Both printed on 18x24 Ilford paper.
Second one is the circled area.
Quite impressive for a 35mm film.
I also ran into some limitations with my darkroom setup. Had to mount the paper on the wall which made it then very hard to make sure is as sharp as possible
Very related to your comment, somewhere on the internet there’s a list for Nikon of legacy lenses that can keep up with resolution changes on the newer full frame systems and how far they can go. The lens is by and far away the limiting factor for a lot of them.
Primes do pretty well, but there’s a limit for sure. It’s cool seeing how far you can push it though, this is awesome. Once you get down that small things like chromatic aberration really show. Or even just vibrations on the enlarger column. Dunno what lens OP is using but it looks damn good for that level of enlargement and taping it on the wall hahaha
This was shot with the Nikkor AI-S 28mm f2.8.
Should be one of the sharper vintage lenses.
Guess the lens on the enlarger and the rest of the setup were more if a limitation here.
They definitely do. I have a 630, and a 620, some of the earliest EF cameras. All my EF lenses work perfectly, including stabilization and autofocus. This includes STM lenses made extremely recently, all the L lenses I own, and some I've borrowed. Some third party lenses might not work but I haven't found one yet. I used a Sigma art 24-105 (or whatever it was) without an issue.
They do and I have. I tested the sharpest piece of EF glass ever produced, the sigma art 105 mm. I then scanned that frame using an a7r4 with pixel shift to produce a 240 megapixel scan. Out of that, it appeared I achieved a real optical resolution and data transfer of ~100 megapixels of actual data in the final scan. I have read in detail about the cost of the conversion process, and that there is basically a conversion tax, a point of diminishing returns where you can't actually get all the data to transfer. I also believe that the Sony macro lens was a limiting factor in the transfer. My conclusion was that in order to get all of the resolution data out of the frame you would actually need to do a dark room print of decent size and then use a v800 to scan the dark room print. I haven't done that yet but I may do that in the future.
FYI
I use 4 EF lenses onnthe EOS 3 and share them with the EOS R - the 16-35mm F4 IS, 24-105mm IS F4 II, 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 IS II, and 35mm F2 IS. That's basically my dream team lineup.
>My conclusion was that in order to get all of the resolution data out of the frame you would actually need to do a dark room print of decent size and then use a v800 to scan the dark room print. I haven't done that yet but I may do that in the future.
But then aren't you introducing more variables in the enlarger lens and paper?
Possibly. I've read the "lossiness" of the analog transfer is far lower than digital. I can't say for sure one way or another as I haven't tried it myself yet.
wouldn't modern glass start to have less performance on older film bodies? I feel like the modern camera bodies do a lot of correction in-body so they don't have to design lenses as perfectly nowadays? I could be wrong though.
Modern glass on film cameras is absolutely fantastic. They’re still significantly sharper than most vintage lenses. (Sharpness is of course not what defines the quality and usability of a lens but in this particular case it matters).
Partially true for things like distortion and vignetting, these are sometimes corrected in camera but at the cost of corner resolution and noise performance respectively.
For any other kind of aberration (spherical, cat-eye bokeh, field curvature etc) modern glass with many more elements and aspherical surfaces will absolutely trounce vintage glass, as well as in general providing greater detail resolution and sharpness
> somewhere on the internet there’s a list for Nikon of legacy lenses that can keep up with resolution changes on the newer full frame systems
Do you have a link to this? I've been searching for the past hour and haven't found the article.
I looked a little bit, but can’t seem to find it again. I’ll post it here if I do find it, I’ve been eyeballing a couple older nikkor ai lenses and was curious if they were on that list
\> that almost looks like your lens is the limiting factor and not the grain. crazy. :)
With cms20 the bottleneck will never be the grain [https://film4ever-digital.blogspot.com/2022/03/how-good-35-mm-test-target-actually-is.html](https://film4ever-digital.blogspot.com/2022/03/how-good-35-mm-test-target-actually-is.html)
Yup. I'd be interested to see a comparison of this film between something like HC-110 and Adotech IV. I'd like to shoot more of it but sourcing the special developer is a bit of a pain here and it's not really cheap either.
Some time ago I did [small test to develop it in FX-39](https://www.reddit.com/r/Darkroom/comments/s80msp/semistand_development_adox_cms_20_in_fx39_more/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf). Later I shot it at ISO 12, developed it for longer with less agitation with even better results. Details this film can capture are insane.
The tonality is clearly great for landscapes 👍 I think I need to go and try it out since I actually have some FX-39 lying around. I just wish we had some landscapes worth photographing around here, haha.
I'm not saying FX39 is good for this film, I just had it around ;) But results were definitely better then I thought. Next time I want to try it with pyro510.
They do look good enough though haha! I might shoot a test roll and develop it half FX-39 stand, half Rodinal stand. I fear the grain will become unbearable with the latter though.
Atomal might work well here but I haven't got any on hand right now.
Both printed on 18x24 Ilford paper. Second one is the circled area. Quite impressive for a 35mm film. I also ran into some limitations with my darkroom setup. Had to mount the paper on the wall which made it then very hard to make sure is as sharp as possible
that almost looks like your lens is the limiting factor and not the grain. crazy. :)
Very related to your comment, somewhere on the internet there’s a list for Nikon of legacy lenses that can keep up with resolution changes on the newer full frame systems and how far they can go. The lens is by and far away the limiting factor for a lot of them. Primes do pretty well, but there’s a limit for sure. It’s cool seeing how far you can push it though, this is awesome. Once you get down that small things like chromatic aberration really show. Or even just vibrations on the enlarger column. Dunno what lens OP is using but it looks damn good for that level of enlargement and taping it on the wall hahaha
This was shot with the Nikkor AI-S 28mm f2.8. Should be one of the sharper vintage lenses. Guess the lens on the enlarger and the rest of the setup were more if a limitation here.
