39 ms·

6x6 film captured much more detail than 35mm film. But modern digital cameras of "35mm frame" are way beyond this, that's why nobody uses them with lenses from

by iguy 7y ago

6x6 film captured much more detail than 35mm film. But modern digital cameras of "35mm frame" are way beyond this, that's why nobody uses them with lenses from last century. So it's not crazy to hope that using one as a scanner (which is ideal conditions) might not leave much detail behind, from negatives shot on an old Hasselblad.

Drdrdrq 7y ago
> But modern digital cameras of "35mm frame" are way beyond this, that's why nobody uses them with lenses from last century. I would be really interested in hearing more about this (noob in this area). Are you saying the old Nikon / Canon lenses from 90s are a bad choice for modern DSLRs from these companies, or did I completely misunderstand you? If so, why is that?
- i_am_proteus 7y ago
  Newer digital sensors can resolve a higher 'resolution' than 35mm film. Using an older lens with a camera sporting a 20+ MP sensor will give you less sharp results than a similar new lens. But the image will be no worse than that old lens shooting film. And the lens will be much cheaper! If you (or others) like the results, the technical details do not matter.
  - Drdrdrq 7y ago
    Thank you!
ska 7y ago
Modern 35mm frame sensors still aren’t anywhere near the best MF film can do, though, unless things have changed radically in the last few years? I mean in spatial resolution, specifically. I must admit I haven’t paid attention for the last handful of years.
- stephen_g 7y ago
  That is the case, and a bit of quick googling suggests to a greater degree than I expected (depending on film and optics I saw estimated ranges of MF being able to resolve the equivalent of 80 to as much as 150 megapixels! I guess it makes sense that modern medium-format digital backs are often in that kind of range). If a digital SLR and a light table can get you enough resolution for what you want to use the images for though, that's fine. You could use that for most of your images and then get the ones you want to print really large professionally scanned later.

by iguy 7y ago

Drdrdrq 7y ago

> But modern digital cameras of "35mm frame" are way beyond this, that's why nobody uses them with lenses from last century. I would be really interested in hearing more about this (noob in this area). Are you saying the old Nikon / Canon lenses from 90s are a bad choice for modern DSLRs from these companies, or did I completely misunderstand you? If so, why is that?

i_am_proteus 7y ago
Newer digital sensors can resolve a higher 'resolution' than 35mm film. Using an older lens with a camera sporting a 20+ MP sensor will give you less sharp results than a similar new lens. But the image will be no worse than that old lens shooting film. And the lens will be much cheaper! If you (or others) like the results, the technical details do not matter.
- Drdrdrq 7y ago
  Thank you!

ska 7y ago

Modern 35mm frame sensors still aren’t anywhere near the best MF film can do, though, unless things have changed radically in the last few years? I mean in spatial resolution, specifically. I must admit I haven’t paid attention for the last handful of years.

stephen_g 7y ago
That is the case, and a bit of quick googling suggests to a greater degree than I expected (depending on film and optics I saw estimated ranges of MF being able to resolve the equivalent of 80 to as much as 150 megapixels! I guess it makes sense that modern medium-format digital backs are often in that kind of range). If a digital SLR and a light table can get you enough resolution for what you want to use the images for though, that's fine. You could use that for most of your images and then get the ones you want to print really large professionally scanned later.