For someone who doesn't mess around with medium format...

[RoyGBiv]

The SD1 seems to have some ridiculously detailed shots in its optimum performance range...Like...I'm pretty sure I could not see any more detail if I were standing 6" in front of the subject! If you've got good control of the subject & lighting...it's pretty crazy how detailed that stuff is.

--
'I have no responsibilities here whatsoever'

 

[Ed_S]

Roy,

From what I've been able to see so far (time and access), and remembering my uncle's work with 4x5 film, I tend to agree. I really think one needs either a large print minimum A0, or an even larger say 4-5 ft high definition video display to fully experience these photos.

Reflection - and please forgive the primitive comparison. When I was a young lad, just aftter the last ice age, I took a number of photos on 127 size roll color transparency film. The camera was simply a snapshot model, but the images were nature scenes with small f stop at or near the hyperfocal disstance of the cheap lens. The results, projected to screen size with good contrast and saturated colors were (given all the limitations) rather breathtaking.

I really think we need to see these SD1 images optimally displayed with viewing distance sufficient to obscure any pixel or dot patterns, but size sufficient to experience the total image information (detail/resolution/color edge sharpness) of the equipment. A side by side shoot out would be ok, but I'd love to appreciate the SD1 just for its own merits - not better than/equivalent to/etc.

Best,
--
Ed_S

http://www.pbase.com/ecsquires

 

[Tom Schum]

One of my goals with my tests of film (in the "high cost of film" thread) is to try to determine if the SD1 is better than 35mm film.

Unfortunately the best scan I can get is about 16.8 mpixels, and this is for a 24x36mm image from a frame of 35mm film.

I'm just beginning to try out some real professional grade film (Ektar 100), instead of the grainy stuff you can find at drugstores (if they carry film at all).

I hope to show that the best film (and the most careful exposure, processing, and scanning) can equal the results from the SD1, if only in full-frame. If I can do that, I will have a way to do super high quality photos for much less money than buying a SD1.

But, as you have noticed, the SD1 is really really good at what it does... so I am not optimistic I can equal it with 35mm film.
--
Tom Schum

 

[little laker]

One of my goals with my tests of film (in the "high cost of film" thread) is to try to determine if the SD1 is better than 35mm film.

Unfortunately the best scan I can get is about 16.8 mpixels, and this is for a 24x36mm image from a frame of 35mm film.

I'm just beginning to try out some real professional grade film (Ektar 100), instead of the grainy stuff you can find at drugstores (if they carry film at all).

I hope to show that the best film (and the most careful exposure, processing, and scanning) can equal the results from the SD1, if only in full-frame. If I can do that, I will have a way to do super high quality photos for much less money than buying a SD1.

But, as you have noticed, the SD1 is really really good at what it does... so I am not optimistic I can equal it with 35mm film.
--
Tom Schum

I shoot a fair amount of film, and have had some high res Ektar scans done.

What I can tell you is that Velvia 50 is still finer than Ektar. Plus to me it looks like the SD1 will blow away even Velvia.

However, that may not be a good thing. Do you really want every hair on a beautiful ladies face to stand out. I'm talking about those tiny little hairs that are pretty much invisible to the naked eye in most lights.

Personally, I've seen them quite visibly in several SD1 images, and don't like them. To me, it's just too much detail.

Although I'd still like to own an SD1, I think that I'd be even more fussy about what subject and lens I chose to shoot with it.
--
The masterpiece is created by the artist, not the camera.
http://bcscenicwonder.com/blog3/

http://www.bcscenicwonder.com

 

[WHNewell]

A non Sigma photographer I know 22mp is supposed to be the threshold where digital will rival 35mm full frame film. Which if this is the case the SD1, D3s, D3x and the various 25mp Canons already exceed the resolution of film.

IMHO it now is no longer does the imager have more resolution than film, but is the glass your using match the capabilities of the imager?
--



http://www.pbase.com/wally_newell

Wally

 

[Mostly Lurking]

because of the lower resolution vs my SD-14 & 15s. The only reason I still have the -14 is as a back-up.
--
William Wilgus

 

[SigmaChrome]

However, that may not be a good thing. Do you really want every hair on a beautiful ladies face to stand out. I'm talking about those tiny little hairs that are pretty much invisible to the naked eye in most lights.

