1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

When Will Micro Four Thirds Equal Medium-Format Film?

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by Biro, Mar 7, 2016.

  1. Biro

    Biro Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 8, 2011
    Jersey Shore
    Steve
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2016
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. dwig

    dwig Mu-43 Top Veteran

    621
    Jun 26, 2010
    Key West FL
    I agree. I "asked the question" a number of years ago and reached the same conclusion. The post on TOP doesn't surprise me at all.

    I have over 1/2 century of printing experience, mostly 35mm but a good bit of MF (6x6 and 6x9) and LF (4x5), both my own hand printing and printing through various commercial labs. I have gelatine silver B&W prints and chromagenic color prints hanging along side of my more recent digital (B&W and color, m43 & smaller) for comparison. I also print large format digital prints (20x30" - 40x100") on canvas and paper daily from both 35mm film scans (Fuji Velvia & Velvia50 with an Imacon 848 scanner) and FF digital (Nikon D800). m43 beats everything except the 4x5 B&W gelatine silver prints and the digital prints from the D800. The Imacon film scans are, on average, not quite as good as the m43 (original 12mp Pany G-1) digital prints.
     
  3. janneman

    janneman Mu-43 Veteran

    414
    Dec 6, 2012
    Netherlands
    Jan (John) Kusters
    I fully agree with Ctein.
    Looking at fine detail in my 12x16 inch/30x40cm prints, it went way past 4.5x6cm medium format with the introduction of the 16 mp sensor and the E-M5 (for average work with normal films). Before that, my Nikon D80 came close, and perhaps with better technique like I have now, it might equal my old medium format work.
    Digital high ISO had been better long before that, back in film days, anything pushed past 400 ISO would result in more clumpy grain, less sharpness and way less dynamic range.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2016
  4. gr6825

    gr6825 Mu-43 Veteran

    277
    Oct 10, 2012
    This is such a bizzare impulse. By the way, this common "M4/3 is as good/better compared to X" says a lot IMO. If you are happy with the gear, why always talking about whether it is good enough? I have an opinion of course ;)

    Anyways, making a general better/worse comparison between medium format film and M4/3 digital is so full of variables that I cannot see the practical value. Can M4/3 do some things better? I guess the answer is yes. Sorry but I have experience using M4/3 and medium format film and they look SO different. This is my opinion and based on my subjective impression of the output from each. Some shots look more different and some shots look less different. Different formats have different looks. Heck, even within a format can have huge variation depending on lenses, etc. I just don't understand why the need to standardize everything and compare on one big spectrum. Vive la différence!
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  5. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    A blog like TOP needs topics so these things come up. Photography forums will pick up on something like this. Enough folks find it interesting, so there it is. I agree that the important part is my own perception of my needs, and I became happy with mu34 when the 16 mp sensors came out, and not just for resolution purposes.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Wisertime

    Wisertime Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 6, 2013
    Philly
    Steve
    It's called click bait. Someone posted it on FB.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. eteless

    eteless Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 20, 2014
    I don't think it has equaled slow speed film if you get everything right (exposure at both capture and printing, perfect development, etc), however you have to get everything right and only then does film have a chance. With digital you really don't need to get everything perfect to get good results, the files produced by the camera are always pretty optimal. (Remember that there's no stabilization for medium format film either, so you're going to be using a tripod whereas for digital you can generally get away without)

    The biggest problem is that the low speed film required to come close to digital is pretty much all gone, high ISO film lost out over 10 years ago. Naturally this is only for black and white, no competition at all for colour.
     
  8. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    I read TOP every other day or so. I would have encountered it tomorrow. What's the face book connection? I admit I don't use FB.
     
  9. marcsitkin

    marcsitkin Mu-43 Veteran

    307
    Jan 24, 2013
    Harwich, MA USA
    Marc Sitkin
    I have to agree with Ctein. Prints from my 4/3 compare quite favorably with images shot on low speed negative film from my Pentax 6x7, Rollie 2002 and Fuji Wide cameras of the 80's and 90's. Most of the images of that era were shot on tripod, cable release and mirror locked to get optimum sharpness. I almost never use a tripod now, I can be much more free in my shooting, and still pull a great print.
     
  10. Wisertime

    Wisertime Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 6, 2013
    Philly
    Steve
    There is a FB Olympus group "OMD Worldwide shooters", though it's not "official" I don't think. It started out good with some amazing photography being posted, but has devolved over time mostly into people posting photos of gear they bought, announcing what they ordered, asking really stupid questions (none of them RTFM) or making stupid speculations about Olympus making Full Frame, or why does the 300MM F4 cost so much?.... and the like. It's like a dumbed down version of DPR.

    So you're not missing much not having FB in any regard.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  11. Wisertime

    Wisertime Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 6, 2013
    Philly
    Steve
    I can't compare to Medium format or FF or APS-C even, but I'm blown away with what M43 and modern inkjet printers can output. I was part of a small photography gathering this weekend and showed a few of my prints done at home (at a local print shop that hosted to be exact) and everyone was impressed with the quality and details of my prints (12x16" to 16"x20").
     
  12. Biro

    Biro Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 8, 2011
    Jersey Shore
    Steve
    I honestly don't think it was click bait. Mike Johnston just doesn't work that way. I think it was something he had been thinking about and asked Ctein about.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  13. GBarrington

    GBarrington Mu-43 Veteran

    • Like Like x 1
  14. Biro

    Biro Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 8, 2011
    Jersey Shore
    Steve
  15. m4/3boy

    m4/3boy Mu-43 Veteran

    306
    Jul 21, 2013
    Everything that Mike Johnson writes about is click bait. This is just another one of his rehashed topics.
     
  16. Biro

    Biro Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 8, 2011
    Jersey Shore
    Steve
    Then we agree to disagree.
     
  17. m4/3boy

    m4/3boy Mu-43 Veteran

    306
    Jul 21, 2013
    I certainly don't agree to anything. You just haven't read enough of his drivel.
     
  18. Biro

    Biro Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 8, 2011
    Jersey Shore
    Steve
    No, I guess 10-plus years of reading TOP isn't enough. Sure, he does repeat himself. But it's not click bait.
     
  19. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Why should I be concerned with medium format film? Why is it a benchmark?
     
  20. GBarrington

    GBarrington Mu-43 Veteran

    You shouldn't, and it isn't. IMO, film and digital are two different mediums, and can't really be compared with any sort of reliable accuracy. It all depends on how narrowly you define your comparison criteria.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1