[leonine]

Hello all...

I own a Pentax 645Z with a good set of DFA, FA and A-series lenses. I do feel a need to have a spare Pentax MF body. I also sometimes feel the need to shoot with film for the sake of deriving the joy of photography of the good old days. Importantly, I have access to aHasselblad X-1 film scanner.

With the 645Z as the workhorse, I was wondering if I could use the Pentax 645 N II as the spare body to shoot film (Ektachrome/ Fujichrome Velvia). Combined with the X-1, perhaps I could get results which are at least as goodas 645Z. The high running cost of films would be offset by the low cost of a Pentax 645 N II. Also, buying another 645Z would be prohibitively expensive. I wish to use the Pentax 645 N II (with FA35mm f 3.5 or DFA 28-45) mainly for landscapes in Kenya in August this year, while the 645Z remains attached to the 400mm telephoto.


My question is: How will a 6 cm X 4.5 cm colour transparency scanned at highest 6300 dpi resolution by the Hasselblad X-1 be compared to the same image captured by a 645Z or a 645D, all other things being equal? Also, what will be the effective resolution of such an image from scan of the colour transparency in mega pixels?


Finally, a used 645D could be available at about 1000 USD more than a used 645 N II and is a tempting proposition particularly if I restrict it to landscapes in available light. So should I rather go for a 645D than a 645 N II? Or are there some compelling value propositions with shooting transparency film with the 645 N II which the 645D (or maybe even the 645Z) cannot match?


I would be thankful for advice/ comments by members.

---

Last edited by leonine; 07-19-2019 at 04:08 AM.

[stevebrot]

My question is: How will a 6 cm X 4.5 cm colour transparency scanned at highest 6300 dpi resolution by the Hasselblad X-1 be compared to the same image captured by a 645Z or a 645D, all other things being equal? Also, what will be the effective resolution of such an image from scan of the colour transparency in mega pixels?

Scanned film vs. digital capture is a recurring subject and a sure recipe for a long thread with a ton of opinionated comments. That being the case and mine being an early response, here is a short list of considerations.

• Film is film and digital capture is digital capture. Each has its strong and weak points such that there is no true equivalence. Both methods are capable of providing excellent results, the film image within the performance characteristics of emulsion used and the digital capture within the performance characteristics of the sensor.
• For the 645NII "effective resolution" multiply the x-y negative dimensions by the X-1 resolution squared
• The 645NII negative is larger than the 645D/645Z sensor (i.e. both sensors provides a crop, even with the same lenses)
• There is no Bayer interpolation loss with the film scan and the scanner supports higher bit depth
• Short of a true wet mount drum scan, the X-1 will provide about as good a scan as one might wish
• Scanning is a skill in its own right

Advice? Don't spend too much time comparing the two.


Steve

The higher resolution of the Flextight will resolve the grain structure of the film better but the grain will remain the limiting factor on image resolution.

Scanning is a skill in its own right

… is correct. Judicious sharpening will improve your scans, just like sharpening a digital image file will. The Flextight is absolutely superior in scanning long-scale negatives.

[baro-nite]

If you do decide to acquire a 645 film body, consider the previous model, the 645 N. From comparisons I've seen and from my own experience with the N, the lack of mirror lock-up is not an issue; the model is not much older, so it should be possible to find one in good working order; they are easier to find and cheaper to buy. Listen to one in action, though -- the sound of the film advance is my least favorite thing about the camera.

[tuco]

You can compete with with a MFD in terms of tonal scale (true 48 bit color scans), composition and subject matter ( the photography part). But a 6x4.5 format is much too small for resolution and clarity by comparison. As noted film has a mask of grain on it.

[leonine]

Thank you all for your comments and advice :-)

[tuco]

Thank you all for your comments and advice :-)

I think you will find the X1 only scans 6300ppi in small format. The 6300 option will disappear if you load the 57x42.5mm holder, preview and then change the resolution. The finest will only be a 3200ppi option.

Edit: But you can manually input 6300ppi and the file size changes but I can't say that's just an interpolated resolution and not true.

---

Last edited by tuco; 07-19-2019 at 05:56 PM.

[Alex645]

Scanned film vs. digital capture is a recurring subject and a sure recipe for a long thread with a ton of opinionated comments. That being the case and mine being an early response, here is a short list of considerations.

