I have been making photographs for decades in a variety of formats, but only with digital capture cameras for a few years. This question has primarily to do with landscape photography.

I have a D200 (10mp) which I like very much. I also have a stable of older Nikkor pre-digital lenses also. I also print. I print usually at approximately 360 ppi, hardly ever below 300 ppi, and on 8.5 “x11 “ (A4) paper.

All my observations, and questions, are in relation to that print size.

I have noticed that my color results at iso 400 and below are to my subjective eye, similar to 35mm Kodachrome 25 or Velvia 50 (depending on the settings), resolution and tonality-wise(In a good Cibachrome print), but with wider latitude in digital. On some occasions (cloudy, best lense, iso 100) it is slightly better.

In B&W, below ISO 400, I can get the apparent resolution/sharpness of the old 25 ISO tech pan with the tonality of Tri-x, but with less latitude (aka, DR) than Tri-x.

I have seen reference in some discussions /articles on the web, that full frame such as the Canon 5D, is reminiscent in resolution/tonality to the 645 medium format in film.

I know from my B&W darkroom days, that the qualitative difference in an 8x10 print, between 35mm & 645 format films, of the same iso, was obvious.

So, with the soon to be released Nikon D700 (since I got all that Nikon non-DX glass), has prompted me to post this question, I guess to folks who have used both cropped and FF DSLR’s:

In an 8”x10” print, will I notice a positive difference with full-frame, and what would if any, be that difference?

Thank you.

I suspect you won't notice much of a difference in an 8x10" print between a D-SLR with a full frame sensor and your D200. The issues in play are not the same as in the film world. The biggest determinant of tonal smoothness and percieved sharpness in an 8x10" digital print is probably the inkjet printer you're using. Any D-SLR of 6 megapixels or more will give you an excellent file at that print size; more megapixels really won't make it look significantly better. Only as you increase print size (and therefore the demands on the digital file) does the the advantage of a bigger sensor with higher pixel count and larger pixel pitch become apparent. At least that's been my experience; I got perfectly nice 8x10" prints from a Canon Eos-10D, but quality fell off sharply at about 11x14" for anything but a very "low frequency" image.

Actually, for an 8 x 10 print a D200 is overkill. Any 6.1 mp DSLR will do fine at that print size. You really need to stretch that D200 further. I think it will surprise you.

As a fairly recent convert to digital and a long time user of 6x6 (film) I was also taken by surprise by total irrelevance of the comparisons we made from the film days.

The 35mm to 6x6 (645) differences just are not the same. Making large prints with 35mm film just did not work well at all. With digital they do.

Very few people need 645 digital, so the standard is now 35mm digital. Full frame is probably better but as someone said previously, take that D200 for a real test drive. It sounds like you've been babying it.

I started with a D200 and have great prints at 24x30. Unheard of in the film days. The 5D is better, but for 8x10 the D200 is fine.


Michael

My surprise is that the OP found it made sense to compare 35mm and 645 with similar film. Having spent most of my career working with Nikon and Hasselblad, I came to the following conclusions: using Ilford´s 125ASA films in 35mm and then in 120 wasn´t at all the same thing - the 120 didn´t work out to have the same look, both processed in D76 1+1. However, going UP to TXP, 320ASA, on the 120 gave a better tonality. Based on that, comparisons are sort of misplaced.

Regardless, at 10x8 ins. I would have been surprised to see a noticeable difference in ultimate quality, just in look. The only problem was that with 35mm you had to lose top and bottom of the frame to get the format of the paper.

Further, I produced quite a lot of 35mm film display prints for fashion stores (black/white) on 40 inch paper, heights up to 60 ins. Too close, they weren´t so hot, but then neither was Ektachrome 120 blown up to similar sizes. I have to say that I did not do the printing at those sizes and my faith in sub-contracts was never high, but at 10x8 ins. I would have used either format without trepidation.

The D200 is my own digital camera too; sadly, I have not used it on people, just landcape and ruined buildings, so it becomes difficult to make a meaningful statement about how good or otherwise it might be compared with films. My guess would be that if you want to do outdoor shots of people, it might not look as good as original b/w or transparency film scanned. I say this because of what my experiences in the dead subjects world indicate: back lighting of hair etc. might just burn right out and not look like you expected it to look.

Using Ciba as a benchmark is a big leap of faith. I did use it too, when I had to, but it was such a temperamental and narrow minded material that short of making complicated masks etc. which would never have been financed on the few jobs where I used it, it was a material best left alone unless you had a subject with a VERY narrow range of brighnesses.

Making comparisons between Kodachrome 25, Velvia etc. with D200 capture is also complicated to say the least: how were they printed, those transparency films, to enable you to compare with digital originals? Again from personal discovery, my old Kodachrome 64 shots printed in b/w via a CanoScan FS4000US scanner and an HP B9180 printer on A3+ look far crisper and more detailed than they ever did scanned via drum and printed on 4 colour litho commercial presses at about the same size. To me, that suggests that the quality was always there on film, it just lacked the means to bring it out as finely as can be done now, AT HOME!

But the ability to use non-chipped lenses with the D200 is what made me take the plunge into digital; otherwise, I might well have just stayed with film until the labs ran out. As far as I can ascertain, the pro one nearest me has given up on E6 already...

Rob C

You won't see a difference under the conditions you mention even at 16x20 print sizes. For me the difference is in the ability to get optimal benefit from the 14-24mm f2.8 lens when it is on a FF camera. I could tell with a 4x6 print which picture was taken with this lens and which was taken with the 12-24mm f4 zoom.

I sold the 12-24mm and use the 14-24 on both a D3 and a D300. One really amazing lens.

I do not see significant differences between the D300 with the 17-55mm f2.8 lens and the D3 with the 24-70mm f2.8 lens and so still use the 17-55 lens with the D300.

For what it is worth, you might want to compare these 2 sets:

- Shot on D3

http://www.light-of-earths.com/Set-Asia-Nepal/E/Host.html

- Shot on D2x

http://www.light-of-earths.com/Set-China-L...ape/E/Host.html

My view is that there is slight difference in DR, but overall the difference in terms of sharpness is difficult to perceive, whatever the print size.

If a 5D is equivalent to 645 film, then a 40D/d2x/D300 also is. Some Canon fans in other forums have extrapolated some real advantages of FX over DX to being an overall superiority that is nothing but an urban myth. You hear a lot less of these stories now that FX is becoming a lot more common accross brands.

FX will provide best value if you are looking for shallow DoF and a slightly more forgiving casual shooting experience when you are not really willing to watch too closely how your highlights behave.

It is also a bit easier to focus critically with the D3 thanks to its larger viewfinder and the steeper focus curve for a given composition. I use MF more now than I used to with the D2x.

Cheers,
Bernard

Thanks foks for all the helpful responses.

Jay

An interesting podcast meditation by Brooks Jensen (editor of Lensework) on equipment and intended use/product.

http://www.lenswork.com/... .../LW0445%20-%20How%20to%20Save%2029,000.mp3