consumer dslr vs. 35mm quality - DPChallenge Forums

12/15/2006 12:50:21 PM · #1

have the new consumer dlr's surpassed or are they at least comparable to the 35mm format in quality of images..
canon 20/30d, canon d350/400, nikon d80, etc....

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/15/2006 12:54:31 PM · #2

Many would claim that, yes. About 3 years ago or so. Some even claim that the mid range SLRs have surpassed medium format.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

12/15/2006 12:55:49 PM · #3

on a 4x6 there is likely little detection of difference unless someone can recognize the idiosyncracies of each medium.

An 8x10 is likely the same. But beyond that, the bigger you get, the more I think film still carries an advantage. That may be open to debate though.

Edit to respond to Gordon and say that I'm a doubter that midrange SLR's can compete yet with MF film for enlargements.

Message edited by author 2006-12-15 12:57:27.

12/15/2006 01:00:00 PM · #4

35mm can't be enlarged very much beyond what a 6Mp file can be enlarged to. Both crap out around 16x20 sort of level.

e.g., the 1Ds compared to some pentax gear

By 'mid range' I was thinking 5D. I haven't seen any comparisons, but I'd suspect it would be up there given a 1Ds (11Mp) is supposed to be around MF quality (I know people argue about that, no doubt for ever)

Message edited by author 2006-12-15 13:02:40.

guillermo21

Nikon D70s

12/15/2006 01:00:54 PM · #5

is the advantage of film due to the higher dymamic range? or other reasons?

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

12/15/2006 01:01:24 PM · #6

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

IMO film shows it grain pretty soon when you go larger. But on the other hand nobody I know has used film in the past 5 years.

I do know someone who had a (very) large print made from a 4mp D2h file and people thought it was medium format because of the quality at that printsize. Put a real medium format print next to it and you see the difference soon enough of course.
IMO it also depends on what you shoot, detailed landscapes are less forgiving than stuff with straight lines and areas of the same color or structure.

guillermo21

Nikon D70s

12/15/2006 01:02:28 PM · #7

what about lens use in 35mm vs. dSLR's? i understand you don't get as much out of a lens with digital? is this true?

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

12/15/2006 01:04:11 PM · #8

Originally posted by guillermo21:

what about lens use in 35mm vs. dSLR's? i understand you don't get as much out of a lens with digital? is this true?

Mostly depends on what you mean. Many of the better SLRs are showing how poor the lenses are and are out-resolving the lenses.

Lower end SLRs crop out the center of the image, so tend to actually improve the effective lens quality.

Apple iPhone 5

12/15/2006 01:11:35 PM · #9

Originally posted by Gordon:

Lower end SLRs crop out the center of the image, so tend to actually improve the effective lens quality.

'Lower end'... hmmmmm...

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

12/15/2006 01:13:48 PM · #10

Originally posted by jhonan:

'Lower end'... hmmmmm...

Well, if you are talking about DSLRs, the crop sensor cameras are at the lower end of digital SLRs. The more you spend, the more you tend to move towards full frame sensors.

Apple iPhone 5

12/15/2006 01:16:31 PM · #11

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by jhonan:

'Lower end'... hmmmmm...

Well, if you are talking about DSLRs, the crop sensor cameras are at the lower end of digital SLRs. The more you spend, the more you tend to move towards full frame sensors.

All Nikon dSLRs (up to and including the D2Xs) are cropped sensors.

bfox2

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/15/2006 01:16:37 PM · #12

Originally posted by Gordon:

Lower end SLRs crop out the center of the image, so tend to actually improve the effective lens quality.

To be fair your 1D MkII does the same thing, just to a slightly lesser extent.

Grandad

Nikon D70

12/15/2006 01:26:45 PM · #13

imo, the only eria that film wims is dinamic range, and with hdr comming along, film is beat hands down.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

12/15/2006 01:33:54 PM · #14

Originally posted by bfox2:

Originally posted by Gordon:
Lower end SLRs crop out the center of the image, so tend to actually improve the effective lens quality.

To be fair your 1D MkII does the same thing, just to a slightly lesser extent.

