rico wrote:
There is something to weigh up... the camera! While the latest DSLRs can match or (for a price) exceed a 35mm film camera in matters of image detail, they cannot compete for compactness:
Yet another apples-to-oranges comparison, between a camera with a fixed prime lens and a more flexible system with removable lenses. Let's try a 200mm shot with the Contax and see how well that works. Or better yet, let's compare the size of a 6x6cm MF camera to the 20D. Or a quarter pounder with cheese, lettuce and no onions.
I agree with RICO that Digital is superior only in 35mm SLR format today. MF DBacks are too expensive, aren't they ? It was my earlier point. Those compact range finders with high quality Zeiss or Leica optics are still not challenged.
By the way, I have a naive concern about the digital photos or documents in general. 10,000 years from today, newer civilization or aliens are looking into partially corrupted digital JPEG files. Will they be able to recover the images ? With negative film, they can just see it
RDKirk wrote:
>>"That's my own personal fact" I agree; speed and operating costs aside I feel the difference between film and digital comes down to personal taste. Sometimes I'll shot the same subject with the 20D and the Pentax 645 and I'll like the 20Ds images more and other times the 645 images will win out. I do like the fact that the low cost per image of digital allows me to experiment alot more.
<<
You're comparing a 20D with scanned 6x4.5, which was not the original question. The original question asked for a comparison of the 20D with 35mm.
WRONG I wasn't comparing anything to anything. I just said some times I prefer the look that I get from the digital(DSLR) and sometimes I prefer the look I get with film(120). At no time did I say I thought one was better then the other. As far as image quality goes most DSLRs and scanned film 35mm or 120 are capable of delivering high quality digital files. So everything comes down to what the individual prefers.
I am positive that my 10D has absolutely no chance against the Nikon FM2/Superia 200/Nikon LS-50 combination for landscape detail.
For landscapes, I would advise against the use of 6-mp digital cameras. Film carries significantly more detail, and I repeat, film is underestimated. Grossly underestimated. Also, it is not my experience that scanning is that time-consuming. With ICE and 4000 ppi, my LS-50 uses 1:50 minute.
Post processing of files from a DSLR is not easier than processing of scanned files. In my opinion, film scanning is and will remain a viable alternative to a digital SLR.
By the way, all the pictures are from Sweden, not Norway.
"Damn bogatyr, your scans are good! I can't help but notice you disabled auto sharpen in the NikonScan software and sharpened intelligently in PS. Well done. Most folks sharpen the hell outta their film scans and end up with too much grain"
Thank you, Peter! I am an admirer of your photography, and am naturally glad that you like what I do. Your assumptions are correct. My workflow ensures that film is superior to my 10D - except for macro, telephoto, portraits and in the studio. All these areas are where digital shines.
For landscapes and remote detail, film wins hands down. Film does have its place in the future of photography.
Yeah I agree with bogatyr. I use film still and the tonal quality I can get out of a velvia/provia slide, when coupled with my LS 5000 ED, is untouchable at the 6mp level. The software that comes with the LS 5000 ED can pull a lot of information out of contrasty slides (almost like having a RAW file to work with), and with ICE there is no need to 'clean' the file. Now I haven't used the 1Ds or the 8mp cameras, but IMHO the 6mp slrs can't compete with film.
I'm actually thinking of the 20D so I can kill the learning curve while I scan in all my slides. Then I might move to a 1Ds mkII, and get that Mamiya RZ67 I always wanted.
I invite anyone to take a look at this 1Ds equestrian portrait and compare it to their 35mm film scans. It's 6MB, and 9000x6000 pixels. I spent about 30 seconds adjusting and converting it in Adobe Camera RAW, then upsized and sharpened it in Photoshop. I have Camera RAW calibrated so that normally I don't have to do more than minor tweaks to white balance and exposure, convert, crop, sharpen, and print. Scanned 35mm may be able to match or beat 6MP DSLRs on occasion, but once you go past 10 megapixels, I'm skeptical that the DSLR will come up short compared to the film scan. Feel free to examine this image and print it, and compare it to your film prints of equal size. Permission is not granted for commercial or editorial use, though. If anyone has a 35mm film scan that can beat the level of detail captured in the horse's face, I'd really like to see it.
"Scanned 35mm may be able to match or beat 6MP DSLRs on occasion, but once you go past 10 megapixels, I'm skeptical that the DSLR will come up short compared to the film scan."
I have no difficulty agreeing with the conclusion that you can beat film in detail with a 10+ Mp camera, but with the qualification that it also requires a high-quality imaging sensor of a large size. If you cram ten megapixels onto a small sensor or a sensor of mediocre quality, the results will be less than impressive.
