Digital not even close yet!

Slightly contentious title but you did read the post! I found this link in the Pro Digital Talk forum and although the comparison doesn't refer to the S2 it does give us a reference point with the D100. There have been many comparisons between film and digital but I haven't seen anything of this standard before. It is a comparison between a Nikon D100 a Canon 1Ds and a 4x5 Arca Swiss (using Provia F 100 scanned with Imacon II, Provia F 100 drum-scan and a BetterLight scanning back). You will draw your own conclusions but mine are that the difference in output between the Nikon D100 and the Canon 1DS are not enough for me to worry about and I will not be in any hurry to upgrade my S2 and finally I will be keeping my Mamiya 7 and stealing a drum scanner.
Regards, Michael(UK)

P.S. The BetterLight scanning back does actually belie my title, pretty close. http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/Canon_1DS/45_film_1ds.html

I don't really understand the point of the test. It is wholly unreasonable to expect any camera wether 35mm, Digital or even Medium format to compete with a 5x4 camera. The 5x4 will always win on quality because of the smaller degree of enlargement alone. But you try using a 5x4 Arca at the next wedding or football match you cover ;-)

Martin

michael(UK) said:

Slightly contentious title but you did read the post! I found this
link in the Pro Digital Talk forum and although the comparison
doesn't refer to the S2 it does give us a reference point with the
D100. There have been many comparisons between film and digital
but I haven't seen anything of this standard before. It is a
comparison between a Nikon D100 a Canon 1Ds and a 4x5 Arca Swiss
(using Provia F 100 scanned with Imacon II, Provia F 100 drum-scan
and a BetterLight scanning back). You will draw your own
conclusions but mine are that the difference in output between the
Nikon D100 and the Canon 1DS are not enough for me to worry about
and I will not be in any hurry to upgrade my S2 and finally I will
be keeping my Mamiya 7 and stealing a drum scanner.
Regards, Michael(UK)
P.S. The BetterLight scanning back does actually belie my title,
pretty close.
http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/Canon_1DS/45_film_1ds.html

Click to expand...

if this is the quality from any digital equipment no one even will talk about buying any digital camera he he:



the pis is from the comparison site ....

Simmilar ugly comparisons happaning with PC and MAC - who is right heh e....

I am S2 User and the quality of the Pics are great!!!

Regards

Todor

I think that the comparison test is interesting. I still use my 4x5 camera but have not touched my 35mm or medium format cameras since I purchased the Fuji S2.

Ron

It very valid test and well done to Uwe & John for performing such a non - bias test. You can draw you own conclusions but when doing so think about the follow:-

1) Cost of the equipment
2) How practical it is.
3) Exposer times

The samples are crops of large images and very impressive. The test give us all a vilid reference point to the relative performance of each system. A stick in the sand, if you like.
Alex

Ron Guidry said:

I think that the comparison test is interesting. I still use my 4x5
camera but have not touched my 35mm or medium format cameras since
I purchased the Fuji S2.

Ron

Click to expand...

One of the most biased c.r.a.p I've seen so far.
They used Genuine Fractals - please.

The whole comparison in pointless, it is like comparing Nikon F5 and Fuji 2800 for example.
Besides, there are not only (biased) resolution measurments that matter.

Just read on for yourself:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/1Ds_review/index.html

I have followed this site for sometime and know how easy it would have been for the Digtal Heads to have been bias towards the Digital domain.

I would be interested on how you came to your opinion, is that based on you experience or what you read and like to believe?
Alex

P.S. Digital is good and they way forward we just need to understand what it's advantages really are.
.

Bart said:

One of the most biased c.r.a.p I've seen so far.
They used Genuine Fractals - please.
The whole comparison in pointless, it is like comparing Nikon F5
and Fuji 2800 for example.
Besides, there are not only (biased) resolution measurments that
matter.

Just read on for yourself:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/1Ds_review/index.html

Click to expand...

upsampling for comparison what a bull...
its like comparing a VW Beatle with a Porsche and a 16wheeler
whats the point ?? we know that a Beatle can not carry 30tons
and we know that the porsche is the fastest when its about that...

I had a photografer doing our material every year and he kept
insisting that film is better ... he lost a A$30.000 client who owns
his own studio now and does not pay any cent to a photografer
anymore and also rents the studio to 4 previous clients of that
same photografer ...

