"Micro 4/3 is better than 35mm used to be."
Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
ADDENDUM by Crabby Umbo: "...I should qualify that statement! It's still tough to get 'film look' in all digital, but I have to say that in terms of sharpness and 'blow-up-ability,' modern digital is better, and Micro 4/3 is easily the 'new' 35mm for photojournalists and those who always used the smaller formats, especially for ease of carry.
"I'm always amazed at how unsharp a lot of my 35mm stuff was in the olden days, and how most sharpness for small formats on a print was really the effect of the sharp grain rather than actual sharpness of the format. When the chromogenic B&W films first came out, I was amazed at how my small format stuff was not looking sharp, because there was no grain to be sharp on a print and give the effect of sharpness. Okay then...."
Featured Comments from:
robert: "These things are hard to compare. Full-frame is so much better than analog 35mm and had some designs on medium format, yet—if I make a 24" print from full-frame digital and medium format scanned film, I very much prefer the medium format film. If I make a 24" print from scanned 35mm film and an optical print from same, the optical falls apart.
"Traditional enlarging had limits that scanning doesn't with regard to holding the film flat in the enlarger. With scanning, that is solved. So you don't get those negs popping out of focus like you used to, and you can retain contest in a large print in a way what was hard optically. There is something about a large full-frame digital print that is thin to me; the colors are purer but less differentiated, and everything is sharp in a way that is unnatural to me. Regardless of sharpening. Scanned medium format is in many cases less sharp but has a depth that full-frame digital cannot match, and once you go above 11x17, is clearly better to my eyes. In reproduction, and online, and for colour accuracy, yes, full-frame digital. But it falls apart faster than you think."
Henry Richardson: "I have just finished the scanning of 10,000+ 35mm slides and negatives (color and B&W) that I have been doing little by little since the late 1990s. In the last 3–4 months I got really on it and scanned more than 6,700. If we are talking about scanned 35mm then I, in most cases, would say that even a tiny sensor digicam can do better. Not in all ways and not in all cases, but generally. Going analog the whole way, well, I will let others decide. I made rather detailed posts about this scanning experience in my last two blog entries (1/8 and 12/31) that I think some people will find interesting."
Dave in NM: "I've got a brick of Tri-X in freezer. Another one of these exchanges and I swear; I'm gonna be forced to load it up and shoot someone."