If one uses a high-quality camera with a Full Frame sensor, film will be surpassed, but we were comparing to 6 Mp DSLR's, and then the DSLR is the clear loser.
In fact, the superiority of the 1Ds, which is hardly in doubt, merely underlines what level one has to use (in price as well as quality) if one seriously wants to beat film.
I'd disagree that the 6MP camera would consistently be the "clear loser"; there are times when a good 4MP camera (like the 1D) can do better than 35mm film, like in low light ISO 1600 conditions. The 1Ds can match the best drum-scanned 6x7 medium format film on overall detail, sharpness, and image clarity (see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml for a head-to-head comparison done by Michael Reichmann) so it's not unrealistic to say that a 6MP DSLR can at least keep up with 35mm film in most situations, though perhaps not decisively surpass it.
There are clearly two different postions here. Jonathan and others seem to believe that DSLR's can outperform 35mm films + scanner. You are right guys. No one would argue that.
Now there is another very important point that RICO and I are trying to make. There are still much portable cameras which require film. If you believe that DSLR with bag-full of lenses are the only way to take photos, you win. Taking a high-qulaity photos in terms of pixel quality is one thing. But just having a camera at the right moment and right time is another thing. Heard of Kodak moment ?
FWIW I was saying for digital output a well scanned 35mm frame (scanned in @ 4000DPI) will best a 6MB DSLR. Comparing scanned film versus a dslr file is extremely misleading.
I would imagine anyone shooting at ISO 1600 would not view quality as high importance, at that point your just trying to get the "shot". The 1D and it's Nikon counterpart are great cameras pretty much designed for press and sports photography. I always agreed when these cameras came out PJ's and Sport shooters who shoot on tight deadlines would be crazy not to use those cameras.
I like Michael Reichmann's work, but that "head to head" comparison is extremely flawed. People seem to forget that film was created before computers and desktop printers. A 6X7 transparency that is scanned is now second generation. Take that slide and get an Ilfochrome print (or even just a loupe) and then compare it, the results might be a little different.
For the heck of itHere is a 35mm scan rezzed up to 6000x9000 and it's only a 5meg file Grain is clearly visible. The original 30meg jpeg file is actually pretty impressive, but I can't host that right now. Now I'm not saying it's as good as a 1Ds file because it's not even close, but you can get very good scans. By the way this is my nephew goofing around at TRNP.
ps
nephews are a good way to move a lot a gear around for cheap
alexruiz wrote:
I like Michael Reichmann's work, but that "head to head" comparison is extremely flawed. People seem to forget that film was created before computers and desktop printers. A 6X7 transparency that is scanned is now second generation. Take that slide and get an Ilfochrome print (or even just a loupe) and then compare it, the results might be a little different.
Actually that probably wouldn't be the case. The reason Reichmann and most other photographers gave up optical enlarging and went with scanning and printing via LightJet or other digital printing methods is because better quality prints could be obtained from a suitably tweaked digital scan of the slide printed wuth a LightJet than from direct optical enlargement of the slide. Don't forget about the whole messy process of making a B&W contrast mask that must be kept in exact registration with the slide if you expect to get any kind of decent optical Ilfochrome print.
"I'd disagree that the 6MP camera would consistently be the "clear loser"; there are times when a good 4MP camera (like the 1D) can do better than 35mm film, like in low light ISO 1600 conditions."
Yes, of course, but neither will produce optimal results. I was and am talking about the maximum amount of detail that can be rendered by the respective techniques. Then we must ask the question: What setup captures the most detail from a landscape when both are used optimally? In other words, how does the 6 megapixel DSLR at 100-200 ISO compare to the film + scanner combo when 100-200 ISO films are used?
I have tried this many times, and there simply is no doubt: Film is incomparably superior.
"The 1Ds can match the best drum-scanned 6x7 medium format film on overall detail, sharpness, and image clarity (see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml for a head-to-head comparison done by Michael Reichmann) so it's not unrealistic to say that a 6MP DSLR can at least keep up with 35mm film in most situations, though perhaps not decisively surpass it."
The above illustrates one of the most classic fallacies; namely the non sequitur one. It does not follow from the very high capability of a full frame sensor with 11 megapixels that a 6 megapixel camera is equal to film. These two are entirely different "animals."
Anyone who wants to compare film and 6 mp digital and wants to find the answer is well advised to make the test for him- or herself. It must however be emphasized that only a dedicated film scanner will do - many hobbyists scan using flatbed scanners with film adapters, which give definitely inferior results. Sloppy and half-hearted work by people who have (with little foundation) written off film as a technological irrelevancy fails to show its true capabilities.
