medium format vs DSLR 35mm

[HassyLover]

What you have not stated is the identity of the 35mm digital camera (and lens) you are using for this comparison.

How do you find the availability of 120 film? Is there much choice nowadays? Do you print in colour?

I use a Nikon D3 and use all of my older AIS Nikkors with it. They are all top quality glass and to be honest, I think most are at least as good or better than their modern day equivalents. Mechanically they are far superior in my experience. For digital it gives me great results but I will always be a film guy until I can no longer find film. Maybe one day I will be persuaded to drop another 3 grand on a Nikon D800 but I don't feel the need right now. The D3 is plenty for what I use it for and I have AIS Nikkors from 16mm to 600mm.

I do not have a problem finding 120 film and B&W paper and chemistries though there is only one place here in town which still stocks the 120 film. I use Kodak T-Max 100 for black and white and Kodak Portra or Ektar 100 for color depending on the subject. I do most of my Blad work in B&W but will do some in color. For color I use the same Beseler chemistries and drum process I have for over 35 years. Finding the color chemistries and paper is a lot more difficult than it use to be and I find myself having to get them all online. The problem with that is that the paper has been out of refrigeration for a period of time.

 

[najobskalf]

Ah, that explains it - now if you were comparing Canon DSLR images from an EOS 5DIII ... (only joking!)

Sadly, it was not practical for me to set up a darkroom again after my last house move, so I had to stop printing my own photos.
Now I use a pigment ink A2 Epson printer and it is still fun, more so as I had never printed in colour in my film days.

I agree that Hasselblad film-based prints have a superb quality - due largely to their marvellous Zeiss lenses, as well as the character of film grain.
I am less convinced by the practice of scanning newly taken films in preparation for printing - I only do this with my old negatives.

 

[Darron Spohn]

Pixels wanted

Now, a Canon 5D MkIII with a 30MP sensor and adequate noise control would be nice for me. I always found it difficult to focus my Hasselblads accurately and was delighted with the autofocus provided by Canon (not to mention the L-series lenses). However, I do miss the beautiful engineering of the V Hasselblads - obviously my admiration of these cameras was not for the right reasons. My Canon 5DII consistently gives me better results than I got from the Hasselblad.

Then you were using poor technique with the Hasselblad. I wore out four Canon digital bodies when I was a motorsports photographer and used them for landscape photography too. I've also shot landscapes with a Hasselblad 501CM and had them scanned on a Tango drum scanner. Looking at the 12x18s from the EOS gear vs. 16x20s with the scanned medium format images I can easily see more detail and smoother tonal gradations. The images my son shot with his Yashica-Mat 124G blow away anything I've seen out of a 35mm size DSLR.

Don't get me wrong. DSLRs have their advantages, but ultimate image quality is not one of them unless you spring for a larger than 35mm sensor. I've also shot and drum scanned 4x5 film, and there is more difference between 120 film and 35mm DLSR than between 120 film and 4x5 film. You cannot judge these systems without proper technique and excellent scans.

 

[najobskalf]

Then you were using poor technique with the Hasselblad. I wore out four Canon digital bodies when I was a motorsports photographer and used them for landscape photography too. I've also shot landscapes with a Hasselblad 501CM and had them scanned on a Tango drum scanner. Looking at the 12x18s from the EOS gear vs. 16x20s with the scanned medium format images I can easily see more detail and smoother tonal gradations. The images my son shot with his Yashica-Mat 124G blow away anything I've seen out of a 35mm size DSLR.

Don't get me wrong. DSLRs have their advantages, but ultimate image quality is not one of them unless you spring for a larger than 35mm sensor. I've also shot and drum scanned 4x5 film, and there is more difference between 120 film and 35mm DLSR than between 120 film and 4x5 film. You cannot judge these systems without proper technique and excellent scans.

Are you so sure that you were not using poor technique with your many DSLRs? Digital photos are not film photos - this should be recognized, otherwise some comparisons are meaningless. I am not familiar with some photographic technicalities. For example your statement about images from a Yashica-Mat that "blow away" anything from a 35mm size DSLR. No wonder my technique was so poor in my Hasselblad days!

