D800 vs MF Film, not a standard question

Started Nov 7, 2012 | Discussions thread
lukaw Regular Member • Posts: 312
Re: Actually,
3

You have the facts wrong. Digital surpassed film a while ago.

MiraShootsNikon wrote:

lukaw wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

lukaw wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

lukaw wrote:

fft81 wrote:

I know there are numerous discussions as to which is better, film or digital and there is never an agreement; no matter how high the pixel count goes.

This thread is NOT about if d800 is better than medium format film.

My question is very simple:

I have d800, what should i expect if i try the MF or LF film photography?

For d800 i have to be allot more careful than i did with d90 to get pictures as good as camera can deliver; i suspect with MF/LF film my hassle will be even bigger. BUT, what do i have to gain in terms of DOF, color depth and overall clarity of the image later scanned to computer once i learn to use MF/LF film vs D800?

I am not interested in which one is better. I am not buying one vs the other. I already have D800. I am trying to decide if the gains from MF/LF film are big enough to go through the hassle of learning to shoot them.

Thanks ahead

The short answer is NO.

The short answer is YES.

What can you do with MF film that cannot be done with D800?

Everything you can do with MF that could not be done with 35mm film.

It seems to be that you have comprehension difficulties.

Read the post again.

Luke, if the question is "what can you do with MF film that cannot be done with D800?

(1) DOF control and dimension. Systems like the Contax 645 and the Mamiya RZ67 include lenses that are, relative to sensor size, "faster" than what's possible with the D800's smaller 35mm sensor, and they're of much higher quality--they're sharp, sharp, sharp and contrasty wide open. Shooting the 110 f/2.8 Sekor on the Mamiya RZ67 is like shooting a 50mm f/.95 on a D800. And the "theoretical" 50mm f/0.95 wouldn't be very sharp, whereas the Sekor 110 is *razor* sharp wide open.

(2) Dynamic range. Film still blows digital away, here. And that has practical uses--the big one being that you can shoot against strong mid-day backlight and expose for shadows without blowing out the sky or highlights around your subjects. In fact, the more light you push into print film, the better this style gets. It's definitely something digital can't do, and it's *gorgeous* look. (It's why people pay film-shooting wedding togs like Jose Villa and Jonathan Canlas the big bucks. It's also why many cinematographers and directors--Paul Thomas Anderson, Christopher Nolan & Wally Pfister, Rian Johnson, Speilberg & Janusz Kaminski prefer to shoot movies on 65mm Kodak print film--this specific look.)

And if you shoot large format film, these two advantages just get more advantageous. Shooting big LF sheets gives you *unbelievable* dimension and DOF control, and it doubles-down on the dynamic range advantage.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that medium / large format film is "better" than digital for these reasons--I'm only answering your specific question. These are two big reasons that shooting LF / MF film will give a very different look than you might achieve with a D800, in the same circumstance.

mira

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow