David Vs Goliath:

The Nikon D2x versus 6x7 Medium Format Film

by John D'Agostino

The D2x versus the Canon 1ds Mark II
The other top camera today is Canon's impressive 1ds Mark II, with 16 megapixels of resolution.
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
Above: Resolutions Compared.  Out of the box, the Kodak 14 slr/n is probably the sharpest DSLR on the market. Because it lacks an AA filter, unlike most other cameras, it does not soften detail. It is, however, far more susceptible to nasty artifacting and fringing, unlike the Canon 1ds series or Nikon D2x, with much cleaner, natural detail. Taking post-production into account, Imaging Resource has estimated that a 1 pixel sharpen of a D2x raw file can actually resolve over 3000 lph, a very high number. The slr/n (and film for that matter) cannot be improved to nearly such a degree, because their initial images are far less "pure" to begin with.
Above: 100% crops of the Canon 1ds II (16 MP) & the Nikon D2x (12 MP) DSLRs. Both were shot RAW and converted using Raw Shooters Essentials. The smaller D2x file was interpolated up to match the 1ds II's native size. The bottom line is that these flagship cameras are very, very close in overall image quality. For a more detailed analysis of each's strength's and weaknesses,  refer to Lloyd Chamber's excellent Comparison of the Nikon D2x with the Canon EOS 1ds Mark II. Although the Canon shows slightly more fine detail, Lloyd notes a number of interesting advantages for the Nikon, inlcuding a 2 stop advantage of depth field.
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 D2x file was interpolated up from 36 MB to 200 MB to match the drum scan.
The Importance of Drum Scanning
To obtain the best image quality from film, drum scanning is an absolute necessity. For gallery and exhibition quality prints, it is the industry standard. Many comparisons on the internet comparing film and digital forgo this step because of the cost involved. While inexpensive flatbed scanners like the handy Epson 2450 can be purchased for little more than a couple hundred dollars, just one drum scan can cost the same. Here in New York City, professional drum scans currently cost around a $1 per megabyte, meaning that a scan like the one below costs over $200 at a top lab such as Duggal.

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.

Whichever system one prefers, Canon or Nikon, the writing on the wall is pretty clear. DSLR's in a 35mm form factor are cleary taking Medium Format head on, outputting similar resolution in a format nearly 10 times smaller. With resolution counts expected well over 20 megapixels in the near future, the medium format industry could be in for some very tough times.
Above: 300 pixel crops from the final files @ 9000 pixels wide. Both cameras were tripod mounted and shot with cable release @ f/8. The Nikon was mounted with the 28mm f1.4, the Mamiya with the 80mm and Provia 100 film. The Provia was scanned on a Heidelberg Tango @ over 3000 dpi to output a 200 MB, 8 bit file. C1 Pro used for Raw conversion. Both files sharpened.
Only a few short years ago, many professionals doubted whether digital imaging could ever truly match the kind of quality consistently delivered by traditional film processes. And yet today, many would concede a 6 megapixel DX sized sensor to be equivalent or better than 35mm film.

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.

As a result, pro's stopped comparing DSLR's to 35mm film. The next most obvious choice was medium format, the staple of photography studios around the world. But even medium format now has competition. 645 Medium Format film, even when scanned with a dedicated film scanner, captures less detail, as in this nice comparison for example. Michael Clark's excellent review of the D2x, shown here, has comparisons both to 35mm film and to the Hasselblad 6x6 format. Impressively similar results for the digital, considering the film was scanned on the excellent Nikon 8000. As such, there's really only one comparison left. It would have to be 6x7. It would have to be with the sharpest film system one could get a hold of. And it would have to be scanned in by the very best scanner that could be found.

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?

Looking above, you'll see the drum scan on the left, and the D2x on the right. The drum scan is more detailed, as it should be. With some 63 megapixels of native, or "real" resolution, film's ultimate advantage still lies in extra big print sizes such as this.

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