Geek alert. Although the mentality stems from the last century, the megapixel wars are not over. It is, however, safe to say that those of us familiar with our cameras have started to realize that they are much more than megapixels + dynamic range. There are other factors that we have come to admit are important to consider – case in point, the sensor. Some are noisy, some are big, some are juicy, others are…well… you get my point. These apparent truths prompted a conversation with my friend Sohail and led him to this in-depth post about the comparison of digital sensors and processing systems that go into today’s cameras — all with the emulsion (the photo sensitive side of film) discussion that used to kick around in the era of film. It’s all coming full circle now… Take it away Sohail. -Chase
A few months ago, I made a switch in camera platforms. Comparing images taken with a 5D Mark III and a Nikon D800, I found that there was something about the Nikon image that I really liked, something that went beyond the standard things that can be quantified, like its 36MP resolution, or its 12 stops of dynamic range.
The atmospheric conditions for the two shots were different, but even accounting for that, the 5D Mark III image was uncomfortably crunchy, with some pretty serious color noise and banding in the shadows. The D800 shot, on the other hand, had amazing tonality, and the noise was mostly luminance noise, smoothly rendered, almost organic, like film grain.
I’d love to tell you that this was a moment of epiphany. It would be great if I could say something like, “And at that moment, it was as though the heavens themselves had opened up and poured the sweet song of angels down upon my ears and I realized I had found the camera I’d been waiting for all my life.”
Yeah, that didn’t happen. Though I did end up switching to Nikon, for a number of reasons. (Let no debate rage at this point…please).
An idea is born
Comparing the two images — especially the comparison of the Nikon’s luminance noise to film grain — did serve to make me aware of something that I think has been happening for some time now. Though the megapixel wars aren’t over by any means, we have started to look at our DSLRs as more than the sum of their megapixels.
I’m old enough to remember the halcyon days of film. Back then, we had vigorous discussions about tabular versus classic grain, T-Max vs Tri-X, why no one should shoot caucasian skin with Ektar 100 and why only masochists shot with color slide film (Chase tells me this was his primary mode). The old darkroom hands swapped developer recipes back and forth, or kept them close to the vest, like preciously guarded state secrets, while the young hands spent hours in the darkroom with pieces of cardboard punched with holes for dodging and burning under the enlarger.
It was with much amusement that I realized the parallels in our comparison of digital sensors and processing systems that go into cameras with the old film hands’ discussions about various emulsions.
Really? What parallels?
Let me break it down for you.
In the old days, every film could be said to have a purpose. Fuji Velvia was the landscape film, with awesome, popping greens. Kodak Tri-X was the photojournalist’s film, a 400 ASA film that you could push to three stops and shoot at ISO 3200. Kodak Portra was, as the name suggests, for portrait films.
We left a lot of that specialization behind when we went to digital – and thank goodness for it. Unlike real emulsions, however, digital emulsions can’t be switched out — unless you’re shooting medium-format or with a Ricoh GXR system — so it made sense to have a more “generalist” chip doing the job. Instead, we resorted to post-processing to recreate the look and feel we wanted, and this is an approach that still yeilds dividends today. The cityscape above was finished in Nik Color Efex Pro 4, for example, and I applied the Kodak Portra 160 effect to it to make it look the way I wanted.
But look around you. In the last couple of years, specialty sensors are, in fact, making an appearance. The Sigma SD–1, with its Foveon sensor, which purports to deliver a file that claims to rival medium-format images, for example. Or the proprietary X-Trans sensor in Fuji’s X-Pro1, with its EXR processor and built-in film effects, which does away with the standard optical low-pass filter and the traditional Bayer array of pixels, with fantastic results. Or the aforementioned D800E, with its ridiculous resolution and dynamic range. Or the most blatant of all specialty sensors – the Leica Monochrom-M with its black-and-white-only sensor.
That piece of silicon in your computer that sits on the film plane is starting to look a lot more like film, isn’t it?
Okay. But why does any of this matter?
Simple. It matters because when you reach for your wallet to buy or rent your next camera, accepting that there are differences in sensors beyond megapixels is going to go at least some way towards helping you pick your next camera.
Let me give you an example. If you’re the kind of shooter who likes HDR photography, then knowing that the D800E has incredibly dynamic range might help you chose that over, say, a Canon 5D Mark III. Or, if you’re nuts about great, popping, luscious colors, you might chose an X-Pro1. Black-and-white enthusiast? That Leica Monochrom might have your name on it.
The realization that the sensors going into digital cameras have their own unique characteristcs, just like the film emulsions of yesteryear, can actually direct your choice of cameras. I’ll happily put up with the X-Pro1’s foibles, for example, to get that awesomely luscious color out of it.
Wait a second. I can do that Velvia film look and get those colors in post, can’t I?
In many cases, sure. There are some great programs out there now that can help pull color out of RAW images like never before. And if you have the time, energy, and funds, you should invest in them.
You are, however, going to have a much better starting point if the sensor in your camera gets you that much closer to the look you want to begin with. To go back to images at the beginning of this article, I’m sure that with enough massaging, I could work that color noise out of the Canon image, deal with the banding to a large extent, then apply the film grain of my choice. I tried that, in fact, and like my experience, your results may not meet your expectations. After an hour of work on it, the image from the 5D was still murky in the shadows, and didn’t have the look I wanted.
