Canon 1Ds superior to film!!

zettlers #105592 · Sep 26, 2002

100 years of photo history – grain, grain, grain, I have never ever seen a good picture taken on film – grain, grain, grain, not even when the very expensive Provia been used – not to mention real world film like negative colour och b&w – grain, grain, grain – 100 years of loosers : )

Regards
Leifilund

Bernie Ess said:
Igor R. said:

Can somebody tell me, why did he use only 3200 dpi scanner, while
there is a 8000 dpi Nikon available, I don't know, how experienced
photographer can trust so rough compartion!

Click to expand...

Which Nikon are you talking about? I hope not the LS-8000, because
this one is only 4000dpi - and various comparisions have showed
that the Imacon - probably the best affordable Scanner available -
is clearly superior to any Nikon.
But noone seems to mention here that above 3200dpi you will enlarge
mainly grain. Saying 35mm has 16 or 20 or even more MP is useless,
because even Fuji Provia clearly shows grain here. However Provia
is very expensive, so lets see real world film, like negative
colour or b&w film...

I say: grain grain grain...

Jim Kasica · Sep 26, 2002

8000 dpi scans of a 35mm slide provide only a 40% increase in detail over 4000 dpi scans. 8000 dpi scans of medium format negatives look better because you start out with so much more (five times the area, twice the detail). It seems you might be compaing apples to oranges.

--
JimKa

Igor R. · Sep 26, 2002

Stefan Klein said:
BTW,
a 8000dpi scan is not superior to 4000dpi with 35mm film.I've done
some comparison scans on a Heidelberg Topaz (max.res. without
interpolation 8000dpi) with some tack sharp slides.The 8000 dpi
scan did not give me ANY more detail compared to 4000dpi.IMO 4000
is the limit for 35mm film.But right,3200dpi is not.

Did you take your slides with FIXFOCAL lens on the tripod with mirror lock-up? Otherwise you're loosing resolution, in order to see maximal resolution, you have to do this way.

Michael Long · Sep 26, 2002

Igor R. said:
Igor R. said:

a 8000dpi scan is not superior to 4000dpi with 35mm film.I've done
some comparison scans on a Heidelberg Topaz (max.res. without
interpolation 8000dpi) with some tack sharp slides.The 8000 dpi
scan did not give me ANY more detail compared to 4000dpi.IMO 4000
is the limit for 35mm film.But right,3200dpi is not.

Click to expand...

Did you take your slides with FIXFOCAL lens on the tripod with
mirror lock-up? Otherwise you're loosing resolution, in order to
see maximal resolution, you have to do this way.

In order to have the very best image you'd do what you say.

That said, given the same identical image, most tests have shown that above 4000ppi on a 35mm slide you're not extracting any more information -- just more grain.

And if M.R. had done fixed/lockup/timer on one to get the best possible optical detail, then he'd have to do it on the other, as what would benefit one would also benefit the other.

As to his tests, as long as both the 35mm and the 1Ds images were captured under the same conditions, then the comparison is valid.

Michael Long · Sep 26, 2002

Bernie Ess said:
However Provia
is very expensive, so lets see real world film, like negative
colour or b&w film...

Not sure where you're going with that, because if this is what the best professional film can do, any "real world" film can only do worse.

ksocool · Sep 26, 2002

Canon camera directly from Canon BEFORE ANYONE ELSE GETS TO TRY ONE OUT on a consistent basis? I'm racking my pea-sized brain... gosh...

ksocool · Sep 26, 2002

are even nice enough to provide the information that those who REALLY want this FANTASTIC camera need to plunk down a down payment to do pre-orders. How nice people providing such valuable info. Thank Luminous!

Capital Man · Sep 26, 2002

Bernie Ess said:
However Provia
is very expensive, so lets see real world film, like negative
colour or b&w film...

I say: grain grain grain...

You can buy Provia online inexpensively. The roll of Provia is less than the cost of developing.

Also, I doubt there would be any difference between Provia 100F and the less expensive Sensia 100. All the Fuji ISO 100 slide films are essentially the same.

It would have been interesting if a scan from Fuji Reala (a negative film that many praise for being very fined grained and good for scanning) was also compared.

Rinus Borgsteede · Sep 26, 2002

Capital Man said:
Bernie Ess said:

However Provia
is very expensive, so lets see real world film, like negative
colour or b&w film...