• Film is film and digital capture is digital capture. Each has its strong and weak points such that there is no true equivalence. Both methods are capable of providing excellent results, the film image within the performance characteristics of emulsion used and the digital capture within the performance characteristics of the sensor.
• For the 645NII "effective resolution" multiply the x-y negative dimensions by the X-1 resolution squared
• The 645NII negative is larger than the 645D/645Z sensor (i.e. both sensors provides a crop, even with the same lenses)
• There is no Bayer interpolation loss with the film scan and the scanner supports higher bit depth
• Short of a true wet mount drum scan, the X-1 will provide about as good a scan as one might wish
• Scanning is a skill in its own right

Advice? Don't spend too much time comparing the two.


Steve

+1 Steve; well put. To me, the decision comes down to the function of the second camera:

If it is only for redundancy as a back up, the 645D makes more sense as your FOV with the lenses on your 645Z will match up and you won't have to deal with labs and scanning.

But if it is because you miss the "film look" or the experience of shooting with film, then it's the 645Nii.

Resolution is hard to compare apples to oranges, especially if you're trying to compare Kodak Ektar 100 vs. Fujifilm Velvia 50 vs. Ilford XP2 Super vs. a digital RAW file.

One last consideration is that FOV issue of a smaller sensor vs. larger film area. Do you need the wider angles or the telephoto? You can always crop for some telephoto differences but the 645Nii will give you a wider angle you can't achieve without shooting panos and stitching.

[leonine]

Thank you very much Tuco & Alex :-)

[drmoss_ca]

I have an X1, and have just sold a 645n and a 645nII.* 645 film scans will not approach the nitty gritty detail of a digital "645" sensor, but I suspect you might enjoy the results more if approached with an open mind. Most people, having got used to the ease and simplicity of digital capture will not find a film camera a suitable backup. More variables that cannot be changed on a shot-to-shot basis (like ISO, colour vs B&W), then the irritation of waiting for processing and so on.
If you decide to go ahead with a film 645 backup body, I agree that the 645n is much nicer to use than the 645nII.

*not giving up film. Just simplifying to 35mm and 6x6cm. Reasons.

[leonine]

I have an X1, and have just sold a 645n and a 645nII.* 645 film scans will not approach the nitty gritty detail of a digital "645" sensor, but I suspect you might enjoy the results more if approached with an open mind. Most people, having got used to the ease and simplicity of digital capture will not find a film camera a suitable backup. More variables that cannot be changed on a shot-to-shot basis (like ISO, colour vs B&W), then the irritation of waiting for processing and so on.
If you decide to go ahead with a film 645 backup body, I agree that the 645n is much nicer to use than the 645nII.

*not giving up film. Just simplifying to 35mm and 6x6cm. Reasons.

Thank you for your advice. Indeed, if I go for the film solution (for whatever reason....nostalgia, fun, different look whatever), I will settle for the 645N.

A question: Are there any good tutorials or webpages available on how best to use the X1? And, broadly, how many scans can I put it through before it goes for repairs/ scrap? I mean the way the shutter of a 645Z is rated to approx 100,000 cycles, is there any such limit on the X1 as rated b y Hasselblad? The question is important for me because I will never get an X1 again if this one stops working and I would then try and decide which films to scan and which to let go from my existing stock of old archives.

[tuco]

I think you should ask Hasselblad what's the mean time between failures. The scanning software will pop up a warning to have it serviced. They expect you box this thing up and send it in every year or so. WTF. Companies can be so narrow minded and give little thought to their customers. I bet it never even crossed their mind to provide the things you would need to service it yourself for something like focus calibration.

[leonine]

I think you should ask Hasselblad what's the mean time between failures. The scanning software will pop up a warning to have it serviced. They expect you box this thing up and send it in every year or so. WTF. Companies can be so narrow minded and give little thought to their customers. I bet it never even crossed their mind to provide the things you would need to service it yourself for something like focus calibration.

I shall ask Hasselblad, too. They will most probably give me an answer which would be by the book. I was hoping to hear from someone with real world experience of using this grand piece of technology :-)

[tuco]

I was hoping to hear from someone with real world experience of using this grand piece of technology :-)

You did.

[leonine]

Thank you :-)