</>



With the current crop of 20megapixel 35mm FX dslr cameras, I keep hearing from the digital scam artists how those "match medium format image quality".



Problem is: those claims are nothing but scams from folks with a vested interest in pushing the latest whitest and brightest at an over-inflated price!



In this journal I'm actually going to show you what

REAL

medium format film can do.


As in: scanned half-decently, from a half-decently taken original with a half-decent film emulsion.

Not the cooked up crap images shown in other sites, accompanied by demented claims of "how dirty film is"...


Are these idiots into pushing laundry detergents?
That is in fact one of the most often heard "complaints" about film, in many of the "fair comparison" sites out there!


Unreal...



But let's forget for the moment the subliminal "cleanliness" utter crap.




The claims are usually based on extremely poorly executed images with very old emulsions, out of date, lousily scanned with old scan gear and with really bad scan and software technique.



What you see below was done with out of date Velvia - the original, I'm told the new Velvia 50 scans even better! - and a 30 year old $300 Zeiss Flektogon 50mm/f5 lens mounted on a $300 Arax 60 6X6 camera.

The scanner is my trusted Nikon Coolscan 9000ED: an expensive piece of gear for sure, but NOWHERE NEAR the cost of one of the top of the line dslrs!




Let's move to REAL facts, boys and girls.


If you are using Firefox - and why shouldn't you? - then Ctrl-click on the images below to open the corresponding scrapbook page in a new tab and see full size images:


This is a downress of a 72megapixel image
,

or about 8576X8422 in real numbers.

This is a real size crop of an edge of the original 72mpixel


and this is a real size crop of the centre of same original
!



Of course: "any" dslr can match this level of image quality...

And I'm a direct descendent of Anastasia Romanoff...




Another often heard demented concept is that digital slrs have more depth of field than film cameras.


Sure...


Of course what is never said is that is true for cropped sensor dslrs. Those are the ones you get for a grand or so with a "kit" (read: crap) lens. Indeed they have more depth of field. Almost always...



Problem is: the ones that are supposed to match medium format in quality are NOT cropped sensor dslrs!


They do NOT have increased DOF!





But let's not argue the obvious: let's just look at REAL depth of field. Once again, Ctrl-click on images to get the full size in the scrapbook:


This is a downress of a crop of a 72mpixel image, around 50megapixel original (5880X8420)


and this is a real size close area crop of the 50megapixel original


while this is a real size away area crop of the 50megapixel original





Not "enough" depth of field?



Any more DOF than this and I suggest you start using pinhole cameras!...






but let's get deviantart-real here:

these images were not obtained with the latest pencanikony $8000 dslr body and $5000 lens!

no way!

these were taken with a $300 30 year old lens and a "rubbish" copy of an Ukrainian Kiev 60. we all know how those "must" be "bad quality"...


taken hand-held, to boot! late afternoon, exposure measured with an Arax centre-weighted manual meter prism.


I can't even begin to imagine what these would look like had I used a KL lens on the RB67 with new Velvia 50.


or rather: I don't have to imagine because I use that combo often and KNOW the results!




dslrs have "matched medium format image quality"?

yeah! right...

my message to the mediocrity promoters is very simple:

GET REAL!