Nikon D100 vs 4x5 field camera side-by-side enlargement

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by ., Jan 22, 2008.

  1. .

    . Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. .

    JimKramer Guest

    JimKramer, Jan 22, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. .

    Colin_D Guest

    So?

    I'll give you a drag race with your 2-litre compact against my 7-litre
    blown BMW. About as valid as your camera comparison, i.e. meaningless.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin_D, Jan 22, 2008
    #3
  4. Why post a link without comment, Mr "." Are you shy? (O;

    That's a 4"x5" camera being compared to 6Mp "DX" dslr, yes? That's a
    120mm x 95mm capture area, compared to 24mm x 16mm...

    I would have to ask... why?
     
    mark.thomas.7, Jan 22, 2008
    #4
  5. .

    Max Perl Guest

    The 6MP DSLR camera seems to "create" its own "details"?
    I can see patterns I can't find in the 4x5 crop........?

    It is interresting to see how it should have looked like......and how the
    DSLR "manipulates" the real world :)
     
    Max Perl, Jan 22, 2008
    #5
  6. .

    JimKramer Guest

    "For this resolution comparison, I enlarged the D100 shot to the same
    width as the 4x5 shot, then cropped the same sized section from both.
    "

    To me, that means the "extra details" were added long after the camera
    got done taking the picture and had more to do with Photoshop,
    presumably, than the camera.
    But would it really have been so much effort to at least take the
    picture near the same time?
    And at an F stop that wouldn't already be well in to the "diffraction
    damage zone" for a cropped sensor DSLR?
    There were a number of, at least in my mind, questionable photographic
    decisions that did nothing to demonstrate the capabilities of Nikon
    D100, yet were very "normal" for a 4x5 shooter.
     
    JimKramer, Jan 22, 2008
    #6
  7. .

    Max Perl Guest

    It is probably PhotoShop which did something........

    But a brigwall test using a DSLR could be interresting and make a 100% crop
    of
    an area and then a full frame macro shot of the same area to see how the
    DSLR
    handles the details it can't handle......or how should I explain.......to
    see if the DSLR
    creates its own reality. It has probably been done many times........
     
    Max Perl, Jan 22, 2008
    #7
  8. .

    JimKramer Guest

    Yes it has, but film does the same thing when your details are past
    its resolving power (or worse the lens' resolving power.) "New"
    technology same "Old" problem. Want to resolve more detail? Go to a
    larger image format. A simple expensive solution.

    Now if I could get up the courage (and funds) to get an 8x10" camera
    and a drum scanner to go with it. :)
     
    JimKramer, Jan 22, 2008
    #8
  9. .

    Max Perl Guest

    Yes.....but it is quite heavy and it will be another kind of images you will
    get
    I assume.... :)

    With film the details seems to fade out a nicer way than with digital which
    is more
    ugly in my opinon.

    Maybe it is because I have so many nice old analog cameras I want to
    use......e.g.
    Voigtländer Prominent, Koak Retina IIIc, Contax II, Kiev 4a etc :)
     
    Max Perl, Jan 22, 2008
    #9
  10. .

    JimKramer Guest

    Ugly on a computer screen or ugly on a print? :)

    I've seen plenty of ugly pictures either way, but the newer print
    shops with the digital printers are set to print at the lowest
    possible resolution for speed and turn out consistently worse stuff
    then they did 15 years ago. A good scanner and printer will make you
    look at your films a different way then optical printing will allow
    and makes pretty digital prints much easier. I was less then happy
    with anything I ever did in the darkroom, but the same films scanned
    are truly lovely.

    Just keep using the cameras; don't let them get too dusty. :)
     
    JimKramer, Jan 22, 2008
    #10
  11. .

    Max Perl Guest

    "JimKramer" <> skrev i en meddelelse
    Ugly on a computer screen or ugly on a print? :)

    I think it was a the screen at 100% viewing. Text in digital images
    looks ugly when it is at the limit what the sensor can resolve.......
    Off course you can blur it in Photoshop etc.........

    I've seen plenty of ugly pictures either way, but the newer print
    shops with the digital printers are set to print at the lowest
    possible resolution for speed and turn out consistently worse stuff
    then they did 15 years ago. A good scanner and printer will make you
    look at your films a different way then optical printing will allow
    and makes pretty digital prints much easier. I was less then happy
    with anything I ever did in the darkroom, but the same films scanned
    are truly lovely.

