Film Vrs. Digital:

Printable View

08-23-2009, 06:24 PM
Iguide

Film Vrs. Digital:

Good Day Every One:

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document" />
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 9" />
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 9" />
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:/DOCUME~1/WAYNEA~1/LOCALS~1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_filelist.xml" />



<style>

</style>

As I have been trying to learn more about digital photography I have consistently
been looking at the quality of the photos in relationship to the quality of the
film photos that I use to take. A combination of personal results and also
reading of complete professionals results almost seems to indicate that you get
better quality results from film than digital, all things being equal, glass
etc. Unless you want to go the route of what in my opinion are extremely
expensive cameras.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

For instance I have a 50D with good glass such at the 17-55 mm f 2.8 IS USM
now. I use to use a Pentax K1000 with Fuji Velvia 100 and Oswa zoom 35-105mm
F2.8. Shooting the same subjects the film seems to appear to produce higher
quality results. Now I know that a 1.6 sensor in is not as sensitive/clear as a
1.0 sensor, but that leads me to ask just where is the point of equalization of
quality occur? Does anyone have a real answer that is the result of actual use
and practice rather than just theory? [*-)]

Thanks and may we all have a great day in Gods Great Outdoors!
08-23-2009, 06:32 PM
Colin

Re: Film Vrs. Digital:

In my non-scientific experience, the results that I've gotten with digital far surpass the quality of what I've gotten with 35mm film... Resolution and color specifically. When you throw in the ability to easily do post processing, as opposed to screwing around in a dark room to get the effect that you want, not to mention the costs of development, or being able to change my ISO by just spinning a wheel, for me it's not even a difficult choice. I've taken some pictures I really like with film, but I like the results from digital far more.
08-23-2009, 09:38 PM
Daniel Browning

Re: Film Vrs. Digital:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iguide

...you get
better quality results from film than digital,

Can you be more specific? What do you mean by "quality"? Contrast? Resolution? Dynamic range? Color accuracy? Saturation? Depth of field?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iguide

...all things being equal, glass
etc. Unless you want to go the route of what in my opinion are extremely
expensive cameras.

You can't compare cameras of the same price, because film has consumable costs. It all depends on how many frames you shoot and how much you pay for your film processing. 5,000 frames can pay for a new 5D2. I shoot that many frames in under a week.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iguide

For instance I have a 50D with good glass such at the 17-55 mm f 2.8 IS USM
now. I use to use a Pentax K1000 with Fuji Velvia 100 and Oswa zoom 35-105mm
F2.8. Shooting the same subjects the film seems to appear to produce higher
quality results.

Can you post an example?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iguide

Now I know that a 1.6 sensor in is not as sensitive/clear as a
1.0 sensor, but that leads me to ask just where is the point of equalization of
quality occur?

It depends on what part of "image quality" you find unequal. If it's color accuracy, the 50D is already way ahead. If it's another part of the color rendition (such as Velvia's very inaccurate but desirable color), the 50D can do that too with the right raw converter (e.g. DxO Optics Pro + filmpack)
08-24-2009, 12:24 AM
Dallasphotog

Re: Film Vrs. Digital:

This should get about 1,000 replys.

In my experience, the digital cameras now produce better results than film and they have so many more features and capabilities that film is no longer relevant. I have the new 5D MKII and I just chuckle every time I set ISO to 25,000 and get usable images. Dialing ISO up and down as light changes is just too cool. Add to that, 16G CF cards that hold hundreds and hundreds of images and shutter speeds of 5 and 10 frames per second and I can't see anyone longing for the days of mixing chemicals.

As for image quality, the 1D MKII passed up my filmimages and the 5D MKII blows them away.

Dont even get me started on what we can do with Photoshop compared to trying to work magic under an enlarger.
08-24-2009, 01:26 AM
Fast Glass

Re: Film Vrs. Digital:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

5,000 frames can pay for a new 5D2. I shoot that many frames in under a week.

I know this is off topic, but.

How many frames have you shot on a single camera body? I have shot about 15K in 1.5years on one body.
08-24-2009, 01:34 AM
Daniel Browning

Re: Film Vrs. Digital:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

How many frames have you shot on a single camera body?

About 160,000 on my 20D. (Had to have the shutter assembly replaced twice by Canon.) At least half of it is timelapse photography and astrophotography.
08-24-2009, 02:30 AM
Fast Glass

Re: Film Vrs. Digital:

Wow, no wonder you know a thing or two about ISO's![:)]