I would suggest that both rigs are suffering from diffraction at the
apertures selected and each should open one stop.
Chuck Norcutt
Dawid Loubser wrote:
> 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/
|