Re: An idea for a silly experiment

[Mark C]

I haven't done any formal experimenting but I shoot with both the K1 and 
Mz-S and swap lenses between them. Still very actively shooting B 35mm 
film.


I don't know how meaningful a comparison between the two formats can be 
- the degree of clarity, resolution and detail in k1 images is beyond 
anything that 35mm film can produce. But the K1 can't produce the images 
with the truly analog and organic feel of film. (Though it can be 
simulated and imitated). In terms of technical quality, there was a time 
when 35mm slide film could rival DSLR output, but that ended when DSLRs 
hit 10 megapixels or more. I'm planning to compare 6x7 landscapes to 
what the K1 produces, but expect that the K1 will produce a sharper, 
clearer and more detailed image. I never did formal tests with the K-3 
but it was close. Up till the K1 I honestly felt that a good 6x7 scan 
could technically rival even a K3 image, but I doubt that is the case 
with the K1.


WRT to lenses - I only have 4 full frame "digital" lenses, the Tamron 
28-75, DFA 28-105, and DFA 50 and 100 macros. The macros, hands down, 
are the best macros I've ever used in their respective focal lengths. 
That holds true on both film and digital.  The Tamron is great on both 
film and digital. On the Mz-S it is by far the best normal zoom I've 
ever used on a film body. My impression is that optimizing a lens for 
digital sensors improves performance on film as well.


Legacy lenses are a mixed bag. Some that are superb on film and equally 
good on the K1. Others that are good on film show flaws on the K1. Some 
lenses that were good in the APS-C format are not so good on the K1 
since the outer portion of the frame shows more distortion. I have a 
SIgma 135-400 that was a very decent zoo lens on the K5 and K3, but is 
not very good on the K1 (unless its in crop mode).


The thing with legacy glass - I don't think that there are ever legacy 
lenses that were mediocre on film that are good on digital. But there 
are plenty that were good on film but mediocre on digital. And also 
plenty that were good on film and good on digital.


Mark


On 3/27/2017 1:04 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
The whole time I've been shooting with dslrs an inevitable topic of 
conversation has been comparison with film. I just realized, someone 
could go out with a tripod, a K-1, and one or more film bodies, and 
take each shot, with the same lens and get a direct comparison. They 
could not only shoot at the same ISO, shutter speed, and aperture, but 
they could also set adjust the settings on the K-1 to whatever they 
felt was the best use of the camera's abilities.  There are several 
things I'm curious about:

differences of legacy glass on film vs digital
differences of modern glass on film vs digital
Apart from any difference in the technical quality of the images, what 
about differences in the artistic quality of the images.


I don't think I even have a film body that will work with some of the 
new glass, so my current lack of time to do anything like this is 
pretty much moot.  Although a set of comparisons like this might make 
for a really fun PDML photo expedition.





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: An idea for a silly experiment

[P. J. Alling]

What it will come down to these days is the scanner.  Then it will be a 
digital to digital comparison,  which will  compromise your test.


So let's say that you want to compare like to like.

So what really needs to be done is to say take an LX, or an MZ-S or a 
PZ-1p arguably the best film bodies Pentax made,  and a K-1 get the best 
lens that gives good results on both film and digital, I'd assume for 
the task the original non weather sealed DFA 100mm f2.8 macro for the LX 
and MZ-S, or the DFA  50mm f2.8 Macro,  the newer versions will work 
with the PZ-1p, and a sturdy tripod.


Make identical captures from an the same position, at various f stops 
and shutter speeds.


Now you have to shoot slides, then negatives, and maybe B film and 
compare it against the digital output.


But here's where it gets complicated.  You cannot scan the film. You 
have to wet it process it "wet" end to end.  That means a well equipped 
darkroom with an good sturdy enlarger, and the best enlarging lens 
possible best paper, (I'd like to witness the food fight over just 
that),  for the negative color and B prints.


For digital the best Photographic printer,  (see my comment on wet 
process printer paper above), that's capable of Color and B possible 
then do a blind test to compare the prints, and a printer paper at least 
as good as the wet process paper, (hey another food fight yea)!


How do you compare the slides to digital files?  Damned if I know.  
Project the slides with the best possible projector and compare it to 
the files projected by the best digital projector? That doesn't seem 
fair as I don't know of any digital projector that comes close to a well 
projected 35mm slide.


Compare the projected slide on a 5' screen to a 4k capable digital 
monitor of the same size?  Somehow that doesn't seem fair either, but 
I'm not sure to which process it's less fair.


Once you've got a good handle on how good each process can be with an 
identical lens then you can test the legacy glass, and the digital 
glass, (I guess you'll have to invest in a PZ-1p if you don't already 
own one), and know it's the lens and not the process.


Now on your last point, art is in your head.  I don't mean that as a bad 
thing.  It's just not measurable by metrics.  Which is why conmen  seem 
to have infested the art world.   Sadly, when one man's art is another 
man's junk, someone will be willing to produce junk and sell it as art.  
I miss the good old days when an art forger needed some skills at least 
as a draftsman.



On 3/27/2017 1:04 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
The whole time I've been shooting with dslrs an inevitable topic of 
conversation has been comparison with film. I just realized, someone 
could go out with a tripod, a K-1, and one or more film bodies, and 
take each shot, with the same lens and get a direct comparison. They 
could not only shoot at the same ISO, shutter speed, and aperture, but 
they could also set adjust the settings on the K-1 to whatever they 
felt was the best use of the camera's abilities.  There are several 
things I'm curious about:

differences of legacy glass on film vs digital
differences of modern glass on film vs digital
Apart from any difference in the technical quality of the images, what 
about differences in the artistic quality of the images.


I don't think I even have a film body that will work with some of the 
new glass, so my current lack of time to do anything like this is 
pretty much moot.  Although a set of comparisons like this might make 
for a really fun PDML photo expedition.





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: An idea for a silly experiment

[Stanley Halpin]

> On Mar 27, 2017, at 1:04 AM, Larry Colen  wrote:
> 
> The whole time I've been shooting with dslrs an inevitable topic of 
> conversation has been comparison with film. I just realized, someone could go 
> out with a tripod, a K-1, and one or more film bodies, and take each shot, 
> with the same lens and get a direct comparison. They could not only shoot at 
> the same ISO, shutter speed, and aperture, but they could also set adjust the 
> settings on the K-1 to whatever they felt was the best use of the camera's 
> abilities.  There are several things I'm curious about:
> differences of legacy glass on film vs digital
> differences of modern glass on film vs digital
> Apart from any difference in the technical quality of the images, what about 
> differences in the artistic quality of the images.
> 
> I don't think I even have a film body that will work with some of the new 
> glass, so my current lack of time to do anything like this is pretty much 
> moot.  Although a set of comparisons like this might make for a really fun 
> PDML photo expedition.
> 
> -- 
> Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) http://red4est.com/lrc
> 

I have an ME-Super and a K-1000 but I don’t know if either works properly. I 
think I have film someplace… We’ll see.

stan
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: An idea for a silly experiment

[Stanley Halpin]

You are welcome to stop by any time and use mine…

stan

> On Mar 27, 2017, at 12:41 PM, mike wilson  wrote:
> 
>> On 27 March 2017 at 06:04 Larry Colen  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> The whole time I've been shooting with dslrs an inevitable topic of 
>> conversation has been comparison with film. I just realized, someone 
>> could go out with a tripod, a K-1, and one or more film bodies, and take 
>> each shot, with the same lens and get a direct comparison. ...
> 
> I have a Z1-p and a bunch of legacy glass.   If someone would care to lend a
> K-1.
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: An idea for a silly experiment

[mike wilson]

> On 27 March 2017 at 06:04 Larry Colen  wrote:
> 
> 
> The whole time I've been shooting with dslrs an inevitable topic of 
> conversation has been comparison with film. I just realized, someone 
> could go out with a tripod, a K-1, and one or more film bodies, and take 
> each shot, with the same lens and get a direct comparison. They could 
> not only shoot at the same ISO, shutter speed, and aperture, but they 
> could also set adjust the settings on the K-1 to whatever they felt was 
> the best use of the camera's abilities.  There are several things I'm 
> curious about:
> differences of legacy glass on film vs digital
> differences of modern glass on film vs digital
> Apart from any difference in the technical quality of the images, what 
> about differences in the artistic quality of the images.
> 
> I don't think I even have a film body that will work with some of the 
> new glass, so my current lack of time to do anything like this is pretty 
> much moot.  Although a set of comparisons like this might make for a 
> really fun PDML photo expedition.

I have a Z1-p and a bunch of legacy glass.   If someone would care to lend a
K-1.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: An idea for a silly experiment

[John Francis]

On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 10:04:03PM -0700, Larry Colen wrote:
> The whole time I've been shooting with dslrs an inevitable topic of
> conversation has been comparison with film. I just realized, someone could
> go out with a tripod, a K-1, and one or more film bodies, and take each
> shot, with the same lens and get a direct comparison. They could not only
> shoot at the same ISO, shutter speed, and aperture, but they could also set
> adjust the settings on the K-1 to whatever they felt was the best use of the
> camera's abilities.  There are several things I'm curious about:
> differences of legacy glass on film vs digital
> differences of modern glass on film vs digital
> Apart from any difference in the technical quality of the images, what about
> differences in the artistic quality of the images.
> 
> I don't think I even have a film body that will work with some of the new
> glass, so my current lack of time to do anything like this is pretty much
> moot.  Although a set of comparisons like this might make for a really fun
> PDML photo expedition.

If you ever find the time, I've still got a PZ-1p (and an MZ-S and a couple
of MX bodies, for use with anything that has an aperture ring ...)


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

An idea for a silly experiment

[Larry Colen]

The whole time I've been shooting with dslrs an inevitable topic of 
conversation has been comparison with film. I just realized, someone 
could go out with a tripod, a K-1, and one or more film bodies, and take 
each shot, with the same lens and get a direct comparison. They could 
not only shoot at the same ISO, shutter speed, and aperture, but they 
could also set adjust the settings on the K-1 to whatever they felt was 
the best use of the camera's abilities.  There are several things I'm 
curious about:

differences of legacy glass on film vs digital
differences of modern glass on film vs digital
Apart from any difference in the technical quality of the images, what 
about differences in the artistic quality of the images.


I don't think I even have a film body that will work with some of the 
new glass, so my current lack of time to do anything like this is pretty 
much moot.  Although a set of comparisons like this might make for a 
really fun PDML photo expedition.


--
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) http://red4est.com/lrc


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.