The Nikon D2x versus 6x7 Medium Format Film
by John D'Agostino

| Format | Area (approx) | Times bigger than 35mm |
|
35mm
|
1 sq" | - |
|
645
|
4 sq" | 2.7x |
|
6x7
|
6 sq" | 4.5x |
| Format | Area (approx) | Times bigger than 35mm |
|
35mm
|
1 sq" | - |
|
645
|
4 sq" | 2.7x |
|
6x7
|
6 sq" | 4.5x |
![]() |
| Sensor Sizes Compared: D2x (367 sqmm) versus 6x7 (3,752 sqmm ). 6x7 Film is 10 times bigger. |
|
Image Sensor
|
MegaPixels
|
Sensor Size |
Lines per picture height
|
Resolution Relative to 35mm
|
|
Kodak 14 slr/n
|
13.5
|
36x24
|
2100
|
1.4
|
|
Nikon D2x
|
12.2
|
24x16
|
2100
|
1.4
|
|
Canon 1ds
|
11.0
|
36x24
|
1800
|
1.2
|
|
Canon 1d II
|
8.2
|
28x19
|
1600
|
1.0
|
|
35mm Provia
|
21.4
|
36x24
|
1600
|
1.0
|

| Format | Area (approx) | Times bigger than 35mm |
|
35mm
|
1 sq" | - |
|
645
|
4 sq" | 2.7x |
|
6x7
|
6 sq" | 4.5x |
| Format | Area (approx) | Times bigger than 35mm |
|
35mm
|
1 sq" | - |
|
645
|
4 sq" | 2.7x |
|
6x7
|
6 sq" | 4.5x |
|
|
Original Files
|
|
Final Files
|
||
|
D2x
|
6x7
|
|
D2x
|
6x7
|
|
|
Megapixels
|
12
|
63
|
|
54*
|
63
|
| File Size (8 bit) |
36 MB
|
200 MB
|
|
200 MB*
|
200 MB
|
| Pixel Dimensions |
4000 x 3000
|
9000 x 7000
|
|
9000 x 6000*
|
9000 x 7000
|
| Image Size @ 240 dpi |
12 x 18 "
|
31 x 39 "
|
|
26 x 39 "
|
31 x 39 "
|
The Downside of Drum Scanning
Other than its prohibitve cost, drum scanning's biggest disadvantage is grain. To extract every last bit of detail, drum scans pick up far more of the film's grain. In fact, some portrait photographers intentionally do not drum scan their film for this very reason, as the extra sharpness they can obtain is totally offset by all the marks and blemishes of the skin that are also accentuated.
Previously, digital sensors didn't need the extra resolution that film provided. Digital sensors from 4 to 6 megapixels, with only 60-80% of the actual resolution of 35mm film, could equal or better the image quality. This is because the second most important criteria in evaluating overall image quality, signal to noise ratio, was so superior, as shown here.
What we learned is that all pixels are not created equal. While a full frame of 35mm film can be scanned in @ 4000 dpi to obtain over a 21 MB file, the same amount of detail can actually be resolved by a digital sensor approximating only 8 megapixels (and likely far less in the years to come). Purely in terms of resolution, a digital pixel is almost 3x more powerful. In terms of noise, over 5x superior.
The choice was clear: the Mamiya 7II, widely considered the sharpest Medium Format system, drum scanned by the best scanner in the business, the Heidelberg Tango. And to make things really interesting, we'll compare the 2 at an exhibition quality print size, 30 x 40," or over 3 feet long. If ever there was a chance to prove the obvious superiority of film, then here it is. Can a digital sensor, with half the area of 35mm, compete with one from medium format, over 10 times bigger?

But the D2x's performance is clearly quite impressive. Given all of the disadvantages in this test, it still holds its own, even at a 30 x 40 inch print size. The film may be more detailed, but not by much, and it is clearly evident that there's still plenty of fine detail that even 6x7 film simply cannot resolve. Only 4x5 would show more detail.
The results are obvious. The D2x is clearly performing like a medium format camera, with resolution equivalent to regular medium format film scans, and is impressively close to all but the best drum scans. At print sizes below 20 x 30, the D2x is a more than capable performer. The tremendous extra value to clients cannot be overstated. With careful post production, a photographer burning a CD full of digital master files is essentially delivering a batch of drum scanned chromes that would normally cost hundreds of dollars each.
| Format | Area (approx) | Times bigger than 35mm |
|
35mm
|
1 sq" | - |
|
645
|
4 sq" | 2.7x |
|
6x7
|
6 sq" | 4.5x |
|
Format
|
Area | Times bigger than DX sensor |
|
D2x
|
367 | - |
|
35mm
|
864 | 2x |
|
645
|
2324 | 6x |
|
6x7
|
3752 | 10x |