My first comparison

[timparkin]

Now I should preface this with a comment that I'm not a film or digital biased, I take both out when on location and use both 'in anger'. Given this however, I've always wondered what the scale of difference between the two is. So when I got my first scans back from a friend, I had to compare the results I got with my 5D with the scans (done with an epson 750). Some of the results of this process are currently posted at :-

http://www.flickr.com/photos/timparkin/2226597863/

I shall try to expand on this with some more commentary on my blog in the next week (http://blog.timparkin.co.uk).

Tim

[joolsb]

Some of the results of this process are currently posted at :-

http://www.flickr.com/photos/timparkin/2226597863/

I shall try to expand on this with some more commentary on my blog in the next week (http://blog.timparkin.co.uk).

Tim

Interesting and informative comparison. I'm surprised an Epson-scanned 5x4 beats a 5d, though. Did you use any capture sharpening on either image?

And any word on when David's new site will be launched?

[Lynne Evans]

Hi Tim

You don't know how much good you have done me! I have a 5D and have struggled to get anything that I consider really sharp, especially in landscapes. I use the 24-105 L series lens too and have to correct the chromatic aberration on practically every shot. Yet slap a 5x4 on the Epson and hey presto! sharp where it's meant to be sharp. I note your comments on flickr about how long it takes to set up an LF shot, but then if you add together the time spent taking, weeding out and correcting the digital shot , and take account of the quality of the end result, I think there's no contest. And a tranny just looks and feels so good!

Lynne

[timparkin]

Interesting and informative comparison. I'm surprised an Epson-scanned 5x4 beats a 5d, though. Did you use any capture sharpening on either image?

And any word on when David's new site will be launched?

Hi Jools!

Both scans were tweaked a little (the 5D sharpened more). I've uploaded an image with original of both to compare (and sharpened of both)..

http://www.flickr.com/photos/timparkin/2237574982/

David just has to finish a bit of copy on the site so it should be next month (definitely before Focus)

[timparkin]

Hi Tim

You don't know how much good you have done me! I have a 5D and have struggled to get anything that I consider really sharp, especially in landscapes. I use the 24-105 L series lens too and have to correct the chromatic aberration on practically every shot. Yet slap a 5x4 on the Epson and hey presto! sharp where it's meant to be sharp. I note your comments on flickr about how long it takes to set up an LF shot, but then if you add together the time spent taking, weeding out and correcting the digital shot , and take account of the quality of the end result, I think there's no contest. And a tranny just looks and feels so good!

Lynne

Hi Lynne! Glad I could help put your mind at rest! The one thing about the 5D, and digital cameras in general, is that the Bayer array means that even though you have 12Mp, you only get 6Mp of green and 3Mp each for both red and blue. The logic is that green carries most of the texture/shape in an image.. Raw software interpolates the extra information from the surrounding pixels, hence the difference between raw software..

Sooo... if you are taking a nice sunset with mostly red shades then you may only be using half of the available pixels. In general, I reckon you only really get about ~8 Mp of real information when you have lots of texture.

Film on the other hand has red green and blue at every pixel, and each of these has better colour range and more detail. In otherwords a 5D really won't reach the resolution of an MF frame (maybe it will in situations with smooth gradations like portraits, although the hair will look bitty), never mind an LF frame.

You all know this anyway Digital SLR's make good finders (although slightly pricey ones) with the bonus that you can print the results if you aren't too fussy...

Tim