I say: grain grain grain...

Click to expand...

You can buy Provia online inexpensively. The roll of Provia is
less than the cost of developing.

Also, I doubt there would be any difference between Provia 100F and
the less expensive Sensia 100. All the Fuji ISO 100 slide films
are essentially the same.

It would have been interesting if a scan from Fuji Reala (a
negative film that many praise for being very fined grained and
good for scanning) was also compared.

That is what I use as well and with very good results. If there is any problem with scanning negatives, it is the orange mask that needs a good boost in the blue channel during scanning. That in itself is a cause for concern and noise!
Rinus of Calgary

Thomas Karlmann · Sep 26, 2002

Hello,

I just have a small point to interject here. We are all struggeling with film vs. digital! Why? Because if you're like me, you have a closet full of film stuff.

My point is, who has the most to gain from further advances in film development/sales/use? Fuji and Kodak. Yet both firms are HEAVILY into digital. These are just simple facts.

IF film were thought to have the potential to still compete, wouldn't filmakers be running around improving their product to compete with digital?

Oh, and please, let's not use APS to compare to ANYTHING, ok? That was a nightmare best left to history.

I think the test being described is fair. I think the photgrapher both wins in the long term (digital), and loses a little in the short term if converting to digital. (Our clients win in the end, with a better product).

Thom

DavidMillier · Sep 27, 2002

Please remember that Michael Reichmann's site is not a dedicated hardware review site. Also Micheal is an avowed Medium Format film landscape photographer who only uses digital where he feels it is appropriate. If Michael feels that the 1DS is good enough to replace his medium format stuff for his personal work then it probably is.

ksocool said:
Canon camera directly from Canon BEFORE ANYONE ELSE GETS TO TRY ONE
OUT on a consistent basis? I'm racking my pea-sized brain... gosh...

doctor digi · Sep 27, 2002

I don't care what the (so-called) experts on here say in defence of film. Michael clearly states what he has done and what he has used. We can dismiss the 35mm shot - no question that it is inferior. The 645 shot, to my eyes, has slightly less resolution than the 1Ds shot. At worst it is the same. Grain-wise both films lose, hands down.

Anyway, all this stuff is at the limits. For the majority of photographers I think this beats out film easily.

MichaelK said:
Check out
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml

In a test comparison between the 1Ds and 35mm film and 645 film the
1Ds came out clearly superior to 35mm film in terms of resolution
and freedom from noise and it even slightly edged out the 645 film.
I was actually quite shocked by the degree to which the 1Ds was
superior to 35mm film. No more guessing as to how many pixels you
need to equal the quality of 35mm film - film has already been
surpassed!

Michael Brown · Sep 27, 2002

ksocool said:
are even nice enough to provide the information that those who
REALLY want this FANTASTIC camera need to plunk down a down payment
to do pre-orders. How nice people providing such valuable info.
Thank Luminous!

Luminous Landscape is the website of one guy, Michael Reichman, not 'people' or 'them'. His review of the 1Ds is, like with the D30 and D60 reviews before it, more of a comparison against film than a full review of the camera. He points readers to other sites (including this one) for technical reviews.

Michael probably gets pre-production cameras for the same reason that Phil or anyone else does: he's a well respected and well known photographer who's INDEPENDENT opininon and track record people trust.

Clearly people who read the review might be interested in getting a 1Ds so what the hell is the problem with mentioning that Canon will require a down payment? It's just useful information.

Maybe you should reflect a little before you start calling other, well respected, people's work a "bj" - or are you just upset that you didn't get a pre-production 1Ds? Next time go cry to your mummy instead.

Michael.

--
http://www.luacheia.com/photos/

Larry H. Smith · Sep 29, 2002

Igor R. said:
Can somebody tell me, why did he use only 3200 dpi scanner, while
there is a 8000 dpi Nikon available, I don't know, how experienced
photographer can trust so rough compartion!

Yes, somebody can tell you.

Michael Reichmann can tell you.

Michael DOES tell you!

I am puzzled at the number of people who spend time "mongering" rumors-about, or criticising, Michael's efforts, ...but who won't or have not read just what it is he says/does.

He is usually very careful to explain and qualify the things he presents, and yet discussion goes-on among many as if he has not offered any explanations at all.