Well, you don't need and SD1 for this. I've recorded those very same 'tiny little hairs' on portraits done with the SD14 - and my subjects weren't always happy about it.
--
Regards,

Vitée

Capture all the light and colour!



http://www.pbase.com/vitee/galleries

 

[DaSonyGuy]

One of my goals with my tests of film (in the "high cost of film" thread) is to try to determine if the SD1 is better than 35mm film.

Unfortunately the best scan I can get is about 16.8 mpixels, and this is for a 24x36mm image from a frame of 35mm film.

I'm just beginning to try out some real professional grade film (Ektar 100), instead of the grainy stuff you can find at drugstores (if they carry film at all).

I hope to show that the best film (and the most careful exposure, processing, and scanning) can equal the results from the SD1, if only in full-frame. If I can do that, I will have a way to do super high quality photos for much less money than buying a SD1.

But, as you have noticed, the SD1 is really really good at what it does... so I am not optimistic I can equal it with 35mm film.
--
Tom Schum

I shoot a fair amount of film, and have had some high res Ektar scans done.

What I can tell you is that Velvia 50 is still finer than Ektar. Plus to me it looks like the SD1 will blow away even Velvia.

However, that may not be a good thing. Do you really want every hair on a beautiful ladies face to stand out. I'm talking about those tiny little hairs that are pretty much invisible to the naked eye in most lights.

Personally, I've seen them quite visibly in several SD1 images, and don't like them. To me, it's just too much detail.

Its not just the SD1 that captures every tiny hair on a girls face...The SD10 can do that, as can the SD14 too...The SD1 just makes those hairs look even bigger!

Seems to be an inherrant property of the Foveon sensor, understandable, being that its still the sharpest digital sensor in the world.

 

[Tom Schum]

A non Sigma photographer I know 22mp is supposed to be the threshold where digital will rival 35mm full frame film. Which if this is the case the SD1, D3s, D3x and the various 25mp Canons already exceed the resolution of film.

The one set of premium scans I had done at Richard Photo Lab in Hollywood are of 35mm film and the resolution is 16.8 mpixel. That's the most they offer.

Based on the relative size vs the SD1 APS-C sensor, the SD1 has more resolution, hence the issue regarding lens limitations. Certainly it's better than any scan I can get of film, unless I buy my own high-end film scanner (which I won't be doing).

However, the sensors in other cameras are Bayer sensors, and even though the Canon 5DII has 21 mpixels film is still better. This is because each pixel on a scan of film is a full-color pixel and each pixel in the Canon/Nikon/etc is a single color pixel (pick your color). My guess is that a full-frame Bayer sensor to match film would have at least 40 mpixels, but a Foveon full-frame sensor would only need about 18 mpixels. And, the Foveon pixels in such a sensor could be made bigger than they are in the SD1!

Still, the full-frame Canons and Sonys make a nice picture, better than all but the finest professional films in my opinion. The top of the line films and the top of the line processing and scanning will still show film beating them. Probably not beating the SD1 though.

And, film has its own unique character, different from all digital images but getting harder and harder to see as digital progress marches on.
--
Tom Schum

 

[Juri D]

A non Sigma photographer I know 22mp is supposed to be the threshold where digital will rival 35mm full frame film. Which if this is the case the SD1, D3s, D3x and the various 25mp Canons already exceed the resolution of film.

The one set of premium scans I had done at Richard Photo Lab in Hollywood are of 35mm film and the resolution is 16.8 mpixel. That's the most they offer.

Based on the relative size vs the SD1 APS-C sensor, the SD1 has more resolution, hence the issue regarding lens limitations. Certainly it's better than any scan I can get of film, unless I buy my own high-end film scanner (which I won't be doing).

However, the sensors in other cameras are Bayer sensors, and even though the Canon 5DII has 21 mpixels film is still better. This is because each pixel on a scan of film is a full-color pixel and each pixel in the Canon/Nikon/etc is a single color pixel (pick your color). My guess is that a full-frame Bayer sensor to match film would have at least 40 mpixels, but a Foveon full-frame sensor would only need about 18 mpixels. And, the Foveon pixels in such a sensor could be made bigger than they are in the SD1!

Still, the full-frame Canons and Sonys make a nice picture, better than all but the finest professional films in my opinion. The top of the line films and the top of the line processing and scanning will still show film beating them. Probably not beating the SD1 though.

And, film has its own unique character, different from all digital images but getting harder and harder to see as digital progress marches on.
--
Tom Schum

It's funny that these film-vs-digital debates still go up occasionally. It was interesting 10-11 years ago [ http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml] , not now though.