Meduim Format Film vs Nikon D3X

[nolanr66]

I would not know what is better but I wonder how you would go about making the determination. The D3s or what ever camera it was is pretty straight forward but the Medium format camera is a different critter. Are you talking about optical enlargements or film scans, are you talking about drum scans or a scan with a cheap scanner like I own. I wonder if the test between the two camera's would be easier if you made a negative from the D3s file and then made a comparison.

Anyway like I said I would not know which is better. Probably more to it then just a giant print I would think. Versatility, work flow, and many subjective factors all come into play.

 

[Dismayed]

Skeptical of Tests

The Internet is full of poorly conceived and executed tests. Often it's the scanning step that's poor. The flip side is that I've seen excellent work produced by both film photographers and by digital photographers. So choose whichever you like and get on with shooting.

 

[cooltouch]

It seems like pros who have to manage large volumes of images have switched from medium format to hi-res digital in droves. How else can you explain why mf gear is so cheap now? I bought a complete Bronica ETRS-i outfit about a year ago for $127.

At my daughter's wedding last year, I had few chances to talk to the photographer. He was shooting with a Canon 5D MkII and a 7D. He used to use Hasselblad, but switched because he claimed there was essentially no difference in terms of resolution, and that even the crop-body 7D had plenty. But just as important to him was the improved work flow.

Honestly, I think it is the latter that finally pushes the pro over to digital because they see how much easier it is to handle the images when shooting digital -- especially if they're having to deal with large volumes of them.

I personally still shoot a LOT of film, so for me it has been a real boon, this large drop in prices for film gear, and not just medium format, either.

 

[toyotadesigner]

Interesting discussion.

I'm still shooting film and don't have any digital camera or cell phone with a built-in camera.

35mm, 6x9 and 4x5.

I send my scanned slide files to a printing service for anything larger than 13" x 19". Standard size is 20" x 30" or 50 x 75 cm. Perfect results with standard viewing distance, be it 35mm or 6x9. I've had subcontracted prints from 6x9 scans @ 2x3 meters = a tad more than 6 x 9 feet. Razor sharp, only surpassed by 4x5 (which is a drag to schlepp around outdoors).

What counts is the result, my 'image language', my eye to capture a scene and economics. If the clients would honor higher budgets, I might invest into digital MF. But they don't. So they will have to wait 3 days longer for the slides and I'll stick to my proven equipment. OK, to be fair I have to say I don't do sports, events, wedding, etc.

What I mean is this:
customers in the real world

I'm so tired of the discussion A versus D.

 

[cooltouch]

What I mean is this:
customers in the real world

Gawd, this is so true!

 

[TareqPhoto]

So after 2 months i reply here saying: I really don't know what to use or prefer, digital or film, i started with digital about 6 years ago, and started to shoot film just last year, this year i did large format only 5 sheets [and hope to do more soon], i didn't see that i love film more than digital or digital more than film, both processing different, and from what i hear or read i think i will never have the best out of film unless i print in darkroom or scan with a drum scanner, so both of those i don't have, is that meaning film will not give me the best as i can get out of it?

Speaking honest, i like film as B&W, and digital as colors, i started film after i bought my digital medium format, this dgiMF outperform any of my 35mm DSLRs, and i went with film MF only, no 35mm, and then with LF not so long time ago and i got impressed with quality of LF with flatbed scanner, but i still want to get highest quality out of film which it means i should look for a drum scanner or do wet prints when applicable.

 

[chuck94022]

Why not strike a match to rekindle this discussion?

Film v. Digital discussions never die, they just sort to the bottom of the forum list... ;-)

I wonder what happened when acrylic paint was invented. Did artists argue endlessly about oil versus acrylic? Did "oil snobs" appear, only to be countered by an ever growing army of "acrylic snobs"? Probably yes, on both counts, but they didn't have the internet in the 1950's, so we don't have a forum archive to point to. (Perhaps the arguments continue even today.)