    I have reused many of my slides by scanning them and printing them.
    6x6 and 6x9 looks great. But my PC has a hard time if I scan at 4000 dpi
    and use layers in Photoshop.

    Just keep using the cameras; don't let them get too dusty. :)

    Yes.....it is hard to explain what it so fun using these old cameras. I have
    a
    12MP DSLR but I still like using old rangefinders. A Vitomatic IIa with
    Ultron 50/2 is not bad either.....or a BessaII with Color-Heliar. These can
    still make nice photographs........
     
    Max Perl, Jan 22, 2008
    #11
  12. .

    Yoshi Guest

    What exactly is a "brigwall"?
     
    Yoshi, Jan 24, 2008
    #12
  13. .

    Max Perl Guest

    Max Perl, Jan 24, 2008
    #13
  14. .

    JimKramer Guest

    He means brick, i believe.
     
    JimKramer, Jan 24, 2008
    #14
  15. .

    Max Perl Guest

    "JimKramer" <> skrev i en meddelelse
    He means brick, i believe.

    Yes....that is correct!
    A google search on "brick wall" and everybody will know.......I better write
    in danish next time......
     
    Max Perl, Jan 24, 2008
    #15
  16. .

    JimKramer Guest

    That would leave most of us in the dark. :) I'd take a good stab at
    German or Spanish though.
     
    JimKramer, Jan 24, 2008
    #16
  17. .

    Scott W Guest

    What you are most likely seeing in the digital images is aliasing,
    and sadly simply blurring in PhotoShop after the fact does not help
    much. This is a tradeoff every digital camera has to deal with, if
    you put in a strong enough anti-alias filter to remove all aliasing
    the image will have poor contrast at lower spatial frequencies and not
    look sharp, but a weaker AA filter can lead to artifacts.

    Of course I consider any visible grain in a film image as an artifact,
    so film is not free from artifacts either. Film can often add texture
    in an image where none was in the original scene, this bothers some
    people more then others, it bothers me a fair bit.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 24, 2008
    #17
  18. .

    Max Perl Guest

    "JimKramer" <> skrev i en meddelelse
    That would leave most of us in the dark. :) I'd take a good stab at
    German or Spanish though.

    "brick" in danish would be "mursten" and "wall" would be "væg" .....but we
    have a lot
    of words we put together without spaces in between so "brick wall" will be
    "murstensvæg".
    The extra "s" is some danish gramma........ :)
     
    Max Perl, Jan 24, 2008
    #18
  19. .

    Max Perl Guest

    "Scott W" <> skrev i en meddelelse
    What you are most likely seeing in the digital images is aliasing,
    and sadly simply blurring in PhotoShop after the fact does not help
    much. This is a tradeoff every digital camera has to deal with, if
    you put in a strong enough anti-alias filter to remove all aliasing
    the image will have poor contrast at lower spatial frequencies and not
    look sharp, but a weaker AA filter can lead to artifacts.

    Of course I consider any visible grain in a film image as an artifact,
    so film is not free from artifacts either. Film can often add texture
    in an image where none was in the original scene, this bothers some
    people more then others, it bothers me a fair bit.

    Scott

    Yes......but after I have used digital for a while and the digital world
    has settled a bit......there are some years between the 11 MP Canon
    EOS 1Ds and the 12 MP Nikon D3 and there are some improvements
    such as lower high iso noise and frames pr. sec etc. But not as much
    improvement as the first years.
    So there is time to look back and we can see what digital has to offer
    compared to film.
    As a "non-pro" and "non-sports photographer" I still think film has a kind
    of artistic
    expression I like......so I will use both.....
    Because of the AA filter digital images are a bit soft by nature.....and
    they need to
    be sharpened.....and I have seen many which has got far to much USM and I am
    a bit tired of these images......to make good USM is an art of its own. So
    it can be
    quite relaxing to see a good film based print...... :) many digital
    images has also
    over saturated colors after my taste.....and the posibilities in Photoshop
    are endless
    working in many layes. I have seen to many "Lord of the Ring" images now....
    I know you can make something like this also with scanned film......but not
    quite as easy
    as from direct digital capture......
    I just miss the good old out of the box images.....and not these where
    people has spend
    days in Photoshop to get a ......what they think are a perfect image :)
     
    Max Perl, Jan 24, 2008
    #19
  20. .

    That Rich Guest


    Excellent post Max. My feelings exactly.

    Thank you. I'll bet it sounds twice as nice in Danish :)

    Cheers,

    RP©
     
    That Rich, Jan 24, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.