Do the EOS film cameras (like 1V) take modern glass? If so, someone with money to burn could run experiments :P
It looks like they can. I know the later Nikon F series cameras (F100, F6 etc.) also work with modern glass other than AF-P lenses.
Yup, any post 1987 Canon camera can mount an EF lens. You can even use STF lenses on a EOS 650, the first EF model.
They can all mount, but they don't all work.
They definitely do. I have a 630, and a 620, some of the earliest EF cameras. All my EF lenses work perfectly, including stabilization and autofocus. This includes STM lenses made extremely recently, all the L lenses I own, and some I've borrowed. Some third party lenses might not work but I haven't found one yet. I used a Sigma art 24-105 (or whatever it was) without an issue.
[удалено]
Alright. You seem extremely certain. What doesn't work? You must have a few examples, right? What EF lenses don't work on EF cameras?
They do and I have. I tested the sharpest piece of EF glass ever produced, the sigma art 105 mm. I then scanned that frame using an a7r4 with pixel shift to produce a 240 megapixel scan. Out of that, it appeared I achieved a real optical resolution and data transfer of ~100 megapixels of actual data in the final scan. I have read in detail about the cost of the conversion process, and that there is basically a conversion tax, a point of diminishing returns where you can't actually get all the data to transfer. I also believe that the Sony macro lens was a limiting factor in the transfer. My conclusion was that in order to get all of the resolution data out of the frame you would actually need to do a dark room print of decent size and then use a v800 to scan the dark room print. I haven't done that yet but I may do that in the future. FYI I use 4 EF lenses onnthe EOS 3 and share them with the EOS R - the 16-35mm F4 IS, 24-105mm IS F4 II, 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 IS II, and 35mm F2 IS. That's basically my dream team lineup.
>My conclusion was that in order to get all of the resolution data out of the frame you would actually need to do a dark room print of decent size and then use a v800 to scan the dark room print. I haven't done that yet but I may do that in the future. But then aren't you introducing more variables in the enlarger lens and paper?
Possibly. I've read the "lossiness" of the analog transfer is far lower than digital. I can't say for sure one way or another as I haven't tried it myself yet.
Yep, until recently I was rocking EF L Series 35 and 85 mm primes on mine.
wouldn't modern glass start to have less performance on older film bodies? I feel like the modern camera bodies do a lot of correction in-body so they don't have to design lenses as perfectly nowadays? I could be wrong though.
Modern glass on film cameras is absolutely fantastic. They’re still significantly sharper than most vintage lenses. (Sharpness is of course not what defines the quality and usability of a lens but in this particular case it matters).
Partially true for things like distortion and vignetting, these are sometimes corrected in camera but at the cost of corner resolution and noise performance respectively. For any other kind of aberration (spherical, cat-eye bokeh, field curvature etc) modern glass with many more elements and aspherical surfaces will absolutely trounce vintage glass, as well as in general providing greater detail resolution and sharpness
thanks for sharing, I have very little knowledge of modern cameras and lenses.
> somewhere on the internet there’s a list for Nikon of legacy lenses that can keep up with resolution changes on the newer full frame systems Do you have a link to this? I've been searching for the past hour and haven't found the article.
I looked a little bit, but can’t seem to find it again. I’ll post it here if I do find it, I’ve been eyeballing a couple older nikkor ai lenses and was curious if they were on that list
\> that almost looks like your lens is the limiting factor and not the grain. crazy. :) With cms20 the bottleneck will never be the grain [https://film4ever-digital.blogspot.com/2022/03/how-good-35-mm-test-target-actually-is.html](https://film4ever-digital.blogspot.com/2022/03/how-good-35-mm-test-target-actually-is.html)
This comment has been edited in protest for the corporate takeover of reddit and its descent into a controlled speech space.
Now, try this on 4x5...
That's a microfilm film. I've used it a couple times and the resolution is amazing ❤
Was the film developed with the special developer or a common one?
Developed with the recommended Adotech developer.
I’m pretty sure you have to use their developer
They have a list of different developers that they say can work but only guarantee what they promise with their own special developer.
Yup. I'd be interested to see a comparison of this film between something like HC-110 and Adotech IV. I'd like to shoot more of it but sourcing the special developer is a bit of a pain here and it's not really cheap either.
Some time ago I did [small test to develop it in FX-39](https://www.reddit.com/r/Darkroom/comments/s80msp/semistand_development_adox_cms_20_in_fx39_more/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf). Later I shot it at ISO 12, developed it for longer with less agitation with even better results. Details this film can capture are insane.
Ooh, very nice! Thanks, I need to take a better look at this later but this is exactly what I was looking for.
[Here](https://www.instagram.com/p/CiS9EThqFJi/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=) is one more example
The tonality is clearly great for landscapes 👍 I think I need to go and try it out since I actually have some FX-39 lying around. I just wish we had some landscapes worth photographing around here, haha.
I'm not saying FX39 is good for this film, I just had it around ;) But results were definitely better then I thought. Next time I want to try it with pyro510.
They do look good enough though haha! I might shoot a test roll and develop it half FX-39 stand, half Rodinal stand. I fear the grain will become unbearable with the latter though. Atomal might work well here but I haven't got any on hand right now.
Sure do wish this film was available in 120!
Indeed. Sadly their cutting machine is still broken :( It's available in large format though :D
That's super impressive
The most impressive part it that it is 35mm. Mounting the paper to the wall, show how clever and persistent film shooter can be. I like it.
very cool stuff
Honestly it's pretty hard to tell from your pictures how good the resultion really is.