Im done. a total of 5 minutes in the digi world of post but some is needed if only to resize.

there are pluses for each system but for me its all about the finished print. if im just gonna look at it on my computer than out comes my rarely used but still very functional 10 year old digital camera. but if im doing a day trip to yosemite or tahoe and I KNOW im gonna print, then I bring my film cameras, as FOR ME, I much prefer film prints over digital.

[Thomas]

I did some comparisons when I bought a 645D in 2010. My conclusion then was the the D and 67
were about equal in detail. Link below is a comparison of the Pentax 645N, Pentax 67 and 645D. Provia film scanned on a Nikon 9000; 645 35mm A lens on the 645N and 645D; 45mm on the 67.
I like the color of the D slightly better than the Z and resolution is not that different, but if high ISO, DR and live view are important, then the Z is the better choice

tom's: 645N, 645D, 67II

Below is a link to a series which compares color from the 645Z, 645D and Sigma DP2:

IMGP0788 cropcopy copy | 645Z | tsjanik47 | Flickr

[ekaphoto]

Thanks for the feedback. In the film days I usually bought inexpensive body and spent my money on the lens. There days the body and software are a bigger factor than they used to be. I feel like a dinosaur sometimes.

[rangercarp]

Ask the "Google" and you'll find answers to all your questions. And for the price of a used T3i, you can rent a 645Z and make your own conclusions. None of which addresses the question of what is it you want to accomplish. A well made image from your current camera can easily make a beautiful print that's plenty large for a home. I recommend buying a copy of Bryan Petersen's Understanding Exposure, a monitor calibration device, shooting in Raw and spending time to learn and understand the properties of light and making a lot of prints before making further purchases. You made no mention of lenses so I'm betting you've kit lenses. While they are perfectly service able, a good quality upgrade in lenses can make a big difference.

That was rather condescending, and not very helpful. The OP could "ask the Google" and find answers to his questions, but for me, I would much rather hear from some forum users who have experience with all three systems.

[Lord Lucan]

That was rather condescending, and not very helpful. The OP could "ask the Google" and find answers to his questions, but for me, I would much rather hear from some forum users

When I get answered on a technical forum by the advice to Google for it, I usually reply "I did Google - and it brought me here!"

That was rather condescending, and not very helpful. The OP could "ask the Google" and find answers to his questions, but for me, I would much rather hear from some forum users who have experience with all three systems.

I do have experience with all 3 systems. People routinely come here for answers that are easily found in their their manual. People come here for answers that are easily found on the free library of the internet but for some unknown reason expect someone else to spoon feed them and to give away their time so they won't have to. For free. That's not a forum, a place to share experience and knowledge, that's adult daycare.

There are detailed, authoritative explanations to all the questions posed, easily discovered by a search of published articles on the Internet using the Google search engine. I find it astonishing that it is expected of forum members to recreate them for the convenience of those who impose, knowingly or not, on the good will of others for their own convenience.

My response was not intended to be condescending. Honest yes, condescending no. I should have taken the advice of Zack Arias and burn/hide/destroy photography forum Ids and Passwords. I am now.

[ekaphoto]

There are detailed, authoritative explanations to all the questions posed, easily discovered by a search of published articles on the Internet using the Google search engine. I find it astonishing that it is expected of forum members to recreate them for the convenience of those who impose, knowingly or not, on the good will of others for their own convenience.

My response was not intended to be condescending. Honest yes, condescending no. Au revoir.

Then why take time to respond at all? If it is inconvenient to you to respond why not just move on?