Its not the point if I can shoot porn with ants and put it on
a billboard ... its about shooting commercial images as quick as
possible and get the result instantly without risking reshoots
etc etc ... if a few nature photografers want to get the last
leave on the last tree b4 the horizon ... well .. I whish them luck ..

Digital is it .. and the rest is history soon ... even if some people
still try to justify their exotic equipment ...

gmd

michael(UK) said:

Slightly contentious title but you did read the post! I found this
link in the Pro Digital Talk forum and although the comparison
doesn't refer to the S2 it does give us a reference point with the
D100. There have been many comparisons between film and digital
but I haven't seen anything of this standard before. It is a
comparison between a Nikon D100 a Canon 1Ds and a 4x5 Arca Swiss
(using Provia F 100 scanned with Imacon II, Provia F 100 drum-scan
and a BetterLight scanning back). You will draw your own
conclusions but mine are that the difference in output between the
Nikon D100 and the Canon 1DS are not enough for me to worry about
and I will not be in any hurry to upgrade my S2 and finally I will
be keeping my Mamiya 7 and stealing a drum scanner.
Regards, Michael(UK)
P.S. The BetterLight scanning back does actually belie my title,
pretty close.
http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/Canon_1DS/45_film_1ds.html

Click to expand...

Martin, I do agree with you. It is an "interesting" test, but the outcome was easily guessable. The S2 type cameras are a replacment for 35mm film cameras. That isn't a put down, that means they can/will replace perhaps 95% of the cameras in the world! I own 35mm Nikon film gear, the S2 and a Sony F707 for dig, two medium film format systems, a 4x5, an 8x10, and an 11x14 camera. I use all of them regularly except the 35mm Nikon film camera. That is now a dust collector :-(

Part of what makes photography fun is that differant tools (cameras) allow us differant options. There is no one "best" camera.

MartinB said:

I don't really understand the point of the test. It is wholly
unreasonable to expect any camera wether 35mm, Digital or even
Medium format to compete with a 5x4 camera. The 5x4 will always
win on quality because of the smaller degree of enlargement alone.
But you try using a 5x4 Arca at the next wedding or football match
you cover ;-)

Click to expand...

--
Tom Ferguson
http://www.ferguson-photo-design.com

Tom Ferguson said:

MartinB said:

I don't really understand the point of the test. It is wholly
unreasonable to expect any camera wether 35mm, Digital or even
Medium format to compete with a 5x4 camera. The 5x4 will always
win on quality because of the smaller degree of enlargement alone.
But you try using a 5x4 Arca at the next wedding or football match
you cover ;-)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Has anyone seen a comparison other than Lum-Landscape between MFormat and the 1Ds? This is the obvious HUGE missing piece with the Fred Miranda test. AFocus MF equipment (Pentax,Contax and Mamiya) can actually be used in action photography. My own testing of MF vs digital such as the S2 shows, yes, no contest. LL hints that even a D30 might compete with MF and that is wrong, so I have trouble believing his opinion on the 645 vs the 1Ds. I'd love to work w/ a digital camera, but divestment from my MF system plus the new camera's cost would really require a very high performance camera. (It seems as if the S2 is the best of the mid-range bunch)

Good one, GMD

--
[email protected]

I love your pic included in your signature. Very funny.

Teski

Mr. Stacey said:

Good one, GMD

--
[email protected]

Click to expand...

I think we have seen a similar (-ly useless) discussion worldwide on the CD versus the Vinyl Record. I'm with digital, it has the future. Period.

michael(UK) said:

Slightly contentious title but you did read the post! I found this
link in the Pro Digital Talk forum and although the comparison
doesn't refer to the S2 it does give us a reference point with the
D100. There have been many comparisons between film and digital
but I haven't seen anything of this standard before. It is a
comparison between a Nikon D100 a Canon 1Ds and a 4x5 Arca Swiss
(using Provia F 100 scanned with Imacon II, Provia F 100 drum-scan
and a BetterLight scanning back). You will draw your own
conclusions but mine are that the difference in output between the
Nikon D100 and the Canon 1DS are not enough for me to worry about
and I will not be in any hurry to upgrade my S2 and finally I will
be keeping my Mamiya 7 and stealing a drum scanner.
Regards, Michael(UK)
P.S. The BetterLight scanning back does actually belie my title,
pretty close.
http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/Canon_1DS/45_film_1ds.html