The Nikon image, on the other hand, took less than ten minutes to get it to where I wanted it.
Conclusion
Unlike the days of film, you don’t need to delve into the minutae of the differences between film grains, the response curve of Portra 160 vs 400, or the tonality of Neopan Acros 100. But if you understand that — and accept — that modern sensors do, like their film analogues, have quirks and capabilities beyond those listed on the camera’s spec sheet, then you’ll be able to make a more informed decision about where you spend your money.
In the end, you’re going to make the image, not your camera. But it helps to have a great starting point.
—
Gear provided by BorrowLenses.com – where still photographers and videographers can rent virtually everything.
Sohail, I love articles like yours. I watch CreativeLive voraciously, and follow many photographers that Chase has had on there like Zack Arias and Matthew Jordan Smith. I have even started to do a bit of fashion photography of late. I teach photography locally, post on a number of forums, attend two camera clubs and am building out my http://www.onewiththecamera.com website all in part to help others along the path that I have been traveling in learning (or relearning) photography. I did a lot in school in the 60’s and 70’s when I was a kid, but had dropped it while raising a family. I took it up, this time digitally, only in recent years. I am amazed at the focus by so many on the geeky numbers side of things.
The biggest thing I try to show is the art of photography and to try to find the joy. I regularly tell my students there is no one right way to do things. I push them to become one with the camera (thus the name of my site) and the art of the shot. This is the main thing that drew me to enjoying your article so much. It was looking for the organic, the art, the fullness of photography beyond some simple numbers. Maybe if I am lucky one of these days I will get a chance to shoot with you or Chase (or Matthew or Zack….). In the meantime get Chase to have you do some more articles. I look to be inspired more!
Well, the D800 has fine sensor technology, shared with the D7000 and present Pentax DSLR’s in a smaller size, but the comparison to film types is not warranted. Many of the differences in films, such as noise, grain, contrast, color saturation, edge enhancement, and bas toward particular chromas can be emulated with more control using digitial editing. There are good sensors and better sensors. Some excel in particular parameters, but choosing sensors is not like choosing film. Choosing filters in a photo editing program is more like choosing film.
Also, the photos used to compare D800 and the 5D MIII offer little to compare.
I see I agree with tom who posted above. I suggest people choose sensors for high resolution, wide dynamic range, low noise, and relative freedom from banding, moire, and other known digital artifacts, not for which film the raw [pun intended] product resembles.
I’ve used MANY cameras over the years. Started in film, medium format, 35mm, Leica, Rolleiflex, Fuji GA645, Nikon, Canon Leica. Digitals too.I’ve tried everything except the Phase One. Leica S2 or Hasselblad digitals. (I can’t afford those big cameras, and have no need for them).
The digital cameras I’ve tried over the years that have come close to film are the Leica M8.2, (Not the M9), and the Sigma DP2M. I’ve also seen the D800E come close as well. Haven’t tried the Sigma DP3M yet, but I’m sure it’s just as nice as the Sigma DP2M. Some of these cameras aren’t the most versatile (ahem, Sigma!), but we’re talking about a film-like look and clarity. I would also include the Fuji X100s and Fuji X series, but due to some softness in the file, it just wasn’t quite as 3D looking and sharp as the Sigmas, but I still love the colors coming out of the cameras, just not as detailed as the Sigma. The Sigma is a pain, and certainly not an all-around useful camera, but it is the closest to film I’ve seen besides the D800E, if I had to pick two cameras that had that layered, film effect.
Now, Sigma needs to either step up and build a more versatile camera to match the Fuji and Nikon or sell the foveon to other camera companies.
My favorite film cameras? Rolleiflex TLRs, Fuji Medium Format, Pentax 6X7, Leica M6 with Summicron or Summilux lenses, Nikon F series cameras.
I am so surprised that so many immediately saw this as a Nikon vs Canon debate or a Nikon ad. It was nothing of the sort. I thought the article was awesome and inspired. The purpose of the article was to show the vast differences in image sensors from different companies and even different models of cameras. The author was trying to get us beyond the megapixel fights, and even the camera make fights and start to look more closely at the output of different cameras. Basically he was trying to get us to think differently.
And yes there is an “organic” quality to some sensors images. Things are not black and white (pun intended) all the time in digital images. As a matter of fact for me the more pleasant images are those that the image sensor has a more organic look to it and not so sharp and crisp and digital looking. Sometimes I even shoot higher ISO simply to get away from the overly clean and digital look that is often so present out there.
Rusty, dude, thank you! That’s gotta be one of the best summaries of the whole article I’ve seen so far 🙂
Sohail does not need an apples to apples comparison. Did you guys miss the point of the article? He is not choosing one camera over another and comparing tech specs. He is simply saying for the type of photography taken the D800 was his choice and what he prefers to use as a tool. Get over yourselves Canon and Nikon fanboys. Both companies make great cameras. It takes a great photographer to make a great photo
Thank you Dan! I was beginning to despair that people were missing the point of the article.
I should point out, folks, that for fast-action photography, I still reach for the Canon 1Dx. On video projects, I use 5D Mark III’s and Mari II’s. I haven’t yet switched to Nikon for video, as I use Technicolor Cinestyles on the Canon. I also use the Fuji X100 as my carry-around camera.
In other words, I’m about as platform-agnostic as it gets. No one camera company has my loyalty. And no one’s paying me to chose one over the other.