I never got paid for my photography (that is the only distinction between amateur and professional - and I have seen some crap taken by professional phototgraphers in my time) - in my professional life I used an electron microscope with quite a different magnitude of resolution. Not too good for landscapes, though. However, I have always been very short-sighted and this is not helpful in photography. So, autofocus and image stabilization are good for me and I am unrepentant. I have a large stock of Hasselblad negatives and transparencies and I use a Nikon 9000 scanner. I totally disagree with any claim that all DSLR images are "blown away" by Hasselblad scans, however good. I was sceptical until a professional photographer of my acquaintance showed me some of his 16x20 prints. I looked at these and decided they were good enough for me.

By the way, of course there is a bigger difference between medium format and 35mm than between medium format and 5x4 or bigger. It is a function (a) of the ratios between the areas of the formats and (b) the fact that the performance of lenses for formats greater that 6x6 cm falls off. The Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad were simply superb. I am told that nothing beats a contact print from a 16x20 glass plate for tonal range.

(I knew someone who used to listen to silent tracks on vinyl test records with the volume turned up to 11 - just for the pleasure of knowing that he was experiencing the ultimate!) He didn't appreciate something called the signal/noise ratio.

Unrepentantly, I shall continue to enjoy my 5D MkIII - it is recreational after all. And I could not have had the pleasure of my Canon L series 14mm wideangle or my 300mm f/2.8 prime with a (non-existent) Hasselblad equivalent!

Yashica-MAT - what on earth is that? Is it what they call lomography?

 

[Darron Spohn]

Yashica-MAT - what on earth is that? Is it what they call lomography?

Rereading my post I realize it came across as condescending. I apologize for that and will avoid such behavior in the future.

I am comparing 35mm size digital files to 4500 dpi drum scans that cost $80 each. The Nikon 9000 is not good enough to pull all the detail out of 120 film. For my purposes the Nikon 9000 is a proof scanner* which will deliver files good enough to decide which slides to send off for drum scans. The 16-bit TIFF files from the Tango drum scanner and 120 slide film are around 600MB. Maybe the reason you prefer digital capture is the scanner you are using. I realize some excellent photographers have switched to digital for their landscape work, but for me the quality isn't there unless I step up to medium format digital, which is currently out of my budget.

And don't disparage the Yashica Mat. They were cheap Rollei knockoffs, but had good lenses.

*I'm thinking of buying a Plustek 120 for that purpose.

 

[najobskalf]

I took no offence at all - a bit of condescension is much more lively than some of the mutual admiration one reads on online forums!

I take your point about the limitations of the Nikon scanner. But I would find $80 (over £50) per scan quite steep. However, if they are really that good perhaps I should give it a try - although it may be the road to poverty. I could be tempted to re-acquire a 503CW and fit a digital back, but I really would miss the good attributes of a full-frame DSLR.

At least I don't use an iPhone for my photography!

 

[Darron Spohn]

Yes, the drum scans are very expensive, but the lab does a great job with the scans. The files are 30in x 30in at 300 dpi. I'm not knocking the Nikon scanner, it is very good for its intended purpose, but there is a reason the Tango cost $70,000 new. I am very picky about which images I send off for drum scans. I have to be. As you said, it could be the road to poverty.

 

[Fliger747]

Typically these my dog is better than your dog generate more heat than light. I use both a hasty with film and scans, a CFV50 and several recent high end Canons with "Ell" Lenses. In effect they are optimized for different things and different ways of working. The Canons are at least as good as anything but ISO 50 film in 6x6 with equal care in working. The Canons are more flexible, have better high ISO performance and al sorts of great features that allow some pretty decent photography for nearly all uses.

However for those really big prints the Hassy is unmatched. The pleasure and results from a slower method of working is not to be ignored. The CFV50 does as well or better than my 4x5 Linhoff with much more flexibility.

Heading off for a three week expedition to the Southern Hemisphere, taking my trusty Hassy, 5 lenses, digi back, plus a Canon with walkaround lens.....

T

 

[Thingy]

I have used various formats over the last 40 years and continue to do so. I have a trusty Nikon F4 for 35mm film photography. For MF film work I have: a Mamiya C330s TLR (6x6), an excellent Mamiya 7 (6x7) & my recently acquired Hassy 503CW. I have also used a Mamiya ProTL645 (6x4.5) (which I have donated to a needy photographer) & use an Ebony 45SU (4x5 inches) camera for landscape & architectural photography. I have also used both Olympus & Nikon DSLRs.

