I am, of course, a firm believer in using whatever makes you happy,
and that
each medium has its own unique compromises. However, since my Canon
Digital days,
my colleague and I have always had these friendly challenges in terms
of evaluating
the relative performance of our (very different) equipment in the same
scenarios,
and these have always provided some interesting results, such as:
- The Zuiko Digital 50-200/2.8-3.5 is (at 100mm) just as good as Canon's
(basically perfect) 200/2.8 L II prime lens.
- The Zuiko Digital 7-14/4.0 smokes Canon's 16-35mm/2.8 in all aspects
except centre sharpness (and, of course, light-gathering ability).
- The E-3 has nowhere near the highlight dynamic range or high-ISO
capability of
a 4-years-older Canon 1-series DSLR.
- ...But it has much nicer colour out-of-camera
etc.
You get the idea. We don't publish these online, it's just for
ourselves. Also, in terms
of medium format film, I am a Mamiya RB67 user, he uses a Rollei 600x
SLR. I see some
serious potential for comparing the two systems...
However, last week's test was the following: A mild macro (around 1/6
magnification) of
the same subject (a vintage Voigtlander camera), results to be
compared only in terms of
the final print.
In my corner, an Olympus OM-1n and Zuiko 90mm f/2.0 Macro, set at f/
16. Self-developed and
wet-printed in the darkroom.
In his corner, Olympus E-3 and Zuiko Digital 50mm f/2.0 Macro, set at
f/8 for similar DOF
and diffraction blur etc. Processed however he likes, and digitally
printed on a fairly
high-end Epson printer (don't know the model, sorry).
Both carefully focused on the same part of the subject. I used Ilford
FP4 (a very traditional/grainy ISO 125 film with great
dynamic range), he shot the E-3 at ISO 100. Preliminary conclusions
thus far:
The good:
- The OM 90/2.0 and the ZD 50/2.0 macro lenses both seem to be equally
good performers. I don't think
either is better than the other.
- Both setups comfortably produce stunning 10x16 inch prints.
The bad:
- The OM/Film combination beats (and I mean, by FAR) the digital setup
in terms of resolving
power. There is, quite simply no comparison. I suspect I can get at
least twice (i.e. four times the area)
vs. the E-3 shot. The E-3 shot is pixel-sharp, and great quality, so
no focus or noise issues can be blamed.
Most online wars around this is for digitally scanned film, but a
darkroom wet print (and this though a 50-year old
Agfa Varioscop enlarger with fungussed lens) is just leagues ahead in
terms of resolution and
"graceful degradation" when you enlarge beyond sensible sizes.
- The OM/Film combination has much superior dynamic range to the E-3/
ZD50mm combination. There
is also, simply, no comparison. Our shot had quite high DR (it's a
sunlit chrome and black
Voigtlander camera, with lots of dark shadows).
The ugly:
- It's impossible to get all the information captured by the film,
onto the paper. Especially the
incredibly weak dynamic range of photo paper! One cannot have good
contrast *and* high dynamic range,
whereas with digital processing one can have the best of these worlds,
and repeatably get them on paper.
Ever last digital pixel is printed as a perfect square on the paper.
- Digital ISO100 is absolutely grain-free, whereas of course FP4 films
has visible grain at these
enlargements.
The digital print was immediately pleasing, whereas it takes many many
tries and adjustments (and wasted paper!)
to get a good optical print. Until I get a good enlarging exposure
meter, in anyway :-)
These are just preliminary findings. I suspect my colleague is not the
world's best digital printer,
and I know I am still just an amateur optical printer. And it's all in
good fun... But those film
shooters around, just know that, when it comes to the print, B&W film
(even in the hands of an amateur)
does much better than digital B&W prints, in terms of resolving power.
Or, to state it properly, it does
so in our hands. We are both just photography enthusiasts, not full-
time professionals.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|