IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

[dick]

¿Does this more or less confirm my thought that a top-end ¿MS? MF back with a top lens, hex-stitched to give 4 times the Mp is somewhere near equivalent to 10 * 8?

 

[timparkin]

¿Does this more or less confirm my thought that a top-end ¿MS? MF back with a top lens, hex-stitched to give 4 times the Mp is somewhere near equivalent to 10 * 8?

At usual taking apertures this sounds about right - although I did stitch two 8x10's together recently for a potential 8m x 3m print.

Tim

 

[FredBGG]

Putting aside the sharpness results an important thing to keep in mind is the aesthetic of smaller format lenses compared to larger format lenses.

I have yet to find a 645 lens that has the same dimensional rendering of foreground and background, bokeh and "3d-ishness" of the Schneider 480mm f8.4.

The closest lens I have found to that is the Fuji GX680 on 6x8 film. Just has that large format look and a sense of depth combined with pictorical rendering of the background.

Here is a snapshot after a shoot taken with the 180mm @ f5.6.
I processed for 70s color. Shot on Ektar 100.

So my point is that whatever the capture... digital or film... larger image circles just produce much nicer images.

Digitals biggest limitation is that commercial products that can shoot instant images is the sensor size. It all ends at under 645.

The best 645 Lenses I have found are the Hasselblad 110mm f2 V system lens and the Contax 80mm f2 (the latter is not super sharp wide open, but it looks simply beautiful). next up is the Schnieder/Rollei 180mm 2.8.

 

[FredBGG]

A bit off topic, but I like the way the test shows how detail in film sneaks down right into the grain. I like to use this to shoot grainy film with my 680.
Here is an example.
While it is very grainy... look at how much detail there is ...look at the top of the bag, the jeans etc.
I would never get this result with 35mm film due to the nature of lens despite being able to shoot 35mm with less grain.

and another from the same roll.

I think that a 60MP 6x7 sensor on an RZ would have been a far more interesting step up than going from 60MP to 80MP on a sub 645 sensor.

Hell even a 40MP on an RZ 6x7.

It should be possible to buid an Aptus 22 sensor twice the size for say 3 times the price. The Aptus sensor is already made from tiles.

 

[timparkin]

I think that a 60MP 6x7 sensor on an RZ would have been a far more interesting step up than going from 60MP to 80MP on a sub 645 sensor.

Hell even a 40MP on an RZ 6x7.

It should be possible to buid an Aptus 22 sensor twice the size for say 3 times the price. The Aptus sensor is already made from tiles.

I must admit I think it would be very interesting to see a larger sensor. 6x7 starts to become quite attractive in terms of lens design and hopefully pixel density can come down too. The IQ180 definitely seems like a watershed sensor for me in terms of the overall look. I'd be happier with a 40mp with that look than an 80mp version of the old Phase P45+ (ignoring the long exposure stuff).

Tim

 

[Stefan Steib]

I think you are both right on target with the wish for larger chips with less (60 Mpix) resolution. I pray that the MF companies will understand where their real market in the future will be. It´s NOT about more Megapixels. And as this test showed It´s also not about resolution. It´s about usability and instantaneous access to the tools used. A large film still has a better resolution. Did this stop people from using digital all over ? Nope.......

Greetings from Munich
Stefan

 

[carstenw]

A 40MP 56x56mm chip would be my dream. A back fitting the Rolleiflex 6008 system (integral, integral 2, AF) should also be available, as well as Hy6.

 

[Graham Mitchell]

Resolution will not add interest.

I have to disagree with that. A truly high resolution landscape print, for example, is much more appealing than a low resolution version with lots of grain or pixelation. I would agree that it matters more for some types of photography than others but at the end of the day, you can never go back and add resolution, but you can always remove it if you feel it improves the image.

 

[Stefan Steib]

Hi Graham

I am asking why do you think it is valuable for the vast majority of Photographers - even actual Medium Format users to shoot all and every image larger than 60x70cm at 300 dpi all the time. Actually for a decent print 150 dpi are totally ok and this would translate to 125x144cm and even at 100 dpi this is still a very good resolution- as sharp as good monitors with 186x216cm.

Using such a trucklike heavyload vehicle for normal purpose photography all the time is total overkill, as we have seen in some areas the image quality even suffers from this approach - and to be frankly - for those few landscape or exhibition shooters who are printing larger than this (how many are these anyway - worldwide ???) I say : stitch it or use an IQ180 or a Hasselblad H4d200 MS ! But about 99% of all pro tasks are smaller.