If you compare 35mm scans done with either of the two new, aforementioned Nikons, I assure you that you need to have at least a 1D II in order to keep up with that level. Thus, film is far from dead or obsolete.
The problem with all the "film versus digital" debates is that everybody has their own set of criteria when it comes to making a decision of which is better. Not only do things like pixel count, pixel size, digital ISO, film choice, lens choice etc make a difference but so do things like lighting and the subject. If you were photographing a chess board pattern then a D30 will perform as well as 8x10 film. But if you have a super detailed landscape or a highly detailed shot like Jon's horse then the rules are different yet again. Portraits are somewhere in between.
Then we also have the print size and the printer technology to consider because for 6x4 inch prints or web use it really does't matter what you use does it? On top of all that we all see differently. I'm lucky I have good eyesight. But it's probably not as good as it was 15 years ago.
I shoot weddings and commercial for work and landscapes for fun. Based on the disclaimer that it's only my opinion here are my observations.
1. You need to be printing above 10x8 before you can see any difference between a 6-8-11MP DSLRs and film.
2. In terms of capturing pure detail for large print sizes, I would say that 35mm film beats my 6MP DSLR's up to 400 ISO. Over 400 ISO this is reversed. (I use velvia and NPH). I think at 8MP it would be too close to call so it makes no sense to buy film at this point purely for a resolution point of view. (But there are plenty of other good reasons). A 1Ds easily competes and betters 35mm with all subjects and ISO's. I do not have a 1Ds but a coleague does and I have yet to see a print that out resolved my Mamyia 7 in terms of pure detail. The 1Ds II may do it though.
3. For low detail subjects like portraits it is very hard to distinguish between a 10D and film (like fuji NPS 160). I mean there are subjects that just dont require a 16MP camera to capyure all the detail.
4. Print film has a wider dynamic range by a long way. The closest in digital is a Fuji. It's possible to bracket and join in PS, but like scanning it's a pain.
5. Film can capture more colours than digital and has smoother transitions between colours. But often this is useless as they cannot be reproduced in print. Seeing my trannys on a light box is nice but it is hardly a way to share images with your friends. If I use 4 or 8 pass scanning on my film scanner I think the colour transitions are better than film, but I find it difficult to translate this improvement to the print.
6. While I have no real issues with the quality of digital capture and I would prefer to use only digital cameras from a workflow point of view (scanning aint hard, but it aint C1 either, and don't get me started on hand printing) the truth is that I still reach for a film camera because there just isn't a digital camera I enjoy using that much. I love rangefinders, panoramic cameras and waist level finders. I'd probably enjoy 4x5 or 10x8 if I were allowed to buy one. I like the controlled slow approach to photography. I probably enjoy it more because I am forced to shoot so quickly for work. The Leica/Panasonic digital rangefinder is flawed. In the future I may find a digital camera I really like but that time is not now.
7. Except for the 1Ds and kodak DSLR you will have more issues getting wide lenses with digital. If sweeping landscapes are your thing then film. If onthe other hand bird photography is your love then a DSLR with a smaller imaging circle will be better.
8. I can't afford a 1DsII right now. It doesn't matter that in 12 months or six months I'll use that much film because I CAN'T afford to pay for a 1Ds II today. But I can afford a couple of rolls of Velvia and processing every week forever. Just because digital is cheaper in the long run doesnt mean everybody can afford the upfront fee that digital requires.
8. Today my favourite camera to use is still my Xpan. It is just so enjoyable to use. The fact the images are stunning helps as well. It is small light, has spectacular lenses and does a 1000 shots on a couple of tiny batteries. It is simple and has no bl**dy menus to annoy me. It just has the tools that I need to take pictures and none of the other cr** that weighs me down. The whole kit fits in a small bumbag, weighs very little and doesn't get me too much attention when I pull it out. It shoots two formats at the flick of a switch. If it were digital it would still be my favourite, even though I'd have more stuff to carry.
So after all that.....
My advice to the original poster is this. It sounds to me like you are looking for a way to enhance or rekindle you're enjoyment of photography. Here's what I'd do.
Go to a good camera store, one with lots of new and used gear. Try as many cameras out as you can, new ones and not so new ones. You may need to go to more than one store. Pick up a rangefinder like the fabulous Cosina, try a camera with a waist level finder. Keep trying until you find a camera you have to have.