I never said it doesn't. I wouldn't claim a 1DII was high end in terms of image quality either.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

12/15/2006 01:34:35 PM · #15

As for 35mm, I think a older 6mp DSLR is easily comparable if not better, I've seen a few side by side comparisons. The newer consumer DSLR's should easily exceed 35mm now.

I forget the site, but a good MF was compared to a Mark 1D something and they were very comparable in quality. The MF was sharper but the Canon had less noise/grain, that was only visible at some insane magnification though. Note, that was after the MF image was scanned into a digital file.

Some of the high end and high MP digital backs can probably compete with 4x5 and 8x10 large format and it's only a matter of time before digital wins the war, but for the time being LF is probably still king when it comes to resolution and blowing up very large for prints.

The quality of the lens available makes a big diference as well. It's really hard to beat some of those old MF and LF lens.

12/15/2006 01:34:55 PM · #16

Originally posted by jhonan:

All Nikon dSLRs (up to and including the D2Xs) are cropped sensors.

and your point is ? ;)

12/15/2006 01:36:17 PM · #17

Originally posted by LoudDog:

I forget the site, but a good MF was compared to a Mark 1D something and they were very comparable in quality. The MF was sharper but the Canon had less noise/grain,

That was the link I posted earlier in this thread.

fotomann_forever

12/15/2006 01:44:03 PM · #18

Originally posted by Gordon:

Many of the better SLRs are showing how poor the lenses are and are out-resolving the lenses.

The physical limitations of a 35mm lens system is about 20MP, we are getting really close to maxing out this system. Even the best 35mm lenses can't resolve any higher than that.

As far as 35mm film is concerned, it resolves at about 6MP equivalent. So, technically digital SLR's are outperforming 35mm film.

Unless you go with a medium format dSLR, you're not gonna out-perform medium format film as of yet.

Message edited by author 2006-12-15 13:45:59.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

12/15/2006 01:47:17 PM · #19

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Unless you go with a medium format dSLR, you're not gonna out-perform medium format film as of yet.

There's also a line to be drawn in terms of out performing medium format lenses and out performing medium format films. Digital files with the lack of noise and 'high quality' pixels easily outperform scans of film because of the variable grain size found there.

It isn't really so easy as to draw a line and say 20Mp or 6Mp

fotomann_forever

12/15/2006 01:54:18 PM · #20

If we are talking about only prints, what really makes the line hard to draw is that film "pixels" are round as opposed to the square pixels of digital.

A round "pixel" allows you to get more pleasing results even if you start enlarging to a point where pixelation is visible.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

12/15/2006 01:59:00 PM · #21

Assuming the "6Mpx equivalent" for 35mm, let's run a few quick calculations. If we shoot with 645 film our imaging area is 3.1 times as large as a 35mm frame. Since the resolving power of the film remains the same, it follows that a 645 frame should be equivalent to about 3.1*6=18.6 Mpx. Given the resolving power of the best modern lenses, 35mm DSLRs can go to about 24Mpx before they run out of steam. They thus should have the ability to best 645 in resolution, if the original "6Mpx eqivalence" assumption is valid.
IMO, it's a lot more complicated than this. The very best that film can achieve, with high resolution, low speed professional film and excellent glass, scanned well (drum scan) is above 6Mpx. Still, there's more grain and noise by far, and much fine detail is obscured as a result. In the final analysis, the rough estimate of 6Mpx to a 35mm frame is probably a good first approximation for most purposes.

12/15/2006 01:59:34 PM · #22

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

True, though there's the additional wrinkle that most film prints now go through some sort of digital process along the way.

It is hard to talk about resolution and image quality without starting to talk about ease of use and practical impacts of that stuff on it too.

If you really want image quality, you can't really beat a daggurreotype, but the ease of use, reproduce-ability and general difficulty of the process tends to push people towards more inferior techniques, which while having worse image quality are easier to use.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

12/15/2006 02:00:46 PM · #23

Originally posted by kirbic:

the rough estimate of 6Mpx to a 35mm frame is probably a good first approximation for most purposes.

All pixels being equal, which they of course aren't ;)

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

12/15/2006 02:02:28 PM · #24

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by kirbic:
the rough estimate of 6Mpx to a 35mm frame is probably a good first approximation for most purposes.

All pixels being equal, which they of course aren't ;)

But of course! :-)