Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/05/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]i've been hearing the comment a lot lately that the DSLR cameras are so good, they're closing the gap on the "medium format" digital backs. i also had a guy who needed to know if he could use the Canon (EOS1DsM2) to repro paintings instead of coughing up for the 22mp Imacon or Leaf. SO, i had to put this to rest by doing some comparisons. the first thing i did was to shoot a painting and print it at full size. it was 40" x 60", so i shot it and printed a 40" wide strip. i shot it with the Canon, the H1 with the Imacon 22mp chip, and then the Imacon in Micro-step (16-shot, effective 80mp) mode. there's a BIG diffference. the Canon is ok, but doesn't have the resolution, color accuracy or dynamic range to capture the nuance in a painting (a pretty simple task, considering the dynamic range of paint). the 22mp single shot looks good, and the microstep is astounding. we used to talk about the difference in a nikon scanner, at 4000 "dpi" and an imacon at 8000, and the description i liked was that, at 4000 you can see the grain, at 8000 you can see the edges of the grain. it's much the same with the painting. in 16-shot you can see the edges of the canvas tooth. the range and color are heads over the Canon, too. that was pretty much expected. the ted-dillard-rule-of-chip-performance-and-high-speed-motosports holds up... you want to go fast, you need horsepower and got to pay the money. however, i've been hearing that the big-chip DSLRs are "good enough", especially since a commercial shooter rarely prints over a double-page spread. i've actually said that, too. so i wanted to compare and print at 16x20 to see the difference in files, as printed, and well within the comfort range of any of the cameras. i shot the Nikon D2X, the Canon EOS1Ds, again the Imacon in single- shot and microstep. (due respect to the Leaf Valeo 22, it's going to do about the same as the imacon in single shot, and my V22 was out on a rental. >AND, i don't want to hear squawks about not shooting with the Canon >MARK2. even owners who have replaced their 1Ds with the 1Ds M2 at great >expense have said, after all, there's not much diff.) > >i processed them as well as i could, trying to show each file in it's >best light. i printed them on the 4000 at 16x20. the results were VERY >interesting. > >FIRST, the Nikon and the Canon were VERY similar files, even looking >close before the print. this was quite an eye-opener... i was not >greatly impressed at first glance at the Nikon files, but, toe-to toe >with Canon they hold their own. i even think they have more dynamic >range and better color, but that ain't science talkin... > >NEXT, there's a BIG difference between the final prints. the best >description i can make is the difference between an 8x10 print made with >35mm film, 4x5, and an 8x10 contact print. the big chips give you more >dynamic range, better color, better resolution, generally a richer, more >vibrant print. the most interesting thing to me was the comparison >between single and 16-shot with the 22mp chips... i would have thought >you couldn't see the difference at 16x20, but it was astounding. > >wheeler... you remember when you were talking about doing some shooting >with 2 1/4 back in the '90s and panned it? you had said that even at >8x10, the 4x5 simply has more "data" than 2 1/4, and we laughed because >it was such a perfect analogy. well, it still holds true. > >i get so carried away trying to find out how big you can push these >cameras, i forget about what they can do small... it's just like making >a contact print again. it's funny... all the prints look good, but when >you put them side-by-side you see the clarity, richness and definition >of the big chips. sort of like putting a selenium-toned print next to a >non-toned print. you don't know what you're missing until you see it >there. i guess its the same reason you and rantoul hump that big-assed >8x10 all over god's green earth to make ART. (or is it ARTHUR?) > >that's it for me. off to see the PAW-SOX with a dozen 5th grade boys! >woohoo! > >Ted Dillard >EP Levine, Inc. >EPL Digital >23 Drydock Avenue >Boston, MA. 02210 >---------------------------------- Very,very interesting test! I find out some direct conclusions: a. Laws of physic do rule as bigger chips produce better images and a Leaf Valeo 22 is better. I hardly can differ. b. Mr.Dillard find however than a smaller chip like D2X has "more dynamic range and better color, but ain't science talkin..." He has, oh wonder!, discovered the "glow" in digital world... c. Consequently a Leica Digital Back may have a smaller chip but we cannot loose the hope it will be the best... My Cartesian mind will call this an emotional logical approach...or perhaps a logical emotional approach! Warm regards Felix