I agree that 35mm film is not up to the job of producing decent landscape photographs, even with excellent modern emulsions such as that used with Ilford Delta 100 or Fuji's excellent Acros, though it is up to the job for documentary photography & satisfactory for macrophotography. For landscape photography using film at 5x4 inch format & above does capture more tonal detail - but drum scanning is really the only way to effectivly capture all that extra detail. However it is not always practical to use a 5x4 bellows camera (eg Iceland/Greenland/Svalbard in Winter!) making MF the ideal format. Again, the scanner makes a crucial difference - as does both photographic & scanning technique. If you don't use either properly, you cannot complain about poor results. I never bracket (with sheet film it is simply too expensive, anyway) - I just carefully use a good spot light meter & am careful to select the most appropriate film. As for high resolution digital photography I think that the Nikon D800E produces excellent results for landscape photography, though proficient use of Photoshop (which I lack at present) makes a difference in interpretating captured RAW data. If you are using a DSLR the use of RAW is essential if quality is what you are after.

Joe Cornish did a test last year comparing the results obtained from film cameras (eg the Mamiya 7II) with eg an IQ180 digital back. Although some results by film appeared to be better, the overall results were superior from the IQ180. The downside for amateurs like myself is that the IQ180 is unaffordable, marketing in the UK for over £30K excluding VAT at 20%! That review was published in the online periodical, On Landscape, in their Big Camera Comparison available via (subscription only):
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

Incidentally, you can get excellent results from both a Yashica & a Microcord TLR!

 

[laura iane]

I’ve got it. Everything is so beautiful, it makes you cry. And, boy, it is Stellar. I paid it with everything I have. Had. And I mean everything: my future of my kid – he’ll probably end up autistic; the mental sanity of my wife – couldn’t stop yelling for 2 days; connection with my ancestors – even the dead ones will disinherit me. And I’ll probably have to give up my kidney. And one eye. And my index finger. But the pictures... man! Yes, i’ve got it!

 

[pedro39photo]

Just different tools, the quality of the files its not the ultimate difference.
If the future bring a Phone with the same quality as digital Hassy, anyone that really loves photography stop using 35mm SLRs or DMF?
Not me...
Pedro

 

[dirk]

Times moves on and we have now in 2018 even more alternatives than 5 years ago.

I used to have MF only in the analogue time. It was a Rolleiflex 2.8FX and a Rollei 6003 professional. I loved to take photos with. Not only because of differences in image quaility of the slides vs. "Fullframe analogue", but also because it was a totally different shooting style and experience. But you need time....

Nowadays, I still thurst for this experience plus the different "look" of even older digital MF backs vs. i.e. Nikon D800 images. For me it is not about resolution as it was in the analogue times. DSLRs have enough resolution nowadays.

It is about "impression" the image gives me.

I only had this so far outside of MF with my Sigma DP2 Merrill and DP3 Merrill. A special look and feel to the images I can not describe with words. More transparent, more "real", like if you look through an open window instead of a closed window. Like the view in the mountains with the fresh air... like you could touch the subject on the photo...

One day I will hopefully afford a digital medium format back and/or camera....

 

[Fliger747]

When i moved to Canon DSLR's from my 500CM Film I thought with careful work the potential was about the same. Eventually I ended up with a 50 MP Digi back for the 500CM. At that point it was apparent that digits were important, a set of distant climbers on Denali would have two legs instead of one. Eventually I got a Canon 5D sR 50 MP and it does almost as well as the Hassy, again technique always plays a role. Here in my living room I have a series of nominal 2'x3' prints, one from the Hassy, one from the 5D and one a scanned 6x6 Ektachrome. All are pretty equivalent in quality, though the Film "has a different look". Maybe the film image is a little softer. Those old Zeiss Primes are still pretty good!

 

[500CMfan]

I agree that 35mm film is not up to the job of producing decent landscape photographs, ...................

That is utter nonsense. This image taken north of Phoenix, AZ, was taken with a Nikon F2A, 35mm f/1.4 AIS Nikkor and a 25A filter and Kodak T-Max 100 film developed in D-76 1:1. The negative was scanned with an Epson Perfection 850 scanner at 4800 dpi. I have a 16x20 print hanging in my den. The proof is in the pudding.

 

[500CMfan]

I have used my 500CM and CZ C and CF lenses for over 40 years. Many of my CZ lenses are old enough to say "made in West Germany". I do have a Nikon D850 and D500. I scan my negatives with the superlative (and admittedly very $$$) Epson Perfection 850 at 4800 dpi. I will stack my 500CM and T-Max 100 up against the D850 any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Film has a quality all to itself that digital will NEVER be able to capture. Digital looks "plastic" compared to film.