35mm vs MF vs digital

Rob · Apr 18, 2005

Oooh, controversial!

I happen to have taken the same(ish) shot with three different cameras and was comparing the results...

The 35mm was shot with a Nikon F3 with Nikkor f1.2 50mm loaded with 100 ISO Fuji Reala, the Medium was taken on my Zeiss Super Ikonta f2.8 80mm with 100 ISO Fuji Reala and the digital was taken with an Olympus C60 the zoom at approximately 70mm.

The film was scanned in by the shop (Noritsu machine I think?) and the digital was captured as SHQ or whatever the top setting for JPG is. The images has been converted to B&W as the colours were the same and the file was a little large.

Results are interesting, given that the 1930's camera appears better than the 1980's and 2000's technology.

It's not really a fair independent test and I'm not trying to prove a point, but it's how I shoot with these three cameras that I'm comparing and I thought you all might like to see the results.

In case you wondered about the picture, it's probably an old ticket booth on Brighton's ruined West Pier.

R

Original image

Menard · Apr 18, 2005

Here is an article which may be of interest to those wanting to compare film to digital, although there are no photos.

A Few Notes on the Evolution of Digital Cameras.

You have done a very interesting comparison, ronhesketh. I hope you don't mind that I have posted a link on my board to this page so others can view your results.

panocho · Apr 18, 2005

Yes, really interesting test! But, I would hesitate jumping to the conclusion that 1930's camera beat the technology of half a century later. Is not just the format which makes the difference?
On the other hand, I would very much support the point that technology does not get photos better, though. Of course it does not! It only helps the photographer simplify the process of taking a picture (and sometimes, complicate it!).
But this is out of the discussion. Thanks for sharing these most interesting results!

voodoocat · Apr 18, 2005

A 7.18 x 5.32 mm sensor is being compared with a 36x24 mm and a 60x60 mm negative. It's like comparing apples to semi-trucks.

thebeginning · Apr 18, 2005

medium format cameras are so expensive though. i would so have one by now...

voodoocat · Apr 18, 2005

thebeginning said:
medium format cameras are so expensive though. i would so have one by now...

Give the Yashicamat D, EM, LM or 124G a try. Should be able to find one on ebay for less than $100. (not the 124G, they are about $150)

ksmattfish · Apr 18, 2005

While the camera is from the 1930s, the image capturing technology you were using in it (the film) is state of the art.

Digital Matt · Apr 18, 2005

Next time us a Canon 1Ds Mk II to compare to MF, or a Leaf Valeo 22mp back.

Each format has its use.

Menard · Apr 18, 2005

You mean for only $8,000 I can get a camera that might come close to comparing with my $100 medium format camera? Wow!! :cheer:

Kent Frost · Apr 18, 2005

Menard said:
You mean for only $8,000 I can get a camera that might come close to comparing with my $100 medium format camera? Wow!! :cheer:

Four years ago, Canon's D30 was the big gun DSLR. It rated at a whopping 3.2MP and cost a mere $3,000 for the body alone.

Today an 8MP Digital Rebel XT body is only $899.

In four years, they've gone up short of 3 times the quality, and they're 1/3 the cost.

Just be patient.

Check this site out: http://www.gigapxl.org/

Menard · Apr 19, 2005

I don't doubt that. The price drops in just the past year have been very promising, particularly with the DSLRs. I don't see it within the next year or so, but, at some point down the road we will see high megapixel DSLRs compete favorably in price with the 35mm SLRs of today.

Bob Fiske · Apr 19, 2005

If you follow the suggestion of getting the Yashica D, get the model with the Yashinon lens. It's the later, 4 element, Tessar formula, sharper lens. BTW, the 124 and the 124G have this lens as well.

Rob · Apr 19, 2005

It's not meant to be a comparison to prove a point, but it is interesting that it's about £350 (new) of digital compact, £500 (s/hand) of 35mm and £100 (v/s/hand) of Medium Format.

The cost to me of these cameras has been reasonably similar, but the respective difficulty in usage, size, fiddliness, delay in shot-taking, mistake-factor etc. etc. varies enormously - a proper cheese and chalk exercise really. However, all these gadgets are designed to do the same thing - take a picture, and this bears for easy comparison.

I was shocked by the 35mm vs the MF - having never seen print enlargements of the same subject side-by-side, I didn't realise the difference in quality.

The little Olympus looks pretty and goes ding when you turn it on, but it's probably the worst thing to spend £300 on if you want a big print. I sold it for £200 to fund my new found desire to collect arcane and baroque equipment.

I was originally comparing my Nikon to my new Zeiss, but it occurred to me that I'd taken the same picture on the Olympus, so I stuck it in just to see.

The versus title was just to get everyone excited.

Rob