I think oil painters use oil paint instead of acrylic, even though there are plenty of people who argue about the superiority of the latter, because they love it. They love the look, they love the smell, they love the mess, they love the fact that they might spend 10 times longer to get a dry, finished piece. They love the fact that they made a painting with the tools that they love.

Acrylic painters use acrylic paint, not because it is faster, or more flexible, but because they love it. They love the speed, they love the look, they love the fact they they made a painting with the tools that they love.

For amateurs, either in paint or photography, the love is the goal. Film, and further, wet darkroom photographers, do it because they love the medium. They love the feel, the smell, the craft of the traditional camera and the traditional darkroom. They put their passion in, and get the result they love. The result may stun a gallery of viewers, or it may merely stun the family cat, and perhaps a polite Grandma.

Digital amateurs also love the craft. There is much to "get into". The technology is constantly moving, and is fascinating. The techniques are alive and evolving. They put their passion in, and get the result they love. Their images too may stun a gallery, or just the family cat and Grandma.

I would never tell Monet that he would have been happier with a different kind of paint. Nor would I tell the friend who knitted me socks last Christmas that she could have done better with a Wooltek 2000. It doesn't matter.

Pro photographers (of which I am not) have a different set of forces at play. Pro photographers are in the business of image production, and they have customers with specific demands. The Pro will choose the medium and process that best serves the customer. Many if not most customers present a conflicting set of requirements that typically involve one or more aspects of speed, quality, and cost. A good pro will choose the tool that best balances those conflicting requirements. If, in the process, the pro can also meet "selfish" goals (those that drive the amateur), then so much the better. But a true pro, who wants to eat, will meet the customer need in what they judge as the optimal way. Digital serves those needs many times quite effectively, but not all times. The pro chooses what works.

I have the luxury of being an amateur. I can buy old film cameras, shoot film in any format I like (I have 35mm, medium, and lf cameras), develop myself or send to a processor (lately the latter, because I'm living abroad without a darkroom at the moment), and scan without guilt. Or, I can whip out my DSLR or iphone and take photos that I'm equally happy with, because it was the tool I chose for the moment. I have no client who demands a medium, format, or resolution not of my choosing. But, I do have a limited bank account. I can't depreciate my tools, so it is more difficult to justify buying the next cool tech that comes over the horizon. So, I love my digital stuff, but I won't toss my D200 just yet. At some point it will retire and I'll get another digicam. I look forward to that. I don't fret about its pixel resolution, and neither do I fret when I snap a shot on my Olympus RD35, or my F4, or my Mamiya 6MF. For me, it just isn't about the pixels. I love the smell and feel of film. And, I love the tech of digital. So for my hobby, I go with where my heart takes me at the moment.

Pros don't necessarily have that luxury, unless they are independently successful photographic artists who can insist on the medium of their choosing, and can be selective in serving their customers. I have high respect for pros, because they work hard to produce, and produce well, under constrained conditions and usually "on the clock". It is a tough job, sometimes in very tough environments. And they care about choosing equipment that meets their constraints, which frequently involves esoteric things like pixel level resolution.

I think most amateurs will never find themselves in a situation where their next meal depends upon whether a sub-millimeter portion of a final image is tack sharp. So why get all hung up on film versus digital? Do what you love, or do what works.

-chuck

 

[Danielle]

After seeing the title of the thread I couldn't resist.

Medium format film vs a what? A nikon D ... what? Who cares, they don't compare. Comparing medium format digital to a D3x would be a better comparison... however still... there isn't a comparison.

There are good reasons some of us still use film. Regardless of res, they look and feel different. You can see it in the final prints and the final output is the main reason why I myself would choose one medium over another. Some film may be scanned, some may go through an entire wet process from one end to another. Or of course I shoot digital depending on application and spend a few hours in front of the computer for some images.

Oh and particularly when your just shooting for yourself, film is sometimes just nice every now and again. I learned on film, I'll never ever drop using it, its just that I use a wider variety of formats now (this includes digital).