Why not just VISIT the site, and read CAREFULLY what is there (there's a lot!)

He apparently goes to a bit of trouble to write carefully, ...maybe the courtesy should be returned by readers.

Too often, mis-quoting is what he gets for his efforts. And the misquoted "facts" about his reporting live-on in many threads as "truths" about his work. Baloney!

IMO, he usually does a darn good job, and keeps his balance even when enthusiastic about something.

He may be no more "perfect", than the next reviewer, but my money says he certainly isn't LESS so!!

I am interested in hearing anything he has to say about any aspect of photography.

His is definitely one of my favorite sites.

Larry

Jim Warthman · Sep 29, 2002

David Ellsworth said:
That's irrelevant, and not what I was talking about at all. Even at
3200 dpi the film is better in terms of resolution, and cleaner
looking because it wasn't put through a sharpening filter.
(Although it is noisier).

Sorry, as explained in his writeup for Day 2, Michael sharpened both the film scans and the 1Ds images.

As someone else said, I wish folks would read more carefully before coming here to flame Michael's field report.

sigh

-- Jim

framus · Sep 29, 2002

Well, yes, and consider this.

I have it on good authority (read it on the internet) that the Luminous Landscape http://www site is acutally aliased to a server based in a secret location in Roswell, New Mexico.

'Dont look back, they may be gaining on you'.

If we keep at, we can give this conspriacy theory real legs!

Cheers,
Framus

ksocool said:
are even nice enough to provide the information that those who
REALLY want this FANTASTIC camera need to plunk down a down payment
to do pre-orders. How nice people providing such valuable info.
Thank Luminous!

Capital Man · Sep 29, 2002

framus said:
Well, yes, and consider this.

I have it on good authority (read it on the internet) that the
Luminous Landscape http://www site is acutally aliased to a server based
in a secret location in Roswell, New Mexico.

That makes sense, because there's a lot of desert pictures on there. The guy who runs the site must live in the American Southwest.

thang · Sep 29, 2002

David Ellsworth said:
From doing a direct comparison, I've concluded that the 1Ds has
slightly less detail, plus it has sharpening halos. Would be nice
if the comparison could be done without sharpening. The 100F film
has significantly more noise, however.

Michael did the comparison by shrinking the film crop to match the
size of the 1Ds crop. That's not the right way to compare! The
right way is to enlarge the 1Ds crop to match the size of the film
crop. If he'd done it the right way, he'd have seen that the film
still has a bit more detail.

I'd like to see how the Kodak 14MP offering compares with film.

framus · Sep 29, 2002

Yes, and by careful examination I'm certain that the apparent lenticular cloud in
'Ringed Cloud - Iceland, June 2002' at:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com is actually a ufo. The plot deepens.
Chow.
framus

Capital Man said:
framus said:

Well, yes, and consider this.

I have it on good authority (read it on the internet) that the
Luminous Landscape http://www site is acutally aliased to a server based
in a secret location in Roswell, New Mexico.

Click to expand...

That makes sense, because there's a lot of desert pictures on
there. The guy who runs the site must live in the American
Southwest.

Marshal · Sep 30, 2002

Thang wrote:
I'd like to see how the Kodak 14MP offering compares with film.

That's the $4,000 question and something I want to know. I think we'll all be happy to see some sample photos by Phil from the 14n. Hopefully soon.

Another thing we all have to keep in mind is that whether with the 1Ds, 14n or anything else, the vast majority of the sample pics we're going to see are jpegs compressed down to something manageable to download. The more the files are opened and closed, the more artifacts will start showing up.

If the files were Jpegs to begin with, like those from the 1Ds(because the software for the 1Ds RAW isn't available yet), the image quality will be less than it would've been RAW or Tiff.

I shoot RAW with my D1X about 95% of the time. I've gotten spoiled by it.

Having to compare jpegs to RAW is like comparing a VW Beetle to a Mercedes 500SLK. Sorry Beetle owners.

The point being, that the Jpeg sample pics we see from the 1Ds for instance cannot do justice to what it or the 14n is truly capable of. I think it would be comparable to listening to music from MP3s vs a high end CD player with reference quality speakers.

Canon 1Ds superior to film!!

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Rinus Borgsteede

Guest

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts