RE: Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
> > > > I can't remember whether you had an E-3 or went straight from the E-1 > to the > > E-5. If you had an E-3, do you think the E-5 has major advantages > over it? > > I was planning to buy an E-3 when the E-5 came out, to take advantage > of remainder pricing, etc. But the more I looked at it, the more the > E-5 seemed worth the extra money. This is my main camera for the > foreseeable future. When I bought it, it was $600 over the price of a > new E-3. I'm very glad I went for it ... It's a superb camera. > > Amongst other things, the E-5's improvements to Live View operation > and the SD second slot (instead of that useless xD slot) are alone > quite useful. The in-camera level, user focus calibration, better LCD > display, etc etc are all major plusses. The added resolution (10 to 12 > Mpixel) is good but small, however the improved acutance and dynamic > range, and improved sensitivity, are excellent advantages over the > E-3. > > E-3 used and new prices have plummeted since the E-5 was released. If > the E-3 is sufficient for your interests, you can get one in perfect > shape for as little as $600 on the used market. That's what I'm thinking. I need to compare their specs and see if there's any difference that I would find useful. I don't really care about stuff like LiveView. B -- 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: Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Bob W wrote: >> I'll be going for a walk soon and will carry ... the Olympus E-5. ... > > I can't remember whether you had an E-3 or went straight from the E-1 to the > E-5. If you had an E-3, do you think the E-5 has major advantages over it? I was planning to buy an E-3 when the E-5 came out, to take advantage of remainder pricing, etc. But the more I looked at it, the more the E-5 seemed worth the extra money. This is my main camera for the foreseeable future. When I bought it, it was $600 over the price of a new E-3. I'm very glad I went for it ... It's a superb camera. Amongst other things, the E-5's improvements to Live View operation and the SD second slot (instead of that useless xD slot) are alone quite useful. The in-camera level, user focus calibration, better LCD display, etc etc are all major plusses. The added resolution (10 to 12 Mpixel) is good but small, however the improved acutance and dynamic range, and improved sensitivity, are excellent advantages over the E-3. E-3 used and new prices have plummeted since the E-5 was released. If the E-3 is sufficient for your interests, you can get one in perfect shape for as little as $600 on the used market. -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- 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: Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > I occasionally get nostalgic and think I want to work with film again. > Then I shoot a roll of film, have it processed, and work through the > scanning business. After that, and after I look at the photos the > process creates, I put the film camera away until the next time I feel > nostalgic. > > Going through the cycle yet again right now. I've been scanning this > roll of XP2 Super from the Olympus Trip 35. Two hours and some just to > get the scanning done with a mostly automated process. It's a > delightful camera, I like shooting with it. The photos it made are > lovely. But I'm done once more with film. > > I'll be going for a walk soon and will carry ... the Olympus E-5. > Hopefully the Fuji X100 will live up to my expectations, it would be > nice to have a camera like the Trip 35 for when I want something > smaller and lighter to knock about with. > Ironically I've come to feel the same way about digital as you do about film. I still shoot some digital (Event work and the occasional desire to shoot for myself) but I keep going back to film for my personal shooting. 159 rolls last year and I expect to shoot more this year. -Adam -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 5:13 AM, Gasha wrote: > > Pentax 67 takes a lot more time to shoot. > If you walk around with your friens, you can shoot something with digital > SLR. > > In contrast, when you walk with Pentax 67 (and tripod), you cannot take your > friends with you :) > > Gasha > You certainly can walk around taking pictures with a 67. During the brief period I had mine I shot about 20 rolls handheld and 3-4 rolls on a tripod. Got good results when shooting handheld. I'd still recommend a Mamiya 7 or GS/GSW670 for the dedicated handheld shooter but the 67 can do it just fine. -Adam -- 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: Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
> I occasionally get nostalgic and think I want to work with film again. > Then I shoot a roll of film, have it processed, and work through the > scanning business. After that, and after I look at the photos the > process creates, I put the film camera away until the next time I feel > nostalgic. > > Going through the cycle yet again right now. I've been scanning this > roll of XP2 Super from the Olympus Trip 35. Two hours and some just to > get the scanning done with a mostly automated process. It's a > delightful camera, I like shooting with it. The photos it made are > lovely. But I'm done once more with film. > Someone ought to invent digital film... > I'll be going for a walk soon and will carry ... the Olympus E-5. > Hopefully the Fuji X100 will live up to my expectations, it would be > nice to have a camera like the Trip 35 for when I want something > smaller and lighter to knock about with. I can't remember whether you had an E-3 or went straight from the E-1 to the E-5. If you had an E-3, do you think the E-5 has major advantages over it? B -- 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: Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
I occasionally get nostalgic and think I want to work with film again. Then I shoot a roll of film, have it processed, and work through the scanning business. After that, and after I look at the photos the process creates, I put the film camera away until the next time I feel nostalgic. Going through the cycle yet again right now. I've been scanning this roll of XP2 Super from the Olympus Trip 35. Two hours and some just to get the scanning done with a mostly automated process. It's a delightful camera, I like shooting with it. The photos it made are lovely. But I'm done once more with film. I'll be going for a walk soon and will carry ... the Olympus E-5. Hopefully the Fuji X100 will live up to my expectations, it would be nice to have a camera like the Trip 35 for when I want something smaller and lighter to knock about with. On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:32 AM, Jens wrote: > Good point Godfrey. > > To me is more an economical issue. > I own a large collection of Pentacon Six /Carl Zeiss Jena/Schneider > Kreutznach lenses. > I got this 10-15 years ago (ebay) after selling my Rolleiflex (man, was that > great), since I needed interchangeable lenses. > > The Pentacon Six really does deliver great results, but: > 1. The Pentacon doesn't have a built in lightmeter in the prisma. So it's > really only for studio work. But more important: > 2. I just can't seem to learn how to compose square images - so, I wanted a > rectangular format - like 6x7. > > So finally, as the price tags seemed to drop a lot, I got a nice deal on a > Pentax 67 + 2.8 90mm lens, a few weeks ago. > Aftewards I have bought a Pentax 300mm and a Pentax 4.0 165mm LS lens for > flash photography. Now I only miss a 45mm or 55mm :-) > > So, I'm selliong my Pentacon Six equipment shortly > > The first reason I got a Pentax 67 is, that I can't afford a Pentax 645D :-)) > In Europe this will cost 20,000 USD with one lens. > I would have to be a full time pro in order to convince my wife, I need this > :-) > > The 645D would cost me money (interest), since I don't have 20 grand to many > lying arrond, even if it's not in use, for a while. > The 67 will only cost me money, when ever I have a paying customer to take > care of the bills (film, development etc.) > > So, until I win the lottery, I will use medium format as long as I can > convince myself, that it will deliver results superior to my K20D or K-7 (and > (hopefully soon) the K-5). > > I bought the Petnax 67 from a pro rental studio, that didn't really want it > anymore. At this studio, I could see film wrappings lying on the floor here > and there - which means: Pros still use film - at least to some extend. > > Reagrds > Jens > > > > > > > -- > Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. > > On Dec 31, 2010 18:30 "Godfrey DiGiorgi" wrote: >> Thinking about it further, the real and only reason to shoot with >> Medium Format film today is, for me, to work with the very different >> coupling of Field of View and Depth of Field it affords compared to >> small-format (FourThirds, APS-C and so-called "full frame) digital >> cameras. >> -- >> Godfrey >> godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com >> >> -- >> 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. > > -- > 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. > -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
Yes, I quite happy with the FA* 2.8 28-70mm AL. It acturally outperforms many of my primes, except maybe my Limited lenses such as the 43mm and 77mm - and of cource my old 1.8 85mm, whic is the best portrait lens I've had so far. I do understand now, thanks to the answers from PDML members, that judging the quality/resolution/sharpness of my Pentax 67 images, will very much depend on which scanner I will be using for scanning my P67 negs and slides. I will soon receive the Velvia, Astia and Ektar films from the lab - all exposed through the shutter of a Pentax 67. I will let you know how the images turned out - canned on the Epson Perfection 3200 Photo scanner. I may chose to get some scannes done at my lab. Meanwhile I'll hopefully be playing with a bran new K-5 :-) Regards Jens -- Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. On Jan 1, 2011 20:32 "paul stenquist" wrote: > On Jan 1, 2011, at 2:27 PM, Jens wrote: > > I'm not sure Paul, but since it a studio recording done at appr. the > > same time, I guess it the same aperture - F 13 or perhaps F11. > > > > Next time I shall: > > > > 1. Make sure the conditions are very close to being exactly the > > same. > > 2. Use new 120 film (Kodak Ektar 100 or Fuji Astia 100) > > 3. Use a pro-lab for developing > > 4. Unfortunalely I don't have a por scanner, but I will use my Epson > > Perfection 3200 Photo, which does deliver reasonably good scans. > > > > I scanned on of my 6s7 shots on my 3200 and was reasonably pleased > with the results. Then, just for grins, a friend of mine scanned the > same transparency on his Imacon film scanner. The difference in > sharpness and detail resolution was considerable. No comparison. A > flatbed scan works with medium format, but it's far from optimum. > Paul > > > > > I may compare the F4 165 mm LS lens to a reasonably sharp 50mm lens > > for the K-7. > > I must say I am surprised how sharp the 2.8 28-70mm zoom lens is. It > > actually beat quite a few primes :-) > > > > Jens > > -- > > Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. > > > > On Jan 1, 2011 20:13 "paul stenquist" > > wrote: > >> I'm surprised the K7 pic is as sharp as it is, given that it was > >> shot > >> at f13, where you're going to get a lot of diffusion. Try it at > >> f5.6 > >> or so. What stop did you shoot the 6x7 pic at. And what lens. You > >> list > >> an 80/2.8. I assume you mean the 90/2.8? > >> Paul > >> On Jan 1, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Jens wrote: > >> > >>> Thank you all for you rinterest in responding and answering my > >>> question. > >>> I have done some samll tests, that didin't turn out too well. But > >>> I > >>> was using old film and a questionable lab for developing. > >>> My result is shown at flickr. > >>> I photographed a sitting girl (in full figure) filling out the > >>> frame > >>> with my K-7 and with my 67. I enlarged one eye to be able to > >>> evaluate the resolution and sharpness: > >>> K-7: > >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5204650099/in/set-7215762546143 > >>> 41 > >>> 40/ > >>> 67: > >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5204621235/in/set-7215762546143 > >>> 41 > >>> 40/ > >>> > >>> In my small, not too well done ,test it seems that the K-7 is > >>> doing > >>> rather well. > >>> In order to convince myself, that I should keep on using the 67 > >>> (insted of selling it) I need results that show, that the 67 > >>> delivers reslults that are superior to those of the K-7. > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> Jens > >>> -- > >>> Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 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. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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. > > > > -- > > 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. > > > -- > 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. -- 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: Re: Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
Yes. The digital backs for Hasselblad was made by a Danich company, that did merge with Hasselblad (Sweden) a few years back. I guess the scanners came from the very same company - which now is a part of the Hasselblad concern. Jens -- Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. On Jan 2, 2011 18:57 "AlunFoto" wrote: > 2011/1/2 Jens : > > They still make imacon scanners (I believe they were Danish > > actually)? > > Jens > > The Imacon scanners are now sold as "Hasselblad Flextight" scanners. > They're more expensive than a Pentax 645D by good margin. > > I'm sure the Pentax 67 is a wonderful tool for acquiring images. I > frequently miss shooting with the 645Nii, but never get around to > actually loading it with film. I remember I tried to consider the > cost > of the Pentax *istD against my expenses for film an processing, and > concluded that I could buy a new digital SLR every third year for the > amount of money I spent on the gelatine. And that didn't include the > cost of scanning. > > I just did a quick look around the web for prices on film and > processing in Norway. I used to shoot Provia a lot, so that's what I > looked for. Assuming 10 exposures per 120mm film, I arrived at a cost > of NOK 14,70 per exposure (film and E6 processing), from > http://www.scandinavianphoto.no/ > > It was a bit more challenging to find services for scanning of 120mm > film, but what I found was pretty scary. NOK 230,- for a raw scan of > _one_ image. Price more than doubled for the "pro" treatment, > including digital dust removal: > http://www.farvelabben.no/filmscanning.html > > Excluding scanning, a Pentax 645D would break even with film cost at > roughly 5800 exposures. > > I hope for your sake the Danish market has less hostile prices... :-) > > Of course there are loads of other factors to consider, such as time > spent in workflow, cost of auxillary hardware (computers, archivning, > etc.) and expected time to obsolence, but It could be worth doing, > Jens. > > Jostein > > -- > http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ > http://alunfoto.blogspot.com > > -- > 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. -- 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: Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
He, he... I meant to say 6x6 isn't the format for me. I want a rectangular viewfinder and rectangular images - most of the time. Regards Jens -- Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. On Jan 3, 2011 12:21 "eckinator" wrote: > Jens wrote: > > > > But more important: 2. I just can't seem to learn how to compose > > square images > > Have you considered composing in portrait orientation? > Ecke > > -- > 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. -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
It's definitely not legal in Alabama. It may go by county in VA. On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:12 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > On 1/2/2011 1:32 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: >> >> "Try shooting the K7 through a pair of pantyhose." >> >> That's not legal in Virginia. ;-) > > You sure you mean Virginia. > >> >> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:58 AM, John Sessoms >> wrote: >>> >>> From: "Jens" >>> Thank you all for you rinterest in responding and answering my question. I have done some samll tests, that didin't turn out too well. But I was using old film and a questionable lab for developing. My result is shown at flickr. I photographed a sitting girl (in full figure) filling out the frame with my K-7 and with my 67. I enlarged one eye to be able to evaluate the resolution and sharpness: K-7: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5204650099/in/set-72157625461434140/ 67: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5204621235/in/set-72157625461434140/ In my small, not too well done ,test it seems that the K-7 is doing rather well. In order to convince myself, that I should keep on using the 67 (insted of selling it) I need results that show, that the 67 delivers reslults that are superior to those of the K-7. >>> >>> You're losing quality scanning the negative. Don't blame the negative >>> for problems due to the fairly low resolution scan. >>> >>> The Epson 3200 doesn't deliver sharp results scanning negatives. That's >>> not what it's designed for. >>> >>> It does remarkably well all things considered, but it's not the best >>> tool for the job if you need high quality, high resolution scans from >>> your negatives. At best it's a tool for identifying those negatives that >>> might yield good results from high resolution scans. >>> >>> Try shooting the K7 through a pair of pantyhose. That will impose a >>> handicap >>> on its resolution comparable to what the scans impose on your 67 >>> negatives. >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >> >> > > > -- > Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom! > > --Marvin the Martian. > > > -- > 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. > -- Steve Desjardins -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
On 3/1/11, eckinator, discombobulated, unleashed: >Have you considered composing in portrait orientation? Filthy bugger!! -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
Jens wrote: > > But more important: 2. I just can't seem to learn how to compose square images Have you considered composing in portrait orientation? Ecke -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
Pentax 67 takes a lot more time to shoot. If you walk around with your friens, you can shoot something with digital SLR. In contrast, when you walk with Pentax 67 (and tripod), you cannot take your friends with you :) Gasha Jens wrote: Good point Godfrey. To me is more an economical issue. I own a large collection of Pentacon Six /Carl Zeiss Jena/Schneider Kreutznach lenses. I got this 10-15 years ago (ebay) after selling my Rolleiflex (man, was that great), since I needed interchangeable lenses. The Pentacon Six really does deliver great results, but: 1. The Pentacon doesn't have a built in lightmeter in the prisma. So it's really only for studio work. But more important: 2. I just can't seem to learn how to compose square images - so, I wanted a rectangular format - like 6x7. So finally, as the price tags seemed to drop a lot, I got a nice deal on a Pentax 67 + 2.8 90mm lens, a few weeks ago. Aftewards I have bought a Pentax 300mm and a Pentax 4.0 165mm LS lens for flash photography. Now I only miss a 45mm or 55mm :-) So, I'm selliong my Pentacon Six equipment shortly The first reason I got a Pentax 67 is, that I can't afford a Pentax 645D :-)) In Europe this will cost 20,000 USD with one lens. I would have to be a full time pro in order to convince my wife, I need this :-) The 645D would cost me money (interest), since I don't have 20 grand to many lying arrond, even if it's not in use, for a while. The 67 will only cost me money, when ever I have a paying customer to take care of the bills (film, development etc.) So, until I win the lottery, I will use medium format as long as I can convince myself, that it will deliver results superior to my K20D or K-7 (and (hopefully soon) the K-5). I bought the Petnax 67 from a pro rental studio, that didn't really want it anymore. At this studio, I could see film wrappings lying on the floor here and there - which means: Pros still use film - at least to some extend. Reagrds Jens -- 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: Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
2011/1/2 AlunFoto : > > I frequently miss shooting with the 645Nii, but never get around to > actually loading it with film. Let me know when the dust gets too thick to manage ]=) Ecke -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
On 1/2/2011 1:32 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: "Try shooting the K7 through a pair of pantyhose." That's not legal in Virginia. ;-) You sure you mean Virginia. On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:58 AM, John Sessoms wrote: From: "Jens" Thank you all for you rinterest in responding and answering my question. I have done some samll tests, that didin't turn out too well. But I was using old film and a questionable lab for developing. My result is shown at flickr. I photographed a sitting girl (in full figure) filling out the frame with my K-7 and with my 67. I enlarged one eye to be able to evaluate the resolution and sharpness: K-7: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5204650099/in/set-72157625461434140/ 67: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5204621235/in/set-72157625461434140/ In my small, not too well done ,test it seems that the K-7 is doing rather well. In order to convince myself, that I should keep on using the 67 (insted of selling it) I need results that show, that the 67 delivers reslults that are superior to those of the K-7. You're losing quality scanning the negative. Don't blame the negative for problems due to the fairly low resolution scan. The Epson 3200 doesn't deliver sharp results scanning negatives. That's not what it's designed for. It does remarkably well all things considered, but it's not the best tool for the job if you need high quality, high resolution scans from your negatives. At best it's a tool for identifying those negatives that might yield good results from high resolution scans. Try shooting the K7 through a pair of pantyhose. That will impose a handicap on its resolution comparable to what the scans impose on your 67 negatives. -- 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. -- Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom! --Marvin the Martian. -- 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: Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
Sides, you'd have to take them off to do that..I'm guessing here, of course! Jack --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Steven Desjardins wrote: > From: Steven Desjardins > Subject: Re: Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Date: Sunday, January 2, 2011, 10:32 AM > "Try shooting the K7 through a pair > of pantyhose." > > That's not legal in Virginia. ;-) > > > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:58 AM, John Sessoms > wrote: > > From: "Jens" > > > >> Thank you all for you rinterest in responding and > answering my question. > >> I have done some samll tests, that didin't turn > out too well. But I was > >> using old film and a questionable lab for > developing. > >> My result is shown at flickr. > >> I photographed a sitting girl (in full figure) > filling out the frame > >> with my K-7 and with my 67. I enlarged one eye to > be able to evaluate > >> the resolution and sharpness: > >> K-7: > >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5204650099/in/set-72157625461434140/ > >> 67: > >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5204621235/in/set-72157625461434140/ > >> > >> In my small, not too well done ,test it seems that > the K-7 is doing > >> rather well. > >> In order to convince myself, that I should keep on > using the 67 (insted > >> of selling it) I need results that show, that the > 67 delivers reslults > >> that are superior to those of the K-7. > > > > You're losing quality scanning the negative. Don't > blame the negative > > for problems due to the fairly low resolution scan. > > > > The Epson 3200 doesn't deliver sharp results scanning > negatives. That's > > not what it's designed for. > > > > It does remarkably well all things considered, but > it's not the best > > tool for the job if you need high quality, high > resolution scans from > > your negatives. At best it's a tool for identifying > those negatives that > > might yield good results from high resolution scans. > > > > Try shooting the K7 through a pair of pantyhose. That > will impose a handicap > > on its resolution comparable to what the scans impose > on your 67 negatives. > > > > -- > > 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. > > > > > > -- > Steve Desjardins > > -- > 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. > -- 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: Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
"Try shooting the K7 through a pair of pantyhose." That's not legal in Virginia. ;-) On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:58 AM, John Sessoms wrote: > From: "Jens" > >> Thank you all for you rinterest in responding and answering my question. >> I have done some samll tests, that didin't turn out too well. But I was >> using old film and a questionable lab for developing. >> My result is shown at flickr. >> I photographed a sitting girl (in full figure) filling out the frame >> with my K-7 and with my 67. I enlarged one eye to be able to evaluate >> the resolution and sharpness: >> K-7: >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5204650099/in/set-72157625461434140/ >> 67: >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5204621235/in/set-72157625461434140/ >> >> In my small, not too well done ,test it seems that the K-7 is doing >> rather well. >> In order to convince myself, that I should keep on using the 67 (insted >> of selling it) I need results that show, that the 67 delivers reslults >> that are superior to those of the K-7. > > You're losing quality scanning the negative. Don't blame the negative > for problems due to the fairly low resolution scan. > > The Epson 3200 doesn't deliver sharp results scanning negatives. That's > not what it's designed for. > > It does remarkably well all things considered, but it's not the best > tool for the job if you need high quality, high resolution scans from > your negatives. At best it's a tool for identifying those negatives that > might yield good results from high resolution scans. > > Try shooting the K7 through a pair of pantyhose. That will impose a handicap > on its resolution comparable to what the scans impose on your 67 negatives. > > -- > 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. > -- Steve Desjardins -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
Sun Jan 2 09:58:35 CST 2011 John Sessoms wrote: > From: "Jens" > > > of selling it) I need results that show, that the 67 delivers reslults re-sluts? ;-) > > Try shooting the K7 through a pair of pantyhose. That will impose a I see now why such a suggestion was given. :-) :-) Cheers, Igor -- 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: Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
2011/1/2 Jens : > They still make imacon scanners (I believe they were Danish actually)? > Jens The Imacon scanners are now sold as "Hasselblad Flextight" scanners. They're more expensive than a Pentax 645D by good margin. I'm sure the Pentax 67 is a wonderful tool for acquiring images. I frequently miss shooting with the 645Nii, but never get around to actually loading it with film. I remember I tried to consider the cost of the Pentax *istD against my expenses for film an processing, and concluded that I could buy a new digital SLR every third year for the amount of money I spent on the gelatine. And that didn't include the cost of scanning. I just did a quick look around the web for prices on film and processing in Norway. I used to shoot Provia a lot, so that's what I looked for. Assuming 10 exposures per 120mm film, I arrived at a cost of NOK 14,70 per exposure (film and E6 processing), from http://www.scandinavianphoto.no/ It was a bit more challenging to find services for scanning of 120mm film, but what I found was pretty scary. NOK 230,- for a raw scan of _one_ image. Price more than doubled for the "pro" treatment, including digital dust removal: http://www.farvelabben.no/filmscanning.html Excluding scanning, a Pentax 645D would break even with film cost at roughly 5800 exposures. I hope for your sake the Danish market has less hostile prices... :-) Of course there are loads of other factors to consider, such as time spent in workflow, cost of auxillary hardware (computers, archivning, etc.) and expected time to obsolence, but It could be worth doing, Jens. Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
2010/12/31 J.C. O'Connell : > MF or LF on a light table rules! Give me a side by side comparson of MF film and a digital capture on your light table, and I might believe you. :-) -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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: Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
From: "Jens" Thank you all for you rinterest in responding and answering my question. I have done some samll tests, that didin't turn out too well. But I was using old film and a questionable lab for developing. My result is shown at flickr. I photographed a sitting girl (in full figure) filling out the frame with my K-7 and with my 67. I enlarged one eye to be able to evaluate the resolution and sharpness: K-7: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5204650099/in/set-72157625461434140/ 67: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5204621235/in/set-72157625461434140/ In my small, not too well done ,test it seems that the K-7 is doing rather well. In order to convince myself, that I should keep on using the 67 (insted of selling it) I need results that show, that the 67 delivers reslults that are superior to those of the K-7. You're losing quality scanning the negative. Don't blame the negative for problems due to the fairly low resolution scan. The Epson 3200 doesn't deliver sharp results scanning negatives. That's not what it's designed for. It does remarkably well all things considered, but it's not the best tool for the job if you need high quality, high resolution scans from your negatives. At best it's a tool for identifying those negatives that might yield good results from high resolution scans. Try shooting the K7 through a pair of pantyhose. That will impose a handicap on its resolution comparable to what the scans impose on your 67 negatives. -- 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: Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
They still make imacon scanners (I believe they were Danish actually)? Jens -- Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. On Jan 1, 2011 20:32 "paul stenquist" wrote: > On Jan 1, 2011, at 2:27 PM, Jens wrote: > > I'm not sure Paul, but since it a studio recording done at appr. the > > same time, I guess it the same aperture - F 13 or perhaps F11. > > > > Next time I shall: > > > > 1. Make sure the conditions are very close to being exactly the > > same. > > 2. Use new 120 film (Kodak Ektar 100 or Fuji Astia 100) > > 3. Use a pro-lab for developing > > 4. Unfortunalely I don't have a por scanner, but I will use my Epson > > Perfection 3200 Photo, which does deliver reasonably good scans. > > > > I scanned on of my 6s7 shots on my 3200 and was reasonably pleased > with the results. Then, just for grins, a friend of mine scanned the > same transparency on his Imacon film scanner. The difference in > sharpness and detail resolution was considerable. No comparison. A > flatbed scan works with medium format, but it's far from optimum. > Paul > > > > > I may compare the F4 165 mm LS lens to a reasonably sharp 50mm lens > > for the K-7. > > I must say I am surprised how sharp the 2.8 28-70mm zoom lens is. It > > actually beat quite a few primes :-) > > > > Jens > > -- > > Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. > > > > On Jan 1, 2011 20:13 "paul stenquist" > > wrote: > >> I'm surprised the K7 pic is as sharp as it is, given that it was > >> shot > >> at f13, where you're going to get a lot of diffusion. Try it at > >> f5.6 > >> or so. What stop did you shoot the 6x7 pic at. And what lens. You > >> list > >> an 80/2.8. I assume you mean the 90/2.8? > >> Paul > >> On Jan 1, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Jens wrote: > >> > >>> Thank you all for you rinterest in responding and answering my > >>> question. > >>> I have done some samll tests, that didin't turn out too well. But > >>> I > >>> was using old film and a questionable lab for developing. > >>> My result is shown at flickr. > >>> I photographed a sitting girl (in full figure) filling out the > >>> frame > >>> with my K-7 and with my 67. I enlarged one eye to be able to > >>> evaluate the resolution and sharpness: > >>> K-7: > >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5204650099/in/set-7215762546143 > >>> 41 > >>> 40/ > >>> 67: > >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5204621235/in/set-7215762546143 > >>> 41 > >>> 40/ > >>> > >>> In my small, not too well done ,test it seems that the K-7 is > >>> doing > >>> rather well. > >>> In order to convince myself, that I should keep on using the 67 > >>> (insted of selling it) I need results that show, that the 67 > >>> delivers reslults that are superior to those of the K-7. > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> Jens > >>> -- > >>> Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 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. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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. > > > > -- > > 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. > > > -- > 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. -- 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: Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
Some great shots there, Mark. I see you're still (?) using the MZ-S. I got mine from a fellow PDML member. I do intend to keep it. I recenly bought a K2. Great camera. Like a K1000 with an Auto Exposure option. Still have one Spotmatic, a MX and a ME Super. (Now I Just miss a Super A (one of the finest Pentax'es ever). Regards jens -- Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. On Dec 31, 2010 22:08 "Mark Roberts" wrote: > Jens wrote: > >Hello list > >I'm getting into photographing with Pentax 67. BTW: I just got the > >SMC 1:4 165 mm Leaf Shutter lens for studio work. Nice lens :-). > >Has anyone done tests, showing the resolution etc. of 6x7 film images > >compared to digital 14-15 Mp images, please? > > I've never done any formal testing, but I have both a 67 and my K20D > and I've even photographed the same scene using both cameras. > Photos in Pentax Photo Gallery: > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/index-flash.jsp?#section=ARTIST&subS > ection=100052&subSubSection=5638809&language=EN > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/index-flash.jsp?#section=ARTIST&subS > ection=100052&subSubSection=5453811&language=EN > > The 67 definitely wins out in the resolution contest, but not by as > big a margin as I'd expected. Comparing with my full-frame Sony at > ~25 > megapixels is close enough to be too difficult to call except > possibly > with artificial test targets. (Film scanned on a Nikon Coolscan at > 4000 dpi) > > A significant advantage to me is being able to shoot with low speed > films for longer shutter speeds and/or wider apertures with the 67. > > -- > 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. -- 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: Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
Good point Godfrey. To me is more an economical issue. I own a large collection of Pentacon Six /Carl Zeiss Jena/Schneider Kreutznach lenses. I got this 10-15 years ago (ebay) after selling my Rolleiflex (man, was that great), since I needed interchangeable lenses. The Pentacon Six really does deliver great results, but: 1. The Pentacon doesn't have a built in lightmeter in the prisma. So it's really only for studio work. But more important: 2. I just can't seem to learn how to compose square images - so, I wanted a rectangular format - like 6x7. So finally, as the price tags seemed to drop a lot, I got a nice deal on a Pentax 67 + 2.8 90mm lens, a few weeks ago. Aftewards I have bought a Pentax 300mm and a Pentax 4.0 165mm LS lens for flash photography. Now I only miss a 45mm or 55mm :-) So, I'm selliong my Pentacon Six equipment shortly The first reason I got a Pentax 67 is, that I can't afford a Pentax 645D :-)) In Europe this will cost 20,000 USD with one lens. I would have to be a full time pro in order to convince my wife, I need this :-) The 645D would cost me money (interest), since I don't have 20 grand to many lying arrond, even if it's not in use, for a while. The 67 will only cost me money, when ever I have a paying customer to take care of the bills (film, development etc.) So, until I win the lottery, I will use medium format as long as I can convince myself, that it will deliver results superior to my K20D or K-7 (and (hopefully soon) the K-5). I bought the Petnax 67 from a pro rental studio, that didn't really want it anymore. At this studio, I could see film wrappings lying on the floor here and there - which means: Pros still use film - at least to some extend. Reagrds Jens -- Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. On Dec 31, 2010 18:30 "Godfrey DiGiorgi" wrote: > Thinking about it further, the real and only reason to shoot with > Medium Format film today is, for me, to work with the very different > coupling of Field of View and Depth of Field it affords compared to > small-format (FourThirds, APS-C and so-called "full frame) digital > cameras. > -- > Godfrey > godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com > > -- > 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. -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
On 1/1/2011 9:07 PM, Jens wrote: In my small, not too well done ,test it seems that the K-7 is doing rather well. In order to convince myself, that I should keep on using the 67 (insted of selling it) I need results that show, that the 67 delivers reslults that are superior to those of the K-7. Regards Jens Jens, K-7 is doing not bad at all. I wonder at this level of close up, to which print size each crop corresponds. And like others said, in hybrid process (film + scanner), scanner is very important. Boris -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
On Jan 1, 2011, at 2:27 PM, Jens wrote: > I'm not sure Paul, but since it a studio recording done at appr. the same > time, I guess it the same aperture - F 13 or perhaps F11. > > Next time I shall: > > 1. Make sure the conditions are very close to being exactly the same. > 2. Use new 120 film (Kodak Ektar 100 or Fuji Astia 100) > 3. Use a pro-lab for developing > 4. Unfortunalely I don't have a por scanner, but I will use my Epson > Perfection 3200 Photo, which does deliver reasonably good scans. I scanned on of my 6s7 shots on my 3200 and was reasonably pleased with the results. Then, just for grins, a friend of mine scanned the same transparency on his Imacon film scanner. The difference in sharpness and detail resolution was considerable. No comparison. A flatbed scan works with medium format, but it's far from optimum. Paul > > I may compare the F4 165 mm LS lens to a reasonably sharp 50mm lens for the > K-7. > I must say I am surprised how sharp the 2.8 28-70mm zoom lens is. It actually > beat quite a few primes :-) > > Jens > -- > Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. > > On Jan 1, 2011 20:13 "paul stenquist" wrote: >> I'm surprised the K7 pic is as sharp as it is, given that it was shot >> at f13, where you're going to get a lot of diffusion. Try it at f5.6 >> or so. What stop did you shoot the 6x7 pic at. And what lens. You list >> an 80/2.8. I assume you mean the 90/2.8? >> Paul >> On Jan 1, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Jens wrote: >> >>> Thank you all for you rinterest in responding and answering my >>> question. >>> I have done some samll tests, that didin't turn out too well. But I >>> was using old film and a questionable lab for developing. >>> My result is shown at flickr. >>> I photographed a sitting girl (in full figure) filling out the frame >>> with my K-7 and with my 67. I enlarged one eye to be able to >>> evaluate the resolution and sharpness: >>> K-7: >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5204650099/in/set-721576254614341 >>> 40/ >>> 67: >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5204621235/in/set-721576254614341 >>> 40/ >>> >>> In my small, not too well done ,test it seems that the K-7 is doing >>> rather well. >>> In order to convince myself, that I should keep on using the 67 >>> (insted of selling it) I need results that show, that the 67 >>> delivers reslults that are superior to those of the K-7. >>> >>> Regards >>> Jens >>> -- >>> Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >> >> >> -- >> 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. > > -- > 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. -- 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: Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
I'm not sure Paul, but since it a studio recording done at appr. the same time, I guess it the same aperture - F 13 or perhaps F11. Next time I shall: 1. Make sure the conditions are very close to being exactly the same. 2. Use new 120 film (Kodak Ektar 100 or Fuji Astia 100) 3. Use a pro-lab for developing 4. Unfortunalely I don't have a por scanner, but I will use my Epson Perfection 3200 Photo, which does deliver reasonably good scans. I may compare the F4 165 mm LS lens to a reasonably sharp 50mm lens for the K-7. I must say I am surprised how sharp the 2.8 28-70mm zoom lens is. It actually beat quite a few primes :-) Jens -- Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. On Jan 1, 2011 20:13 "paul stenquist" wrote: > I'm surprised the K7 pic is as sharp as it is, given that it was shot > at f13, where you're going to get a lot of diffusion. Try it at f5.6 > or so. What stop did you shoot the 6x7 pic at. And what lens. You list > an 80/2.8. I assume you mean the 90/2.8? > Paul > On Jan 1, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Jens wrote: > > > Thank you all for you rinterest in responding and answering my > > question. > > I have done some samll tests, that didin't turn out too well. But I > > was using old film and a questionable lab for developing. > > My result is shown at flickr. > > I photographed a sitting girl (in full figure) filling out the frame > > with my K-7 and with my 67. I enlarged one eye to be able to > > evaluate the resolution and sharpness: > > K-7: > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5204650099/in/set-721576254614341 > > 40/ > > 67: > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5204621235/in/set-721576254614341 > > 40/ > > > > In my small, not too well done ,test it seems that the K-7 is doing > > rather well. > > In order to convince myself, that I should keep on using the 67 > > (insted of selling it) I need results that show, that the 67 > > delivers reslults that are superior to those of the K-7. > > > > Regards > > Jens > > -- > > Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. > > > > > > -- > > 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. > > > -- > 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. -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
I'm surprised the K7 pic is as sharp as it is, given that it was shot at f13, where you're going to get a lot of diffusion. Try it at f5.6 or so. What stop did you shoot the 6x7 pic at. And what lens. You list an 80/2.8. I assume you mean the 90/2.8? Paul On Jan 1, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Jens wrote: > Thank you all for you rinterest in responding and answering my question. > I have done some samll tests, that didin't turn out too well. But I was using > old film and a questionable lab for developing. > My result is shown at flickr. > I photographed a sitting girl (in full figure) filling out the frame with my > K-7 and with my 67. I enlarged one eye to be able to evaluate the resolution > and sharpness: > K-7: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5204650099/in/set-72157625461434140/ > 67: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5204621235/in/set-72157625461434140/ > > In my small, not too well done ,test it seems that the K-7 is doing rather > well. > In order to convince myself, that I should keep on using the 67 (insted of > selling it) I need results that show, that the 67 delivers reslults that are > superior to those of the K-7. > > Regards > Jens > -- > Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. > > > -- > 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. -- 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: Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
Thank you all for you rinterest in responding and answering my question. I have done some samll tests, that didin't turn out too well. But I was using old film and a questionable lab for developing. My result is shown at flickr. I photographed a sitting girl (in full figure) filling out the frame with my K-7 and with my 67. I enlarged one eye to be able to evaluate the resolution and sharpness: K-7: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5204650099/in/set-72157625461434140/ 67: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5204621235/in/set-72157625461434140/ In my small, not too well done ,test it seems that the K-7 is doing rather well. In order to convince myself, that I should keep on using the 67 (insted of selling it) I need results that show, that the 67 delivers reslults that are superior to those of the K-7. Regards Jens -- Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
I keep checking in on 'em from time to time, but so far the only 4x5 film they've got is some expired Type 57. It looks like they're concentrating on films for the SX-70 type cameras so far. Supposedly they've made an 20x24 SX-70 type process film that works in the big Polaroid camera, and are working towards producing 8x10 & 4x5 SX-70 type process films. I want Type 55 for the negatives, not for the prints. From: "P. J. Alling" The Impossible Project is supposedly working on reincarnating 4x5 and 8x10 Poloroid sheet films. On 12/31/2010 1:15 PM, John Sessoms wrote: From: "J.C. O'Connell" ever seen an 8x10 fujichrome on a light table? absolutely mindblowing image quality. It was discontinued about the time I was born, but Kodachrome used to be available as sheet film. I've seen 8x10 Kodachrome that just knocked my eyes out. About the best I've been able to do for myself is 4x5 chromes, Kodak and Fuji. I haven't really been able to acquire enough experience to have settled on one over the other. One I do like a lot is Type-55 Polaroid, although that too has been discontinued & what little I have left in the refrigerator is likely to be all I ever get to use. -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
Boris, It's an old saying in English, designed to keep the young from getting too pompous about how smart they are. Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: > On 12/31/2010 8:58 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: >> >> I was shooting prints before you were a 'twinkle in your parent's eyes." > > Mark! Gee, that's an expression I should memorize... > > Boris > > > -- > 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. > -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
On 12/31/2010 10:23 PM, J.C. O'Connell wrote: MF or LF on a light table rules! I remember light table reviewing some of the Jostein's fine 645 slides back in 2004. It was literally an eye-opening experience. You will have to believe me that Jostein was a darn good shooter 6 years ago. He really was excellent and is getting only better with time. Boris -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
On 12/31/2010 8:58 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: I was shooting prints before you were a 'twinkle in your parent's eyes." Mark! Gee, that's an expression I should memorize... Boris -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
I would like that. I have a 4x5 polaroid back for my speed graphic. The pics were actually 3 1/2 x 41/2, if I recall. Fun, but expensive. Paul On Dec 31, 2010, at 3:51 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > The Impossible Project is supposedly working on reincarnating 4x5 and 8x10 > Poloroid sheet films. > > On 12/31/2010 1:15 PM, John Sessoms wrote: >> From: "J.C. O'Connell" >> >>> ever seen an 8x10 fujichrome on a light table? >>> absolutely mindblowing image quality. >> >> It was discontinued about the time I was born, but Kodachrome used to be >> available as sheet film. I've seen 8x10 Kodachrome that just knocked my eyes >> out. >> >> About the best I've been able to do for myself is 4x5 chromes, Kodak and >> Fuji. I haven't really been able to acquire enough experience to have >> settled on one over the other. >> >> One I do like a lot is Type-55 Polaroid, although that too has been >> discontinued & what little I have left in the refrigerator is likely to be >> all I ever get to use. >> > > > -- > Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom! > > --Marvin the Martian. > > > -- > 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. -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
Jens wrote: >Hello list >I'm getting into photographing with Pentax 67. BTW: I just got the SMC 1:4 165 >mm Leaf Shutter lens for studio work. Nice lens :-). >Has anyone done tests, showing the resolution etc. of 6x7 film images compared >to digital 14-15 Mp images, please? I've never done any formal testing, but I have both a 67 and my K20D and I've even photographed the same scene using both cameras. Photos in Pentax Photo Gallery: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/index-flash.jsp?#section=ARTIST&subSection=100052&subSubSection=5638809&language=EN http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/index-flash.jsp?#section=ARTIST&subSection=100052&subSubSection=5453811&language=EN The 67 definitely wins out in the resolution contest, but not by as big a margin as I'd expected. Comparing with my full-frame Sony at ~25 megapixels is close enough to be too difficult to call except possibly with artificial test targets. (Film scanned on a Nikon Coolscan at 4000 dpi) A significant advantage to me is being able to shoot with low speed films for longer shutter speeds and/or wider apertures with the 67. -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
The Impossible Project is supposedly working on reincarnating 4x5 and 8x10 Poloroid sheet films. On 12/31/2010 1:15 PM, John Sessoms wrote: From: "J.C. O'Connell" ever seen an 8x10 fujichrome on a light table? absolutely mindblowing image quality. It was discontinued about the time I was born, but Kodachrome used to be available as sheet film. I've seen 8x10 Kodachrome that just knocked my eyes out. About the best I've been able to do for myself is 4x5 chromes, Kodak and Fuji. I haven't really been able to acquire enough experience to have settled on one over the other. One I do like a lot is Type-55 Polaroid, although that too has been discontinued & what little I have left in the refrigerator is likely to be all I ever get to use. -- Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom! --Marvin the Martian. -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
MF or LF on a light table rules! -- J.C. O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Join the CD PLAYER & DISC Discussions : http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdplayers/ http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdsound/ -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 2:49 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital Your vast Age is irrelevant. ;-) My point was that I'm very familiar with how medium format film looks and how I prefer to view photographs, and I have many years of experience in making photographs with medium format cameras and media. Looking at stuff on a light table is about the most miserable viewing experience there is IMO. Regards presenting photos for display electronically: while computer screens have a wide variance and you cannot easily control how they look in the general case, if you're working with a *specific* display and know its characteristics, you can make your photos look perfect on that display. Apple iPad displays are all very accurately calibrated to the same standards so if you optimize a photo for an iPad display, you can be darn sure it will look the same on any non-defective iPad. Regards books and prints ... yes, there's tremendous variability. With all these issues, might as well not bother, eh? ]'-) G On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote: > Godfrey, > We've met and Tanja's recent thread on ages should remind you. I was > shooting prints before you were a 'twinkle in your parent's eyes." > Fine arts exhibitions I don't know much about, but I spent 10 years > with a major printer and publisher and understand commercial printing. > And believe me, how a print looks in a book or on a poster depends a > great deal on the 4(-5) color press process and the pressmen. Exactly > how it looks on a computer screen or an iPad is mainly beyond your > control. Generally how it is represented you do have control of, but > the fine tuning? You can't even guarantee my screen is calibrated > properly. > > All this said, projection of slide images and a big lupe on a light > table do best for me. > > Regards, Bob S. > > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi > wrote: >> My first 'serious' camera was a 1949 Rolleiflex that my grandfather >> let me use in 1967-1968. I used medium format cameras alongside my >> 35mm and digital equipment until I finally sold all of it just last >> year. I'm well aware of what medium (and large) format transparencies >> look like on a light table. I even used to project them. >> >> Light table, projection ... Both are miserable ways to look at >> photographs, IMO. Displaying photographs on a high resolution HD >> television screen is better but still awful. >> >> How a photo looks in a fine art exhibition print, or in a book, or on >> a computer screen (aka devices like the iPad) is much more important >> to me. >> >> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Bob Sullivan >> wrote: >>> Godfrey, >>> >>> Along the same lines as your commentary... >>> I've loved 35mm slides and projected images since I first got to >>> borrow my dad's Retina IIIc. The acutance in a 35mm Kodachrome image >>> is just wonderful. As a consumer, early digital could make >>> acceptable 4x6 prints. But the last couple of cameras from Pentax >>> (K-5 & 7) are good enough to rival those projected Kodachromes. And >>> my results are better. >>> >>> As for comparison to 6x7, look at transparency film on a light table >>> with a big loop. It will take your breath away, and a 15 meg digital >>> file will never compare to it. >>> I won't be shooting much medium format film, but it still has real IQ >>> advantages. >>> >>> Regards, Bob S. >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi >>> wrote: >>>> There is no sensible, direct translation of film acutance to >>>> digital resolution. I have watched people quoting ppi, sensor >>>> resolution, etc etc for years. It's all horsepucky. >>>> >>>> The resolution of film is dependent on many factors: >>>> - film speed >>>> - how it is exposed >>>> - how it is processed ... gamma is critical >>>> - how acutance is measured (what criteria is chosen) >>>> >>>> The resolution of a digital sensor is similarly dependent upon >>>> several factors >>>> - the
Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
Your vast Age is irrelevant. ;-)
My point was that I'm very familiar with how medium format film looks
and how I prefer to view photographs, and I have many years of
experience in making photographs with medium format cameras and media.
Looking at stuff on a light table is about the most miserable viewing
experience there is IMO.
Regards presenting photos for display electronically: while computer
screens have a wide variance and you cannot easily control how they
look in the general case, if you're working with a *specific* display
and know its characteristics, you can make your photos look perfect on
that display. Apple iPad displays are all very accurately calibrated
to the same standards so if you optimize a photo for an iPad display,
you can be darn sure it will look the same on any non-defective iPad.
Regards books and prints ... yes, there's tremendous variability. With
all these issues, might as well not bother, eh? ]'-)
G
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
> Godfrey,
> We've met and Tanja's recent thread on ages should remind you.
> I was shooting prints before you were a 'twinkle in your parent's eyes."
> Fine arts exhibitions I don't know much about, but I spent 10 years
> with a major printer and publisher and understand commercial printing.
> And believe me, how a print looks in a book or on a poster depends
> a great deal on the 4(-5) color press process and the pressmen.
> Exactly how it looks on a computer screen or an iPad is mainly
> beyond your control. Generally how it is represented you do have
> control of, but the fine tuning? You can't even guarantee my screen
> is calibrated properly.
>
> All this said, projection of slide images and a big lupe on a light table
> do best for me.
>
> Regards, Bob S.
>
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi
> wrote:
>> My first 'serious' camera was a 1949 Rolleiflex that my grandfather
>> let me use in 1967-1968. I used medium format cameras alongside my
>> 35mm and digital equipment until I finally sold all of it just last
>> year. I'm well aware of what medium (and large) format transparencies
>> look like on a light table. I even used to project them.
>>
>> Light table, projection ... Both are miserable ways to look at
>> photographs, IMO. Displaying photographs on a high resolution HD
>> television screen is better but still awful.
>>
>> How a photo looks in a fine art exhibition print, or in a book, or on
>> a computer screen (aka devices like the iPad) is much more important
>> to me.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
>>> Godfrey,
>>>
>>> Along the same lines as your commentary...
>>> I've loved 35mm slides and projected images since I first got to
>>> borrow my dad's Retina IIIc.
>>> The acutance in a 35mm Kodachrome image is just wonderful.
>>> As a consumer, early digital could make acceptable 4x6 prints.
>>> But the last couple of cameras from Pentax (K-5 & 7) are good enough
>>> to rival those projected Kodachromes. And my results are better.
>>>
>>> As for comparison to 6x7, look at transparency film on a light table
>>> with a big loop.
>>> It will take your breath away, and a 15 meg digital file will never
>>> compare to it.
>>> I won't be shooting much medium format film, but it still has real IQ
>>> advantages.
>>>
>>> Regards, Bob S.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi
>>> wrote:
There is no sensible, direct translation of film acutance to digital
resolution. I have watched people quoting ppi, sensor resolution, etc
etc for years. It's all horsepucky.
The resolution of film is dependent on many factors:
- film speed
- how it is exposed
- how it is processed ... gamma is critical
- how acutance is measured (what criteria is chosen)
The resolution of a digital sensor is similarly dependent upon several
factors
- the size of the sensor
- the {x,y} photosite dimensions
- the strength of the antialiasing filter
- how it is exposed
- how it is processed
- how acutance is measured
All of that is important even before you think about lens qualities,
scanning the film, etc etc.
But that doesn't stop me from making an assessment based on my
experience using specific cameras and lenses.
I shot film for 45 years and have been working with digital capture
and processing since 1984. When the first 5Mpixel digital cameras with
good lenses appeared at an affordable price in 2002, I bought one and
found that it totally eclipsed the capabilities of 35mm film cameras
for my usual print sizes up to 11x14. I went to Medium Format film
(645, 6x6, 6x9 cm) for larger prints. When I bought my first 6 Mpixel
DSLR and top of the line lenses in 2003, I realized in short order
that there was no longer any point to shooting Medium Format film for
the print sizes I make (typically up to 16x20 inches).
Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
Godfrey,
We've met and Tanja's recent thread on ages should remind you.
I was shooting prints before you were a 'twinkle in your parent's eyes."
Fine arts exhibitions I don't know much about, but I spent 10 years
with a major printer and publisher and understand commercial printing.
And believe me, how a print looks in a book or on a poster depends
a great deal on the 4(-5) color press process and the pressmen.
Exactly how it looks on a computer screen or an iPad is mainly
beyond your control. Generally how it is represented you do have
control of, but the fine tuning? You can't even guarantee my screen
is calibrated properly.
All this said, projection of slide images and a big lupe on a light table
do best for me.
Regards, Bob S.
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> My first 'serious' camera was a 1949 Rolleiflex that my grandfather
> let me use in 1967-1968. I used medium format cameras alongside my
> 35mm and digital equipment until I finally sold all of it just last
> year. I'm well aware of what medium (and large) format transparencies
> look like on a light table. I even used to project them.
>
> Light table, projection ... Both are miserable ways to look at
> photographs, IMO. Displaying photographs on a high resolution HD
> television screen is better but still awful.
>
> How a photo looks in a fine art exhibition print, or in a book, or on
> a computer screen (aka devices like the iPad) is much more important
> to me.
>
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
>> Godfrey,
>>
>> Along the same lines as your commentary...
>> I've loved 35mm slides and projected images since I first got to
>> borrow my dad's Retina IIIc.
>> The acutance in a 35mm Kodachrome image is just wonderful.
>> As a consumer, early digital could make acceptable 4x6 prints.
>> But the last couple of cameras from Pentax (K-5 & 7) are good enough
>> to rival those projected Kodachromes. And my results are better.
>>
>> As for comparison to 6x7, look at transparency film on a light table
>> with a big loop.
>> It will take your breath away, and a 15 meg digital file will never
>> compare to it.
>> I won't be shooting much medium format film, but it still has real IQ
>> advantages.
>>
>> Regards, Bob S.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi
>> wrote:
>>> There is no sensible, direct translation of film acutance to digital
>>> resolution. I have watched people quoting ppi, sensor resolution, etc
>>> etc for years. It's all horsepucky.
>>>
>>> The resolution of film is dependent on many factors:
>>> - film speed
>>> - how it is exposed
>>> - how it is processed ... gamma is critical
>>> - how acutance is measured (what criteria is chosen)
>>>
>>> The resolution of a digital sensor is similarly dependent upon several
>>> factors
>>> - the size of the sensor
>>> - the {x,y} photosite dimensions
>>> - the strength of the antialiasing filter
>>> - how it is exposed
>>> - how it is processed
>>> - how acutance is measured
>>>
>>> All of that is important even before you think about lens qualities,
>>> scanning the film, etc etc.
>>>
>>> But that doesn't stop me from making an assessment based on my
>>> experience using specific cameras and lenses.
>>>
>>> I shot film for 45 years and have been working with digital capture
>>> and processing since 1984. When the first 5Mpixel digital cameras with
>>> good lenses appeared at an affordable price in 2002, I bought one and
>>> found that it totally eclipsed the capabilities of 35mm film cameras
>>> for my usual print sizes up to 11x14. I went to Medium Format film
>>> (645, 6x6, 6x9 cm) for larger prints. When I bought my first 6 Mpixel
>>> DSLR and top of the line lenses in 2003, I realized in short order
>>> that there was no longer any point to shooting Medium Format film for
>>> the print sizes I make (typically up to 16x20 inches).
>>>
>>> So for me, digital capture and processing outperforms Medium Format
>>> film and processing at the 6 Mpixel, professional quality camera and
>>> lenses point. Everything beyond that is a plus on the digital side,
>>> and the handling and management of digital capture images is far far
>>> far more convenient and flexible.
>>>
>>> Others will disagree with me and quote a bazillion silly numbers. But
>>> don't bother, please. This is an ancient debate and I'm not going to
>>> pursue it. I know what works for me.
>>>
>>> FWIW: I'd still like a Bronica RF645 camera with wide and normal
>>> lenses. A beautiful piece of equipment, always wanted to work with
>>> one. But if I got one, I doubt I'd get enough use out of it to be
>>> worth the money, even at the current $600-700 price level.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Jens wrote:
Hello list
I'm getting into photographing with Pentax 67. BTW: I just got the SMC 1:4
165 mm Leaf Shutter lens for studio work. Nice lens :-).
Has anyone done tests, showing the resolution etc. of 6x7 film images
compared to
RE: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
From: "J.C. O'Connell" ever seen an 8x10 fujichrome on a light table? absolutely mindblowing image quality. It was discontinued about the time I was born, but Kodachrome used to be available as sheet film. I've seen 8x10 Kodachrome that just knocked my eyes out. About the best I've been able to do for myself is 4x5 chromes, Kodak and Fuji. I haven't really been able to acquire enough experience to have settled on one over the other. One I do like a lot is Type-55 Polaroid, although that too has been discontinued & what little I have left in the refrigerator is likely to be all I ever get to use. -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
On 12/31/2010 7:30 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Thinking about it further, the real and only reason to shoot with Medium Format film today is, for me, to work with the very different coupling of Field of View and Depth of Field it affords compared to small-format (FourThirds, APS-C and so-called "full frame) digital cameras. Indeed, film based medium format systems can be bought for fraction of a price even of a so called 'affordable' Pentax 645D. So that one can have the expressive powers of MF (FoV and DoF) and not go broke... Boris -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
Thinking about it further, the real and only reason to shoot with Medium Format film today is, for me, to work with the very different coupling of Field of View and Depth of Field it affords compared to small-format (FourThirds, APS-C and so-called "full frame) digital cameras. -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
My first 'serious' camera was a 1949 Rolleiflex that my grandfather
let me use in 1967-1968. I used medium format cameras alongside my
35mm and digital equipment until I finally sold all of it just last
year. I'm well aware of what medium (and large) format transparencies
look like on a light table. I even used to project them.
Light table, projection ... Both are miserable ways to look at
photographs, IMO. Displaying photographs on a high resolution HD
television screen is better but still awful.
How a photo looks in a fine art exhibition print, or in a book, or on
a computer screen (aka devices like the iPad) is much more important
to me.
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
> Godfrey,
>
> Along the same lines as your commentary...
> I've loved 35mm slides and projected images since I first got to
> borrow my dad's Retina IIIc.
> The acutance in a 35mm Kodachrome image is just wonderful.
> As a consumer, early digital could make acceptable 4x6 prints.
> But the last couple of cameras from Pentax (K-5 & 7) are good enough
> to rival those projected Kodachromes. And my results are better.
>
> As for comparison to 6x7, look at transparency film on a light table
> with a big loop.
> It will take your breath away, and a 15 meg digital file will never
> compare to it.
> I won't be shooting much medium format film, but it still has real IQ
> advantages.
>
> Regards, Bob S.
>
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi
> wrote:
>> There is no sensible, direct translation of film acutance to digital
>> resolution. I have watched people quoting ppi, sensor resolution, etc
>> etc for years. It's all horsepucky.
>>
>> The resolution of film is dependent on many factors:
>> - film speed
>> - how it is exposed
>> - how it is processed ... gamma is critical
>> - how acutance is measured (what criteria is chosen)
>>
>> The resolution of a digital sensor is similarly dependent upon several
>> factors
>> - the size of the sensor
>> - the {x,y} photosite dimensions
>> - the strength of the antialiasing filter
>> - how it is exposed
>> - how it is processed
>> - how acutance is measured
>>
>> All of that is important even before you think about lens qualities,
>> scanning the film, etc etc.
>>
>> But that doesn't stop me from making an assessment based on my
>> experience using specific cameras and lenses.
>>
>> I shot film for 45 years and have been working with digital capture
>> and processing since 1984. When the first 5Mpixel digital cameras with
>> good lenses appeared at an affordable price in 2002, I bought one and
>> found that it totally eclipsed the capabilities of 35mm film cameras
>> for my usual print sizes up to 11x14. I went to Medium Format film
>> (645, 6x6, 6x9 cm) for larger prints. When I bought my first 6 Mpixel
>> DSLR and top of the line lenses in 2003, I realized in short order
>> that there was no longer any point to shooting Medium Format film for
>> the print sizes I make (typically up to 16x20 inches).
>>
>> So for me, digital capture and processing outperforms Medium Format
>> film and processing at the 6 Mpixel, professional quality camera and
>> lenses point. Everything beyond that is a plus on the digital side,
>> and the handling and management of digital capture images is far far
>> far more convenient and flexible.
>>
>> Others will disagree with me and quote a bazillion silly numbers. But
>> don't bother, please. This is an ancient debate and I'm not going to
>> pursue it. I know what works for me.
>>
>> FWIW: I'd still like a Bronica RF645 camera with wide and normal
>> lenses. A beautiful piece of equipment, always wanted to work with
>> one. But if I got one, I doubt I'd get enough use out of it to be
>> worth the money, even at the current $600-700 price level.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Jens wrote:
>>> Hello list
>>> I'm getting into photographing with Pentax 67. BTW: I just got the SMC 1:4
>>> 165 mm Leaf Shutter lens for studio work. Nice lens :-).
>>> Has anyone done tests, showing the resolution etc. of 6x7 film images
>>> compared to digital 14-15 Mp images, please?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Jens
>>>
>>> --
>>> Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Godfrey
>> godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>
> --
> 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.
>
--
Godfrey
godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail L
RE: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
ever seen an 8x10 fujichrome on a light table?
absolutely mindblowing image quality.
--
J.C. O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net)
Join the CD PLAYER & DISC Discussions :
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdplayers/
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdsound/
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Bob
Sullivan
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 11:44 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
Godfrey,
Along the same lines as your commentary...
I've loved 35mm slides and projected images since I first got to borrow my
dad's Retina IIIc. The acutance in a 35mm Kodachrome image is just
wonderful. As a consumer, early digital could make acceptable 4x6 prints.
But the last couple of cameras from Pentax (K-5 & 7) are good enough to
rival those projected Kodachromes. And my results are better.
As for comparison to 6x7, look at transparency film on a light table with a
big loop. It will take your breath away, and a 15 meg digital file will
never compare to it. I won't be shooting much medium format film, but it
still has real IQ advantages.
Regards, Bob S.
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi
wrote:
> There is no sensible, direct translation of film acutance to digital
> resolution. I have watched people quoting ppi, sensor resolution, etc
> etc for years. It's all horsepucky.
>
> The resolution of film is dependent on many factors:
> - film speed
> - how it is exposed
> - how it is processed ... gamma is critical
> - how acutance is measured (what criteria is chosen)
>
> The resolution of a digital sensor is similarly dependent upon several
> factors
> - the size of the sensor
> - the {x,y} photosite dimensions
> - the strength of the antialiasing filter
> - how it is exposed
> - how it is processed
> - how acutance is measured
>
> All of that is important even before you think about lens qualities,
> scanning the film, etc etc.
>
> But that doesn't stop me from making an assessment based on my
> experience using specific cameras and lenses.
>
> I shot film for 45 years and have been working with digital capture
> and processing since 1984. When the first 5Mpixel digital cameras with
> good lenses appeared at an affordable price in 2002, I bought one and
> found that it totally eclipsed the capabilities of 35mm film cameras
> for my usual print sizes up to 11x14. I went to Medium Format film
> (645, 6x6, 6x9 cm) for larger prints. When I bought my first 6 Mpixel
> DSLR and top of the line lenses in 2003, I realized in short order
> that there was no longer any point to shooting Medium Format film for
> the print sizes I make (typically up to 16x20 inches).
>
> So for me, digital capture and processing outperforms Medium Format
> film and processing at the 6 Mpixel, professional quality camera and
> lenses point. Everything beyond that is a plus on the digital side,
> and the handling and management of digital capture images is far far
> far more convenient and flexible.
>
> Others will disagree with me and quote a bazillion silly numbers. But
> don't bother, please. This is an ancient debate and I'm not going to
> pursue it. I know what works for me.
>
> FWIW: I'd still like a Bronica RF645 camera with wide and normal
> lenses. A beautiful piece of equipment, always wanted to work with
> one. But if I got one, I doubt I'd get enough use out of it to be
> worth the money, even at the current $600-700 price level.
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Jens wrote:
>> Hello list
>> I'm getting into photographing with Pentax 67. BTW: I just got the
>> SMC 1:4 165 mm Leaf Shutter lens for studio work. Nice lens :-). Has
>> anyone done tests, showing the resolution etc. of 6x7 film images
>> compared to digital 14-15 Mp images, please?
>>
>> Regards
>> Jens
>>
>> --
>> Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Godfrey
> godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
>
> --
> 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.
>
--
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.
--
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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
I am with Collin here. It is really a question without an answer. I mean - it just depends. If you have a drum scanner nearby with highly trained operator, then you can produce amazing amount of information and tremendous enlargements from your 6x7 negative. For the references, several years ago to scan one 35 mm frame on a drum scanner in Tel Aviv was USD 25. And they clearly indicated that they will not assume any responsibility if the film gets damaged in the process. OTOH, if you have 16 MP K-5 and all these fancy tools (fractal upressing, etc), you can probably get very far as well. Finally, it would also depend on a specific picture. Boris On 12/31/2010 5:17 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: There is no "fair" resolution comparison because the systems are so different. There is chemical information on a larger negative wich cannot be duplicated on digital because it is simply not present. Likewise, digital information takes to enlargement much better than does film (in most instances). A 12MP dslr, APS-C size, will be about 3K DPI. Scan a 6x7cm neg @ 3Kdpi and you will have more information available than there is from the DSLR. Likewise, place the digital information on film via a film recorder and you will have a lower grade image. IOW, while the large film neg has better/more information it is more difficult to manage for enlargement. Now, if you would shoot 8x10 or 11x14 and do a contact print -- then you would be tempted forget digital. There is a reason why a number of pros will shoot reversal and then drum scan for digital manipulation. It makes sense. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose" -- Jim Elliott -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
On Dec 31, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
> Godfrey,
>
> Along the same lines as your commentary...
> I've loved 35mm slides and projected images since I first got to
> borrow my dad's Retina IIIc.
> The acutance in a 35mm Kodachrome image is just wonderful.
> As a consumer, early digital could make acceptable 4x6 prints.
> But the last couple of cameras from Pentax (K-5 & 7) are good enough
> to rival those projected Kodachromes. And my results are better.
>
> As for comparison to 6x7, look at transparency film on a light table
> with a big loop.
> It will take your breath away, and a 15 meg digital file will never
> compare to it.
> I won't be shooting much medium format film, but it still has real IQ
> advantages.
>
On a light table with a loop, yes. Scanned, not so much.
Paul
> Regards, Bob S.
>
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi
> wrote:
>> There is no sensible, direct translation of film acutance to digital
>> resolution. I have watched people quoting ppi, sensor resolution, etc
>> etc for years. It's all horsepucky.
>>
>> The resolution of film is dependent on many factors:
>> - film speed
>> - how it is exposed
>> - how it is processed ... gamma is critical
>> - how acutance is measured (what criteria is chosen)
>>
>> The resolution of a digital sensor is similarly dependent upon several
>> factors
>> - the size of the sensor
>> - the {x,y} photosite dimensions
>> - the strength of the antialiasing filter
>> - how it is exposed
>> - how it is processed
>> - how acutance is measured
>>
>> All of that is important even before you think about lens qualities,
>> scanning the film, etc etc.
>>
>> But that doesn't stop me from making an assessment based on my
>> experience using specific cameras and lenses.
>>
>> I shot film for 45 years and have been working with digital capture
>> and processing since 1984. When the first 5Mpixel digital cameras with
>> good lenses appeared at an affordable price in 2002, I bought one and
>> found that it totally eclipsed the capabilities of 35mm film cameras
>> for my usual print sizes up to 11x14. I went to Medium Format film
>> (645, 6x6, 6x9 cm) for larger prints. When I bought my first 6 Mpixel
>> DSLR and top of the line lenses in 2003, I realized in short order
>> that there was no longer any point to shooting Medium Format film for
>> the print sizes I make (typically up to 16x20 inches).
>>
>> So for me, digital capture and processing outperforms Medium Format
>> film and processing at the 6 Mpixel, professional quality camera and
>> lenses point. Everything beyond that is a plus on the digital side,
>> and the handling and management of digital capture images is far far
>> far more convenient and flexible.
>>
>> Others will disagree with me and quote a bazillion silly numbers. But
>> don't bother, please. This is an ancient debate and I'm not going to
>> pursue it. I know what works for me.
>>
>> FWIW: I'd still like a Bronica RF645 camera with wide and normal
>> lenses. A beautiful piece of equipment, always wanted to work with
>> one. But if I got one, I doubt I'd get enough use out of it to be
>> worth the money, even at the current $600-700 price level.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Jens wrote:
>>> Hello list
>>> I'm getting into photographing with Pentax 67. BTW: I just got the SMC 1:4
>>> 165 mm Leaf Shutter lens for studio work. Nice lens :-).
>>> Has anyone done tests, showing the resolution etc. of 6x7 film images
>>> compared to digital 14-15 Mp images, please?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Jens
>>>
>>> --
>>> Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Godfrey
>> godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>
> --
> 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.
--
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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
Godfrey,
Along the same lines as your commentary...
I've loved 35mm slides and projected images since I first got to
borrow my dad's Retina IIIc.
The acutance in a 35mm Kodachrome image is just wonderful.
As a consumer, early digital could make acceptable 4x6 prints.
But the last couple of cameras from Pentax (K-5 & 7) are good enough
to rival those projected Kodachromes. And my results are better.
As for comparison to 6x7, look at transparency film on a light table
with a big loop.
It will take your breath away, and a 15 meg digital file will never
compare to it.
I won't be shooting much medium format film, but it still has real IQ
advantages.
Regards, Bob S.
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> There is no sensible, direct translation of film acutance to digital
> resolution. I have watched people quoting ppi, sensor resolution, etc
> etc for years. It's all horsepucky.
>
> The resolution of film is dependent on many factors:
> - film speed
> - how it is exposed
> - how it is processed ... gamma is critical
> - how acutance is measured (what criteria is chosen)
>
> The resolution of a digital sensor is similarly dependent upon several factors
> - the size of the sensor
> - the {x,y} photosite dimensions
> - the strength of the antialiasing filter
> - how it is exposed
> - how it is processed
> - how acutance is measured
>
> All of that is important even before you think about lens qualities,
> scanning the film, etc etc.
>
> But that doesn't stop me from making an assessment based on my
> experience using specific cameras and lenses.
>
> I shot film for 45 years and have been working with digital capture
> and processing since 1984. When the first 5Mpixel digital cameras with
> good lenses appeared at an affordable price in 2002, I bought one and
> found that it totally eclipsed the capabilities of 35mm film cameras
> for my usual print sizes up to 11x14. I went to Medium Format film
> (645, 6x6, 6x9 cm) for larger prints. When I bought my first 6 Mpixel
> DSLR and top of the line lenses in 2003, I realized in short order
> that there was no longer any point to shooting Medium Format film for
> the print sizes I make (typically up to 16x20 inches).
>
> So for me, digital capture and processing outperforms Medium Format
> film and processing at the 6 Mpixel, professional quality camera and
> lenses point. Everything beyond that is a plus on the digital side,
> and the handling and management of digital capture images is far far
> far more convenient and flexible.
>
> Others will disagree with me and quote a bazillion silly numbers. But
> don't bother, please. This is an ancient debate and I'm not going to
> pursue it. I know what works for me.
>
> FWIW: I'd still like a Bronica RF645 camera with wide and normal
> lenses. A beautiful piece of equipment, always wanted to work with
> one. But if I got one, I doubt I'd get enough use out of it to be
> worth the money, even at the current $600-700 price level.
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Jens wrote:
>> Hello list
>> I'm getting into photographing with Pentax 67. BTW: I just got the SMC 1:4
>> 165 mm Leaf Shutter lens for studio work. Nice lens :-).
>> Has anyone done tests, showing the resolution etc. of 6x7 film images
>> compared to digital 14-15 Mp images, please?
>>
>> Regards
>> Jens
>>
>> --
>> Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Godfrey
> godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
>
> --
> 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.
>
--
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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
There is no sensible, direct translation of film acutance to digital
resolution. I have watched people quoting ppi, sensor resolution, etc
etc for years. It's all horsepucky.
The resolution of film is dependent on many factors:
- film speed
- how it is exposed
- how it is processed ... gamma is critical
- how acutance is measured (what criteria is chosen)
The resolution of a digital sensor is similarly dependent upon several factors
- the size of the sensor
- the {x,y} photosite dimensions
- the strength of the antialiasing filter
- how it is exposed
- how it is processed
- how acutance is measured
All of that is important even before you think about lens qualities,
scanning the film, etc etc.
But that doesn't stop me from making an assessment based on my
experience using specific cameras and lenses.
I shot film for 45 years and have been working with digital capture
and processing since 1984. When the first 5Mpixel digital cameras with
good lenses appeared at an affordable price in 2002, I bought one and
found that it totally eclipsed the capabilities of 35mm film cameras
for my usual print sizes up to 11x14. I went to Medium Format film
(645, 6x6, 6x9 cm) for larger prints. When I bought my first 6 Mpixel
DSLR and top of the line lenses in 2003, I realized in short order
that there was no longer any point to shooting Medium Format film for
the print sizes I make (typically up to 16x20 inches).
So for me, digital capture and processing outperforms Medium Format
film and processing at the 6 Mpixel, professional quality camera and
lenses point. Everything beyond that is a plus on the digital side,
and the handling and management of digital capture images is far far
far more convenient and flexible.
Others will disagree with me and quote a bazillion silly numbers. But
don't bother, please. This is an ancient debate and I'm not going to
pursue it. I know what works for me.
FWIW: I'd still like a Bronica RF645 camera with wide and normal
lenses. A beautiful piece of equipment, always wanted to work with
one. But if I got one, I doubt I'd get enough use out of it to be
worth the money, even at the current $600-700 price level.
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Jens wrote:
> Hello list
> I'm getting into photographing with Pentax 67. BTW: I just got the SMC 1:4
> 165 mm Leaf Shutter lens for studio work. Nice lens :-).
> Has anyone done tests, showing the resolution etc. of 6x7 film images
> compared to digital 14-15 Mp images, please?
>
> Regards
> Jens
>
> --
> Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
--
Godfrey
godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
--
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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
On Dec 31, 2010, at 9:10 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote: > Jens, > No tests here, but the film is the same and the exposed area is 4X+ > the size of 35mm. > I would expect 4X the size of the K-5 or K-7 files is what you'd need. > I don't think lens resolution is a problem. > Regards, Bob S. > > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Jens wrote: >> Hello list >> I'm getting into photographing with Pentax 67. BTW: I just got the SMC 1:4 >> 165 mm Leaf Shutter lens for studio work. Nice lens :-). >> Has anyone done tests, showing the resolution etc. of 6x7 film images >> compared to digital 14-15 Mp images, please? I don't think you can do valid testing, as it's an apples to oranges comparison. And if you digitize the 6x7 negs, the quality of the scan is the limiting factor. I was scanning my 6x7 negs on an Epson 3200 flatbed at 3200 dpi. The images are nice, but not as good as my K5 delivers. With a high end scanner, I would think you can top the digital images, but not with a flatbed. Paul >> >> Regards >> Jens >> >> -- >> Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > -- > 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. -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
There is no "fair" resolution comparison because the systems are so different. There is chemical information on a larger negative wich cannot be duplicated on digital because it is simply not present. Likewise, digital information takes to enlargement much better than does film (in most instances). A 12MP dslr, APS-C size, will be about 3K DPI. Scan a 6x7cm neg @ 3Kdpi and you will have more information available than there is from the DSLR. Likewise, place the digital information on film via a film recorder and you will have a lower grade image. IOW, while the large film neg has better/more information it is more difficult to manage for enlargement. Now, if you would shoot 8x10 or 11x14 and do a contact print -- then you would be tempted forget digital. There is a reason why a number of pros will shoot reversal and then drum scan for digital manipulation. It makes sense. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://kerygmainstitute.org "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose" -- Jim Elliott -- 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: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
Jens, No tests here, but the film is the same and the exposed area is 4X+ the size of 35mm. I would expect 4X the size of the K-5 or K-7 files is what you'd need. I don't think lens resolution is a problem. Regards, Bob S. On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Jens wrote: > Hello list > I'm getting into photographing with Pentax 67. BTW: I just got the SMC 1:4 > 165 mm Leaf Shutter lens for studio work. Nice lens :-). > Has anyone done tests, showing the resolution etc. of 6x7 film images > compared to digital 14-15 Mp images, please? > > Regards > Jens > > -- > Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