And yes, posting a thread like this in APUG is asking for trouble. LOL

 

[mdarnton]

I used to do an archiving job at a company I no longer work for. For that, I used a Mamiya RB67. Currently I do exactly the same job elsewhere, and rebuilt the setup I had at the other place, but am using a Nikon D300. I've got the Nikon workflow tweaked for maximum quality, and just used to do whatever with the Mamiya. Though the Nikon is completely adequate for the task (and isn't that the important thing?), the RB67 results were quite a bit better, no question about it. If we were making 24" long prints, as we did at the old place, I've experimented, and I'd need four shots from the Nikon to equal that quality.

So that makes the 6x7 Mamiya what? 2X better, I think. My predecessor at the previous job used a Hasselblad, and it was my impression at the time from printing his stuff that the Mamiya edged out the Blad just a bit, but I also cropped tighter in the camera than he did.

But there are other issues than just raw quality, and I would really not want to go back to that RB67 and all the drudgery and expense it involved, combined with the impossibility of doing things I can easily do digitally now.

 

[Danielle]

I have a mamiya rb too. The quality still amazes me, that camera's still my baby. That vs a blad is personal preference from what I've seen. I made my choice as I wasn't that keen on always shooting square formats. Optics between the two in my opinion is preference, and hey a blad is also a great camera with a bonus its a tiny bit smaller physically too.

Newer digital camera's like the d300/D3 etc I think are quite fantastic in their own way, they've come such a long long way. But as my interest is in fine art photography, I adore film. I'll still use my F90x for some things too, but more because I can rather than my medium format for its outright quality of the neg. If I had a Phase One I'd still use my film based RB as well. However, if I had one of those as well, It would be a rare day I touch a nikon for anything. Pity I can't currently afford one (and I know Im not alone).

I should point out though that I have a nice B&W 16x20 print from a D90 on my wall which was printed on a durst lambda. Its not half bad at all... all things considered.

I can relate to the expense, but not the drudgery of the RB. Film can cost some serious money, but then so can prints from pro labs (nothing changed there much). Depends what your doing with it. However I do endorse that everyone actually does print things. Looking at a print in a frame on the wall is a million times nicer than than seeing it on a monitor. Even if you can't afford pro prints from really expensive printers, you have to print some somewhere else, even your local camera shop. - Wow I think I got sidetracked with that.

 

[tnabbott]

So many words, so few pictures...

 

[Ed Bray]

I think you have to use what suits you best. I have had a few DSLRs including a Canon 1DsMk3 and a couple of 5DMk2s both used with L glass, but I no longer have either the glass or the cameras, I now have what suits me best, an old (circa 2005) Hasselblad H1 with 3x 16/32 film backs and an Imacon Ixpress 528C multishot digital back, and for less demanding digital work I use a Fuji X10, but my most used cameras in the last few months are my Mamiya C330f and my plethora of 35mm film cameras from both Pentax and Olympus. Why? it is certainly not about image quality, the 528C has that to excess giving 528MB 16 bit files in it's 16x multi-shot mode, it's not about ease of use, the little X10 has that cornered, it's the feeling of satisfaction derived from making an image an a celluliod medium and knowing that you have a limited number of exposures available to get that image (no chimping here, you stand or fall by your exposure decisions) and just like seeing that image appear before your eyes in the monochrome darkroom, the thrill of opening the development tank and seeing the images (positive or negative) around the spiral give a thrill to the photographer that is hard to fathom. Yes it is a slower medium, yes with digital you can correct your mistakes there and then, but using film is different, slower, demands a certain amount of knowledge and gives something to those that use it that digital rarely will.

So, for me, film will always have a place in my heart, but for convenience digital is hard to beat.

 

[Danielle]

So, for me, film will always have a place in my heart, but for convenience digital is hard to beat.

