3 ms·

Here's a great article that goes in-depth on comparing the resolution and image quality of MF and LF film vs. images from a D800e. A D850 or A7R III has about 1

Here's a great article that goes in-depth on comparing the resolution and image quality of MF and LF film vs. images from a D800e. A D850 or A7R III has about 10% more linear resolution than a D800e. https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/ https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-v... I love this article because it not only looks at lines per mm, it considers other image quality factors like local contrast and color resolution.

foldr 8y ago
The article shows that the Velvia 50 isn't resolving significantly more detail than the D800e's sensor. It's not surprising that the CMS 20 shows more detail. CMS 20 is a technical film that's not usually practical for normal photography.
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  I'd suggest taking a closer look at the first set of test chart comparison shots. The D800e is not resolving any lines on the chart at all--the "lines" you see in the D800e shot are moire. You can see the same thing in the comparison shots of the camera. In the D800e shot, the Nikon logo and fine print on the lens are smeared, with yellow and blue artifacts. In the Mamiya Velvia shot, the Nikon logo is sharply defined, with no color artifacts. However, there is grain in Velvia shot. This is a good example of how there is more to resolution and image quality than just counting megapixels. If you hate grain, the D800e shot is better, despite the moire. If you'll tolerate grain for more resolution, the Mamiya Velvia shot is better.
  - foldr 8y ago
    I've seen the comparison shots - that's what I'm basing my comment on. The medium format film shots don't resolve the lines either - except the CMS 20, which is not a practical film for normal photography. These black and white line pair charts make film look more impressive than it really is, since film has a long "very fine detail at very low contrast" tail. A more instructive comparison would be medium contrast line pairs. As I said in my other comment, the easy way to prove that a medium format negative can resolve 80MP worth of detail is to provide an 80MP scan which loses detail when downsampled to, say, 40MP. I've asked a bunch of people for examples of such a scan over the years and never received one. For some reason, the comparison site you link to doesn't provide any of the original files, so it's difficult to draw any conclusions.

foldr 8y ago

The article shows that the Velvia 50 isn't resolving significantly more detail than the D800e's sensor. It's not surprising that the CMS 20 shows more detail. CMS 20 is a technical film that's not usually practical for normal photography.

snowwrestler 8y ago
I'd suggest taking a closer look at the first set of test chart comparison shots. The D800e is not resolving any lines on the chart at all--the "lines" you see in the D800e shot are moire. You can see the same thing in the comparison shots of the camera. In the D800e shot, the Nikon logo and fine print on the lens are smeared, with yellow and blue artifacts. In the Mamiya Velvia shot, the Nikon logo is sharply defined, with no color artifacts. However, there is grain in Velvia shot. This is a good example of how there is more to resolution and image quality than just counting megapixels. If you hate grain, the D800e shot is better, despite the moire. If you'll tolerate grain for more resolution, the Mamiya Velvia shot is better.
- foldr 8y ago
  I've seen the comparison shots - that's what I'm basing my comment on. The medium format film shots don't resolve the lines either - except the CMS 20, which is not a practical film for normal photography. These black and white line pair charts make film look more impressive than it really is, since film has a long "very fine detail at very low contrast" tail. A more instructive comparison would be medium contrast line pairs. As I said in my other comment, the easy way to prove that a medium format negative can resolve 80MP worth of detail is to provide an 80MP scan which loses detail when downsampled to, say, 40MP. I've asked a bunch of people for examples of such a scan over the years and never received one. For some reason, the comparison site you link to doesn't provide any of the original files, so it's difficult to draw any conclusions.