It really doesn't matter if it's digital or film. It may be new or it may be 40 years old (if it is 40 years old, just make sure it works ). When you find a camera that makes you want to go out and take photos then buy it, and bugger what the rest of us think. Then go out and enjoy taking pictures.
bogatyr wrote:
Jonwienke wrote:
"The 1Ds can match the best drum-scanned 6x7 medium format film on overall detail, sharpness, and image clarity (see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml for a head-to-head comparison done by Michael Reichmann) so it's not unrealistic to say that a 6MP DSLR can at least keep up with 35mm film in most situations, though perhaps not decisively surpass it."
The above illustrates one of the most classic fallacies; namely the non sequitur one. It does not follow from the very high capability of a full frame sensor with 11 megapixels that a 6 megapixel camera is equal to film. These two are entirely different "animals." ...Show more →
Not really. I'm only making the implied assumption (borne out by personal experience) that there is a reasonably similar level of image quality per megapixel between the 11 megapixel 1Ds and the 6 megapixel 10D. My comparisons between my 1Ds and 10D have not shown the 10D to be lacking in any significant way here. The level of image quality and detail per-pixel of 10D images is fairly similar to that of 1Ds images when both are viewed side-by-side without any upsizing and at 100%. Your point only has any validity if the 10D consistently performs significantly worse than the 1Ds on a per-pixel basis.
The whole argument is a bit of a red herring anyway, since the 20D (which has the same pixel count and a level of per-pixel image quality very similar to the 1D-MkII) is now available for the same MSRP as the 10D was just a few months ago. So there is now an 8MP alternative to the 1D-MkII in a consumer-level body. The difference isn't really in image quality, it's in things like viewfinder size and brightness, buffer size, responsiveness, weather/dust resistance, and responsiveness.
Forget film, spend your time taking pictures, not processing and scanning film.
You will also take many more pictures with digital, likely making you a better photographer as the feedback is almost immediate.
I've had three different film scanners. The learning curve is steep. Scanners in the price range that you will be willing/able to purchase will not have the dynamic range you will need to make the film hassles worth it.
That's my experience anyway. I sold all of my film gear as well and used the money to go digital. It was the best choice for me.
"The level of image quality and detail per-pixel of 10D images is fairly similar to that of 1Ds images when both are viewed side-by-side without any upsizing and at 100%. Your point only has any validity if the 10D consistently performs significantly worse than the 1Ds on a per-pixel basis."
Since the total number of pixels is lower, the quality of these pixels becomes a moot point. It has to be emphasized that it is not necessary to print 8" x 10" size in order to see the difference in favor of film. The lack of detail vis-a-vis film is visible even in web sized images. Hence the point is not only valid but important, since fine landscape detail is insufficiently rendered. All you need to prove that for yourself, is to perform a side-by-side comparison.
Lastly, I share your views about the EOS 20D and the 1D II, and I might add that since I own the latter I have had the opportunity to judge its relative performance against film. So far my impression is that the output from my very capable 8 mp DSLR is at least equal to film, but more testing needs to be done to fully ascertain this.
As the general consensus is that the 20D yields a similar picture quality we can assume that the same very probably applies to that model too. Even if it has an amateur-class build, it is in the upper range of that category, and may be the first affordable DSLR model which is a real alternative to film without painful compromises. Whether or not that reduces film to technological irrelevancy is another matter. I still feel film is good enough to live on.
"You need to be printing above 10x8 before you can see any difference between a 6-8-11MP DSLRs and film."
My experience is different. It is visible in much smaller prints, and even in screen resolutions like 800 x 600. Here it merits mention that when we go above 6 Mp the difference in favor of film no longer exists.
"For low detail subjects like portraits it is very hard to distinguish between a 10D and film (like fuji NPS 160). I mean there are subjects that just dont require a 16MP camera to capyure all the detail."
For such work, I find that also my 10D is on a par with film or even better. The same is generally the case for telephotography and macro work. For landscapes, 35mm film holds its own.
Brian304 wrote:
I also use Leica m cameras which are very quiet and have great optics, so I get shots I wouldn't normally take. I just took a kid portrait with a Leica 75 mm f1.4 using a BW 3 stop ND and Astia 100. I have not yet been able to duplicate the look and feel of that combination with digital. Even though it was scanned the smoothness of tones and the OOF background make the print work. The subjects jump off the paper.
An interesting point but IMO it has more to do with the lens than with film or digital. I noticed the same "jumping of the paper" effect with my Leica Digilux, which has a humble 2/3" CCD sensor and 5 MP but a superb lens.For me it proves that lens quality has as much or more to do with the quality of the final image than the medium. Compare to the results of people using Zeiss lenses on Canon Dig. I guess we will both be first in the shop in February 2006 when the Leica MD starts shipping, Brian.
). When you find a camera that makes you want to go out and take photos then buy it, and bugger what the rest of us think. Then go out and enjoy taking pictures.