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/suredeath
Olympus CL1400 & FinePix S2Pro,
Nikkor AF 35-80/1:4.5-5.6,
Nikkor 75-300/1:4.5-5.6,
Tamron SP AF90mm/1:2.8D MACRO
Sigma AF18-35/1:3.4-4.5D Asf
Sigma Ef430ST Flash

michael(UK) said:

Slightly contentious title but you did read the post! I found this
link in the Pro Digital Talk forum and although the comparison
doesn't refer to the S2 it does give us a reference point with the
D100. There have been many comparisons between film and digital
but I haven't seen anything of this standard before. It is a
comparison between a Nikon D100 a Canon 1Ds and a 4x5 Arca Swiss
(using Provia F 100 scanned with Imacon II, Provia F 100 drum-scan
and a BetterLight scanning back). You will draw your own
conclusions but mine are that the difference in output between the
Nikon D100 and the Canon 1DS are not enough for me to worry about
and I will not be in any hurry to upgrade my S2 and finally I will
be keeping my Mamiya 7 and stealing a drum scanner.
Regards, Michael(UK)
P.S. The BetterLight scanning back does actually belie my title,
pretty close.
http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/Canon_1DS/45_film_1ds.html

Click to expand...

--

MCS Your pictures are nice but as science, it is at best anecdotal. Comparing a sub 35mm to a 4 x 5 is ludicrous. Resolution is expressed as lines per mm at the focal plane. at 100 lines per mm at the focal plane you would get 2300 with the S2 (23mm ccd) but with the 4 x 5 in you would theoreticaly get 12,500. In the end it doesn't matter as - as it has always been - it is the size of the final print that counts and is the barometer by which a requirement for resolution is measured. I have done (scientifiic) tests using an USAF 2 x 2 test glass and find the S2 comes up to 35mm Ektachrome film or possibly slightly better. But to compare it to a 4 x 5 is - well silly. The theoretical maximum resolution of the S2 ccd would be in the neighborhood of 142 lines per mm at the ccd. Plenty good enough unless you are making murals to post in Grand Central Station. Even then they would not be too bad but the 4 x 5 would be a hell of a lot beter.

Hello michael(UK),

With all due respect...
Here is a working example of how you are wrong...

(I have 30 years experience as a commercial photographer)
I was shooting products and sculptures, and having 6X8 inch
'over sized' postcards printed on Kromcoat card stock via a
CMYK, 240 line screen, sheet fed, high-end, offset press.

Some of the items I shot with 35mm Fuji Velvia, with an F5 Nikon with
a 'known' perfect Nikon Micro lens, perfectly E6 processed, scanned on a
eighth-million dollar Hell drum scanner, and printed stunningly.

Some of the items I shot with a Nikon D1X
(the Fuji S2 Fuji would do just as well).
I did adjustments/corrections and a CMYK conversion in PS 7.
And these files were printed on the same press run as the ‘Velvia’ job.

Both sets of postcards were fabulous.
But guess what....the D1X was better !!
The D1X was snappier
more transparent
more dimensional
slightly sharper
more spacial

I was pleasantly surprised and delighted.

It’s just one isolated example granted, but it’s real world.
(not a theoretical comparison which has no real meaning)

Can you imagine the Fuji S3 and the Nikon D2 !
Yeh baby !! Kant wait.

One thing that's interesting in all this is a year ago if you were to say a DSLR was as good as a film one you would have gotten laughed at. Now no one even bothers to mention 35mm film any more and us digital types get all uptight if someone says our S2 isn't almost as good as MF. The 4 x 5? Gimme a break! Maybe someday, but not now, and not with the new Canon and Kodak either. Someday though....
Paul.

he only posted the link ...
Thanks for that anyway Michael ...

Im with you there Bimthecat .. cant wait for the D2 or S3 )

regards
gmd

Bimthecat said:

Hello michael(UK),

With all due respect...
Here is a working example of how you are wrong...

(I have 30 years experience as a commercial photographer)
I was shooting products and sculptures, and having 6X8 inch
'over sized' postcards printed on Kromcoat card stock via a
CMYK, 240 line screen, sheet fed, high-end, offset press.

