Meduim Format Film vs Nikon D3X

just an fyi.. d3/d700 use the same sensor.. 12Mp, the D3x uses a completely different sensor.. @ 24.5Mp.

at least for me, the use of film is for the joy of the alchemy, rather than the look of the final image (you really can, if you want, make a digital print look exactly like one from film)

the number of analog prints > 11x14 has traditionally been pretty low.. most prints are in the 8x10-11x14 range. at those print sizes, resolution wouldn't come into play

Currently,I use a Nikon D800 for digital and a Hasselblad 501c with tmax for film.Yet, I have managed to make both,good and terrible images, with either one. It takes a lot of work and experience, but, it can be done!

Yesterday I spent about six hours in the darkroom. I made about 10 decent prints. 8x10s of 35mm. Image quality was great on some. I enjoyed myself. I never print my digital stuff. It is just a hobby.

that's not my experience comparing Hasselblad 501c vs Nikon D800.film had the edgein my comparisonbut the Nikon had better focus.autofocus in a Nikon is hard to beatand focusing a Hasselblad has always been a challenge to me.

I'm not sure what all the argument is about anymore. I own both a Mamiya 6 and a Hasselblad--both were trumped by a Pentax k20. The k3 I have now is even better. While it's true that a full 6x6 scan on my Nikon 8000 is technically larger at 64 mb, it really doesn't matter. The digital cameras still get more detail if the lens is good. The only conceivable way to close the gap at this point is to use 100-speed film, and to have it scanned at high expense. People expect a MF film camera to perform like LF, but that's not a reasonable expectation.

I use both so will put my 2 pennyworth in to carry out the discussion. My medium Format - Bronica ETRS gives superb results, as does my 35mm kit - Nikon F100+F4. My Digital offering, a Nikon D90, also gives good results which I cannot complain about. The Digital gives very smooth tones and can be fiddled about with to a vast extent with Photoshop, but I am left with a feeling that so little of my practical skill has been used to make the finished image. I get the feeling that I am following in someone else's footsteps. Don't get me wrong, I use the D90 a lot and like using it for what it is - a very useful tool, especially when I am on my motorcycle touring when I need to know if I am getting what I want 100% of the time..

The film cameras are also used a lot. A 1/3rd-2/3rds usage split in favour of the 35mm but I get so much more satisfaction in the darkroom than I do sitting before a computer screen employing someone else's technology and skill, to design and write various programs so that the Digital camera can be made into a useful tool.

An analogy to the two types could be comparing a skilled carpenter or cabinet maker, starting off with the raw materials, screws, glue and a few hand tools and making a beautiful piece of furniture. To going down to a store and buying a kit of flat pack furniture, which when assembled does the same task as the crafted hand made item. Although I do not possess the skills of a wood craftsman, I would love to and I know which item I would prefer to have in my home.

eric rose said:

MF for me is a waste of time. If I want to print in the darkroom I will use 4x5.

Click to expand...

How can you say that?I find it much easier and more economic to find high-quality MF equipmentthan4x5.My Mamiyas and Hasselblads give my 4x5s a good run for the money.actually, stepping up from 35mm to MF was a big quality jumpbut stepping up from MF to 4x5 was a qualitydisappointment