+1

 

[Ektagraphic]

When image quality matters most, film can't be beat. When time and convenience are on the line and the situation is more "quality vs. quantity" and quantity is needed, pick digital. For portraiture, unless it is needed to be done in 25 min, film makes more sense. The quality is stunning, there are labs such as Miller's or Burell that offer free or nearly free overnight shipping, film costs are not too high yet, you can edit scans to high heavens if needed, the clients whole order is already organized on a roll, and the quality and image reproduction can't truly be beat (including resolution)

 

[Eric Rose]

I have a D700. Quite simply it has replaced my Blad. The poor baby has been sitting in the closet for a couple of years now.

 

[MattxMosh]

The quality is stunning, there are labs such as Miller's or Burell that offer free or nearly free overnight shipping

Miller's will be done taking film in December. Sadly.

 

[tkamiya]

I shoot in a media/format that I better suit my objective. If I wanted a B&W print and I intend to make one off print in my darkroom, I shoot in film. If I wanted a color print, make many prints, use it on Internet, or intend to manipulate it a lot in Photoshop, then I shoot in digital.

One thing people tend to forget is the lens. Some of my Nikon lens are way sharper and resolve more detail than my Mamiya 645.

Which is "better" is kind of moot in terms of resolution because in my PERSONAL USE, they both have enough to make the largest print I make. (which is 16x20) Having beyond that is kind of academic.

 

[Diapositivo]

I use both film and digital. I am not going to descend into a digital vs analogue photography bickering as both technologies have their pros and cons.

Regarding the questions posed by the original poster, I can offer my personal experience. I scan my film, don't have a proper darkroom for printing. I can only compare the scan of my film pictures with the digital pictures of my digital camera.

My 11 mp digital camera in my experience certainly has less resolution than my 35mm slides carefully scanned with my Nikon LS-5000 (I am a bit paranoid in scanning: 16x pass and "multiexposure" activated which means that each location is read 32 times).

Even though a Nikon D3x certainly exhibits higher resolution I cannot see how can it surpass, in resolution, a medium format slide if properly scanned with a proper medium format film scanner. No need to have recourse to a drum scanner if that is the problem (a drum scanner will bring many benefits which go beyond resolution, especially the absence of the "light bloom" problem).

The reason why the professional photographer sees better resolution with his D3x rather than with his MF camera could be due to external factors:

- The printer he uses doesn't focus that well; The enlarger is not solid enough etc (suboptimal optical printing);
- He has a focusing problem (slight eye defect) so that he makes small focusing mistakes with his MF (supposing it is not autofocus) and the D3x does the focusing for him properly;
- The children he takes portraits of tend to move a bit out of focus. With a MF camera used with a normal lens at portrait distance the focus plane is quite thin. Using a D3x the photographer switches to small format and gets more depth of field; he might also use a higher ISO than he would with film, gaining again in DoF. Finally, as said, the autofocus might help him recover the slight movement of the head of his subject. This might give the impression of higher resolution of the digital camera.
- Most photographers confuse acutance with resolution and think they have more "resolution" where they had a gain in acutance, which is much less measurable if at all, much more workflow-dependent. The final result of the mentioned photographer might give an impression of bigger "sharpness" because of a closer-to-desired level of acutance, and this impression of sharpness can be mistaken for "resolution".

That said, it can entirely be true that the said photographer sees a higher "sharpness" with his Nikon D3x which leads again, maybe, to a suboptimal analogue workflow (not oriented to the results he wants).

I agree with the post somewhere above that tests are often not rigorously performed, people might arrive to conclusions which are the consequence of unknown problems in their own workflow and don't have a general value.

If I were a children portraitist I think I would tend to prefer digital technology over medium format, notwithstanding the lesser resolution. A portrait is not the kind of photography domain where resolution is so desirable after all.

To the OP I would just say that digital and film are so different in use and advantages/disadvantages that the choice on what to use should rest on those qualities rather than on resolution concerns. That said, medium format properly executed certainly has more measurable resolution than any 35mm digital camera.