Some of the items I shot with 35mm Fuji Velvia, with an F5 Nikon with
a 'known' perfect Nikon Micro lens, perfectly E6 processed, scanned
on a
eighth-million dollar Hell drum scanner, and printed stunningly.

Some of the items I shot with a Nikon D1X
(the Fuji S2 Fuji would do just as well).
I did adjustments/corrections and a CMYK conversion in PS 7.
And these files were printed on the same press run as the ‘Velvia’
job.

Both sets of postcards were fabulous.
But guess what....the D1X was better !!
The D1X was snappier
more transparent
more dimensional
slightly sharper
more spacial

I was pleasantly surprised and delighted.

It’s just one isolated example granted, but it’s real world.
(not a theoretical comparison which has no real meaning)

Can you imagine the Fuji S3 and the Nikon D2 !
Yeh baby !! Kant wait.

Click to expand...

your right Paul .. but that wasnt the point ..
the point is that digital is good enough to replace
film in many many applications and its better faster and
therefor cheaper ...
there is still use for film in certain areas and it will stay
as some people still have high end pipe amplifiers .. but
who would put them in a car or in a walkman or ...
the other point is that this test is stupid cause the
comparison is worthless..

gmd

Paul N said:

One thing that's interesting in all this is a year ago if you were
to say a DSLR was as good as a film one you would have gotten
laughed at. Now no one even bothers to mention 35mm film any more
and us digital types get all uptight if someone says our S2 isn't
almost as good as MF. The 4 x 5? Gimme a break! Maybe someday, but
not now, and not with the new Canon and Kodak either. Someday
though....
Paul.

Click to expand...

Hi All

According to most authorities, if you use slow (100ASA or lower) emulsions, the resolution of modern 35mm film cameras is limited by the lens not the film. The absolute best lenses tested by Amateur Photographer (a UK journal) have fallen just short of 140 lines/mm for both central and edge definition at their optimum aperture. Anything above 130 lines/mm can be regarded as outstanding and 120 is perhaps what the average very good lens would achieve.

Our S2Pros have - if the Exif data is to be believed - a focal plane resolution of 1322 pixels/cm. That is equivalent to 132 lines/mm, BUT since the "negative" is only 23mm wide the effective resolution compared to a 35mm film camera is 23/36 times that or 84 lines/mm. So, unless you have one of the best lenses in the world, your S2Pro can - in theory - resolve more than it is given by your lens. But because of its small format it still equates to a very mediocre - or truth be told poor - traditional 35mm outfit. Of course, the results can be made to look outstanding with judicious application of sharpening, but so could those from a scanned negative from that mediocre film outfit.

While the S2Pro is a fantastic piece of gear, let us not kid ourselves about its abilities. Compared to 5"x4", or even 6cm x 6cm, there is simply no contest when it comes to resolution. Whether you need the ultimate in resolution, however, depends upon how big you are going to print. Despite all the circle of confusion calculations, I doubt anyone could tell the difference between any size film and an S2Pro digital file at A3 (roughly 16.5" x 12"). Viewing a raw file at 100% on a 17" monitor at 1024 x 768 is equivalent to printing at roughly 52" x 35", and the best Fuji files look pretty good even then. What more do we want? - lots!

Bob Venning

Well yes, you're right, but I was answering the original post by Michael(UK). I read that as a comment that the test in LL showed that while the new Canon and Kodak full frame DSLRs were better than the D100 (and by inference the S2) they weren't enough to justify replacing a top quality 4 x 5 or a 2 x 2 with a scanning back with a DSLR. I agree wholheartedly that taking workflow considerations into account and/or printing to Super B3 or smaller the 6mp DSLRs can hold their own. I guess I can't agree that the test is completely worthless, though it belabors the obvious.
Paul.

GMD said:

gmd

Paul N said:

One thing that's interesting in all this is a year ago if you were
to say a DSLR was as good as a film one you would have gotten
laughed at. Now no one even bothers to mention 35mm film any more
and us digital types get all uptight if someone says our S2 isn't
almost as good as MF. The 4 x 5? Gimme a break! Maybe someday, but
not now, and not with the new Canon and Kodak either. Someday
though....
Paul.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...