So these 99 % of other photographers would be very happy about a chip that gives less problems with wideangles, richer colors, improved dynamic range of lets say 17 or 18 stops, SNR, decent lenses and even handling and because of higher production lots - reasonable pricing.

Greetings from Munich
Stefan

 

[Graham Mitchell]

Hi Graham

I am asking why do you think it is valuable for the vast majority of Photographers - even actual Medium Format users to shoot all and every image larger than 60x70cm at 300 dpi all the time.

I wouldn't say it's the most valuable thing, and for many or even most assignments 30MP would be more than enough. However, if you can only have one camera, I'd want one which could deliver the extra resolution when needed. For me 40MP would be enough, but the only 645 sensor option for my camera was 80MP so that's why I personally ended up with that option.

 

[PeterA]

Very interesting thanks to the OP for the work done! and I guess a good one place summary of a lot of information that many people have to dig around to find - so high utility/amenity factor as well.

Still the issue for me in choosing between LF film and digital capture is very frustrating because there are limitations in practice that make LF film (for me) a no go zone.

I want the movements and to be able to see the effect of movements which a large piece of viewing glass makes easier ( in certain conditions - eg studio) but I dont want the hassle of worrying about wind/rain/loading the stuff procesing the stuff and scanning the stuff or worse having a large format capable enlarging darkroom etc etc etc - been there done that and no thanks mate!

On the digi side - I don't need the elephant gun megapixels to make portraits or even architectural shots - but I DO need the movements - but we have no real live view - so for all its workflow benefits and real world ease of use - the actual shot making isn't as easy as it should be could be for movement type photography.

That pretty much describes the state of impasse for me and my needs. Everything is always a compromise - and we can never have the best from both worlds it seems.

 

[tjv]

In my experience with 4x5", I find it difficult in practice to extract more detail than I would with my Mamiya 7 kit out in the field. In most situations diffraction limits resolution and slower shutter speeds are needed to achieve the desired DOF (when movements aren't appropriate.) It all adds up to mean that 4x5" may equal or sometimes even lack the resolving "bite" of the 6x7cm but tonality is sure better on the larger format. To be honest, I use 4x5" not to maximise resolution but to utilise movements and compose on a large viewing glass. It's a magical process, in my opinion. I just love it, at least enough to put up with what PeterA can not...

One day I'd love to try shooting with an Alpa SWA or RM3D and digital back to see how I like it. If I stopped shooting film for a year I could afford a digital back and basic setup. Problem is I'm not prepared to slow down! Anyway, I have a feeling one of these companies is going to give the segment a radical shake up soon. Perhaps then we will have more options. It just better happen sooner rather than later because things don't look good for Kodak and film production in general in 2012!

 

[timparkin]

In my experience with 4x5", I find it difficult in practice to extract more detail than I would with my Mamiya 7 kit out in the field. In most situations diffraction limits resolution and slower shutter speeds are needed to achieve the desired DOF (when movements aren't appropriate.) It all adds up to mean that 4x5" may equal or sometimes even lack the resolving "bite" of the 6x7cm but tonality is sure better on the larger format.

Out of interest, what apertures do you typically use on each of these platforms?

 

[tjv]

Out of interest, what apertures do you typically use on each of these platforms?

When shooting 6x7cm (Mamiya 7II with 80mm, 65mm and 50mm lenses) I try not to go smaller than f11. I'll go half a stop smaller if really needed but it softens details quite quickly from there on. On 4x5" I'll shoot around f22 using 150mm and 90mm lenses. Most of the subjects I shoot are too three dimensional to use tilt movements, so f22 on 4x5" gives me equivalent depth of field to 6x7cm and enough for adequate foreground to background detail.

I think a complicating factor is that the Mamiya 7 lenses are spectacular and the 4x5 lenses i own, while good, are not in the same league. I should invest in new lenses if I really want to take resolution to the next level. Man, if only the 7II had shift movements!

With regards to Portra 400 VS. 160, I've tried the new flavors of both and for some reason preferred the 400. Something about the way the color saturated when overexposed seemed more pleasing. Your tests might have convinced me to give the 160 another try though. It does look sharper.

 

[timparkin]

I think a complicating factor is that the Mamiya 7 lenses are spectacular and the 4x5 lenses i own, while good, are not in the same league. I should invest in new lenses if I really want to take resolution to the next level. Man, if only the 7II had shift movements!

tell me about it! I have a plan to add shift and tilt to a Mamiya 7 when I get my own workshop sometime in the future. The lenses seem sharper than most of the 35mm lenses I own..

