Pictured is the camera and lens I predominantly used before I made the switch from film to digital and one of the two I now use, the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II. The other camera which I now predominantly use is the Fuji X-T2.
The huge Pentax 6x7 is a medium format film camera with a negative, you guessed it, 6cm x 7cm, or approximately 2 1/4" x 2 3/4" in size. The lens is a 105mm f/2.4 "normal" lens which, in 35mm terms, would be approximately 52.5mm in field of view.
The camera and lens on the left is my new Olympus E-M1 Mark II with a Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 lens, again in 35mm terms, would approximate a 50mm field of view. In other words, what we commonly call a "normal" lens.
Below is a size comparison, in proper scale, depicting the differences between a 6x7 negative, a 35mm negative and the micro 4/3 sensor. Quite a difference, indeed.
Although huge and heavy, the Pentax produced amazingly beautiful images that, to me, a 35mm film camera could not duplicate. The key in my mind was the smooth tonalities and subtle transitions in luminance that 35mm film or slides just couldn't match. To me, it was worth the size and weight to get negatives and transparencies of such a pleasingly high quality. The Pentax was my "go to" camera for almost 25 years.
Although small, lightweight and convenient, the Olympus produces amazingly beautiful images as well also, in my opinion that a 35mm film camera could not duplicate. There is no longer a need to carry around large, unwieldy cameras and lenses to obtain exquisite image quality.
In my judgment, after using both the Pentax for a long, long time, and three different Olympus M4/3 cameras for now several years, I think the small Olympus equals or exceeds the Pentax in image quality, both subjective quality and objective quality. The Olympus Mark II has better resolution, more dynamic range and the same smooth, beautiful colors and subtle transitions that I found in medium format film cameras.
I believe we are fortunate to have the digital tools that are available to us today. They are of excellent quality, have so many features that we can't even keep track of them, produce superb images and are a reasonable expense, considering what you get for your money.
I'm glad I've lived long enough to see this transition. Even though I sometimes think I would like to shoot some film again, I remember the frustrations and limitations of film and just shake my head. Digital imaging wins every time in my book.
Thanks for looking. Enjoy!
Dennis A. Mook
All content on this blog is © 2013-2017 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.
Excellente comparaison. Moi aussi je suis de cet avis, même si j'adore toujours mon appareil moyen format.
ReplyDeleteBien a vous.
Didier ROUSSEL
Didier,
DeleteMerci pour votre commentaire. Il y a tellement de choses sur les caméras de format moyen qui tiennent une place spéciale dans mon cœur.
J'espère que vous avez un agréable week-end.
I also was a long-time Pentax 6x7 user and believe it gave me the highest percentage of keepers of any camera I have ever used. I really find shooting film more enjoyable, however for the projects I do I just can't afford it. For my just-completed "Backroads and Byways of Georgia" book, I shot the equivalent of 118 rolls of 35mm film. At about $20 per roll for film and processing, that would be $2360, not to mention hours and hours of scanning time.
ReplyDeleteThe great printer Ctein, who used to write a weekly post for The Online Photographer, was also a Pentax 6x7 shooter for many years. He stated that the 16-megapixel Olympus EM5 produced better image quality than the Pentax. So the EM1.2 should be even better. Amazing!
I still find myself sometimes unable to believe that my little EM5 is as good as it is. My wife wanted a photo of daffodils that I shot with the EM5 made into a 16x48-inch canvas panel to hang over our fireplace. I had the panel printed at Costco, and it will absolutely knock your socks off!
Dave, thanks for your comment. A couple of years ago I went to your site (or was it your publisher's) and looked with envy at many of the images in your wonderful book. Your vision and mine are closely aligned in how we see things.
DeleteSimilarly, I have a good photographer friend who, when we went to the Eastern Shore to photograph wildlife several years ago, shot about 40 rolls of film. That motor drive almost bankrupted him! LOL. It took him months to slowly pay for the processing. The next year, he was using a Nikon D200.
I remember Ctein's comment about M4/3 and his preference for, was it the 12mm and the 45mm lenses? I think he once said they would hold up even for a much higher pixeled camera. I know he made large prints that really were beautiful.
I don't miss the size and weight of the Pentax with 4 lenses. I guess it is nostalgia that keeps them in their old case and not on EBay.
I sold mine in 2006. I regret that, but if I had kept it, I probably wouldn't use it. Certainly wouldn't want to carry the weight!
ReplyDeleteMerci pour cette analyse et réflexion sur la révolution technologique qu'est la photographie numérique versus son ancienne contrepartie argentique. En effet le format numérique est une véritable libération technique, créative et sociale pour l'art photographie et l'activité photo en général. Il suffit de refaire l'expérience du film traditionnel pour s'en rendre compte. Et comme vous le mentionnez si justement, nous sommes privilégiés de vivre cette évolution.
ReplyDeleteMerci encore pour votre article,
Daniel M
photodanielm.blogspot.ca
Daniel, thank you for your comment. We are, indeed, fortunate to have access to these photographic tools.
Delete