 

[SafetyBob]

Diapositivo, you have it exactly right. I was going to say that even my stupid, cheap Nikon D60 gets better pictures than my 645, the press camera.....anything. I came to that realization when I noticed my film scans from my local lab kinda sucked compared to what I could simply see on the negative by eye. So I got a couple of scanners. Much better scans but generally still not up to par to what the D60 does just regularly simply hitting the shutter.

In my case, I am the limiting factor......I can't manuallly focus as good as any of my autofocus bodies unless the subject isn't moving (which does NOT happen very often), then, I cannot scan good enough (yet, working on that) to come off with a "better" photo from a film scan than my cheap digital camera. Again, trying to work this out, very much an uphill battle to improve one's scanning abilities with just maybe OK scanning equipment as one is trying to improve their photography skills.

If I was much more serious and especially had the time to devote to this photography thing, I would put out the money for a "real" MF scanner.......THEN I would have some competition with the digital equipment. I just don't have the space, time or anything else for a wet darkroom (which is to bad, I would love to give that a shot too). So many things to do and learn....running out of time....

Bob E.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

You should probably ask this question on APUG, I'm sure it would generate a lot of discussion.

I have a good friend that shoots with the D3 and he would tell you that the Nikon out performs MF film. The camera is quite impressive when used with excellent optics.

Don

I agree. the optics are key, but remember, most MF cameras have pretty good optics too.

 

[Pioneer]

I don't know that it really matters all that much. I use both but if I am shooting film I don't worry about how it is going to look alongside the output of one of my digital cameras. Likewise, if I am shooting digital I am way more concerned with getting the shot I am looking for than being concerned with the number of megapixels.

 

[Eric Rose]

My D700, which I believe uses the same sensor, retired my Blad.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I was recently talking to a photographer who does child portraiture for a living. He has recently changed over from meduim format film to a Nikon D3x. When I agreed that he must find a high resolution DSLR more convienient for his type of work, he agreed but also added that the resolution he got with the D3x was equal or better than MF film taken with a Pentax 645N and produced better detail and tonal graduation as well.
Excluding any philosopical views on the tired digital vs film debate, has anyone on the APUG forum tested these two cameras next to each other purely to test the above criteria.
I'm a beginner but I would still be interested to know. Thanks, Sean

I inadvertently did such a testwhile doing a model shoot on MF film AND witha D200. on the digital files you could read the model's shoe size on the botom of her shoes; on the negatives ,you could not, because it lacked the contrastand was too grainy.I've since upgradedto the D800an would expect the difference to be even more pronounced today. For me, Digital cameras have matured to the pointwhere I have to question the validity of darkroom workfor portraiture and model wok, but I still need to find a way to make fine-art prints.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

+1, butI still kiss her good night every day; true love never fades.

 

[toyotadesigner]

Hey, just received a notification to this thread...

Yes, I am still on film, but on digital for several months now as well. The D3x is almost forgotten now, the MP count reached 36 MP (IMHO far too much for a 35mm camera compared to a PhaseOne back on MF).

My experience so far:

• Digital offers a much simpler workflow.
• Digital takes as much time to set up on location as a MF or LF - there is almost no difference in the shooting process, because I still use my Sekonic to measure light.
• The image quality of my Nikon is incredible - for a 35mm system! But compared to a perfectly scanned MF or LF it doesn't even come close.
• I'm selling all my 35mm film cameras now, but I'll keep MF and LF. These formats are far more versatile for my purposes and work, if I need the 'perfect' shot.
• Speed is of no concern for me, because I work with non moving objects (otherwise I would switch completely to digital).
• When traveling, digital is a lot more comfortable at airport check ins.

So, currently I'm working with both worlds, depending of what I want to achieve. But to be honest: If I could afford a PhaseOne IQ180, I would sell everything except my Arca Swiss and go digital. Completely!

The good news: I can rent a PhaseOne back almost everywhere. Film will be sorted out sooner or later, because the E6 labs die away faster than I can change my shirts.

However, what I will miss is the smell of film and viewing the large chromes on a light table without having to start a computer... <sigh>