With regards to Portra 400 VS. 160, I've tried the new flavors of both and for some reason preferred the 400. Something about the way the color saturated when overexposed seemed more pleasing. Your tests might have convinced me to give the 160 another try though. It does look sharper.

Portra 400 does tend toward a slightly more magenta look which can be pleasing - I found it a little frustrating after a while. I would be happy if the new Portra 160 was the only colour film available, although velvia 50 and Portra 400 would be the icing on the cake.

 

[Stefan Steib]

Tim

The problem with the mamiya 7 lenses is their short flange focal distance of 60mm for the bajonett mount , but additionally their wideangle has a recessed lens (as many Arri PL mount lenses). There have been tests to use these lenses as TS on 35mm, but
this turned out to be difficult. It works on a Sinar (there is a special lensboard made by my Partner PK in Italy).

Regards
Stefan

 

[wentbackward]

Putting aside the sharpness results an important thing to keep in mind is the aesthetic of smaller format lenses compared to larger format lenses...
..has that large format look and a sense of depth combined with pictorical rendering of the background....

Fred you are quite right! One of my reasons for getting into LF and subsequently MF Digital was exactly what you state. Interestingly (and perhaps because we have such limited choice at present, Edit: in terms of digitally optimised glass), this element of lenses are not discussed so much. Results I've seen form the Schneider POne 150/3.5 look stunning, I have the 110 LS and can assert it is truly stunning. That said, I also love my little Agfa Isolette with the 75/3.5 Solinar lens. Truly pictorial results on 6x6, plus it folds up and goes in your pocket.

Tim, how's your budget to start doing lens comparisons on film and digital

 

[Jack]

In my experience with 4x5", I find it difficult in practice to extract more detail than I would with my Mamiya 7 kit out in the field.

Agreed. In the field, 4x5 is subject to vibrations by just a light breeze, and 8x10 even more so. The reality is that getting an "optimal" 4x5 or 8x10 capture *in the field* is EXTREMELY difficult. This is where digital MF sits heads and shoulders above traditional LF film capture. For me, I find I get superior net results in the field from direct MF digital -- and have been ever since single-capture MF digital hit 39MP -- than I ever did from LF and film. I am not saying I never got excellent LF captures, I did, just they were more the exception than the norm, and direct digital renders a much higher percentage of technologically superior files. I respect others opinions and experiences may vary. (Or if you only work inside a controlled studio environment, and have unlimited time to set each frame up, then I'd agree LF film has the edge.) Regardless one thing is for certain, and that is from capture to final print, the direct digital workflow is far more efficient than the traditional wet film to wet print workflow -- I don't think anybody can argue that point

Re sensor resolution. Having owned 60 and 80 MP full frame, I will say that my current 80MP sensor is the closest thing to LF 4x5 I have used, and in most cases exceeds the actual 4x5 field performance I obtained most of the time. In fact, it renders very close to what I used to get with 8x10, and is excessive resolution for most of my current needs. But that doesn't mean I don't want or need 80MP, I do enjoy having it. I again respect everybody else's opinions that they'd be happy 40MP on an even bigger sensor, but not me. COnsider me on the record that I do not want a larger sensor, and I really don't expect to need more than 80MP on my existing FF MF sensor. Moreover, I do not want to build up yet another system -- I am quite satisfied with the performance of my existing back and lenses as they are rendering the absolute best images from a technical standpoint that I have ever created period. I would not mind an improved Phase body to utilize said lenses however. YMMV...

Re print resolution: I am going to respectfully disagree with Stefan, and say that on a very large print, like 40x50, I think one can do with 180/200 PPI output, but for most images under that 240 PPI is going to be superior, and 300/360 PPI remains the ideal for "put your nose int eh print" detail. Canvas is a different story -- there you can drop to even 90 PPI and it can look pretty decent.

Offered FWIW only, YMMV...

 

[wentbackward]

...I am quite satisfied with the performance of my existing back and lenses as ...

Jack, I'm willing to go climb mountain together, anoint stones with oil and chant this over and over to ward off the evils of Dante. :ROTFL:

 

[Jack]

Well I did say I don't want a physically larger sensor or *need* more pixels, but I said nothing about adopting new technologies, better noise characteristics, etc... So I fear our chants and pilgrimage would not work to appease Dante.