DSLR VS. 35mm film

[Jarhead5811]

I'm pretty sure my XSi beats film hands down but; When did the DSLR pass 35mm film in resolution? Scanning 4x6s and negatives from over the years this seems to be obvious or my scanner sucks pretty bad.


I used alot of 800 speed film before someone explained high iso noise to me. At iso 1600 my XSi beats those old iso 800 film shots hands down. When did DSLRs beat out film on the iso front? I don't have a constructive reason to ask, I'm just curious.

[Ifmracing]

This isn't really a cut-and-dried conversation.


Read here for a look at how it can vary greatly: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_megapixels_would_it_take_to_equal_a_35mm_ film_maximum_quality


Of course, the true answer has almost too many variables to be easily compared.
You also have to look at the quality of the camera and the glass.
Pictures froma digital camera with all the resolution in the world that is shooting with a crap lens wouldn't yeild as good of results as a quality film shot through an L series prime, even though the 'relative' megapixels of the film are lower.

[Jarhead5811]

Thanks, that article covers it pretty well technically. How about subjectively? What do ya'll think?

[Benjamin]

Haha, I shoot film, especially slides. I think film still has an edge in terms of color reproduction and resolution. I found digital to have perfect natural skin tone and that's why I use digital for people's shots. For landscape, man Velvia 50 is like the heaven!


I use the Nikon Super Coolscan 9000ED to turn myslides into digital files. At its max resolution (4000dpi) the result is pretty neat against the best 35mm DSLRs. The XSi will beat an ISO800 film I guess, especially those color 800s... But for ultimate landscape @ low ISO speeds, 35mm slidefilm still wins. The color and resolution are the reasons for me to stick to film.





Ben

[Alan]

This thread might go the way of LPs vs CDs, but I'm going to jump in anyway.....


Photography is a lot like art. One man's opinion about it is different than the next guy's.


Color, resolution, etc. can be debated all day, but it might boil down to the print. Whatever parameters can be eeked out of film might well be masked when it finally goes to the lab for printing.


I'd go broke using film, and when younger, was always on the edge of doing so. Digital has progressed to the point where the differences are small, but the benefits outweigh film overall.


I can compensate for color and a host of other things with a digital image that I could never do with film. Even Ansel Adams would routinely use masks to get the desired effect he wanted (which he said was the way he wanted it to look, not the way it actually looked).


I can take a look immediately to see if I screwed up on an image. With film, I have to be very careful, unless I want to run out of money fast. And, with digital, I can take dozens of shots with no loss to my bank account.


The very slight edge that MIGHT be had with film is overshadowed by the drawbacks of film's more limited flexibility.


Naturally, it has a lot to do with the equipment.


Okay, now that I've said my piece, I'm putting on my asbestos suit and am preparing to get flamed.....[]

[Benjamin]

That's true, Alan. Film will go pretty deep into yourbank accountand it indeed is NOT convenient. That's why overall I'm a digital guy with a film camera[]. I found myself use digital more and more these days, but I will always have a roll of velvia loaded in my 1V-HS with me when I feel serious about photography. So my point is, we should absolutely take advantage of both digital and film. It doesn't make sense anymore to be completely film in 2009 (at leastfor me); however, I will certainly take the advantage of film whenever it's the right time.[] Regarding digital post processing, I feel that I can do the same with scanned slides as I can do with digital files.


I'm currentlygenerating about 500digital shotsand 2~3 rolls of Velvia, 3~5 rolls of Ilford HP5 or Delta's every month. Plus, processing films in the darkroom with your own hands is just so much fun! Add that to the cool factor of film too![]

[Keith B]

Film is cool, I hope it never goes away but digital is the evolution. More than anything to me is ISO. I can shoot 5 shots at ISO100, 30 at ISO400, go back for 15 shots at 100 and then some shots at 3200 on on the same "roll". Digital has spoiled us all and made "photographers" out of a lot of people who would never had been before. Not necessarily good ones but...

[naturegrapher]

To be very frank, I like film the best especially on my mamiya and its not that my other film cameras like F1, A1, EOS 500 and Elan 7 give me bad results, they good produce excellent results. I do own a 40d and am planning to pick up the 5d2 but holding on since I am guessing that canon will come up with a upgraded 1d shortly. The digital camera has surely spoilt me as a photographer since it has give me quitesome instant choices and flexibility with out much of effort(financially and physically)and pain.


To be very frank I consider film as ballet which involves a lot of skill, grace, patience and pratice,where as digital is more like disco what ever you do is a new trend. Its no pun intendedbut its just that digital is very very very forgiving and its getting better each day.....


My two cents of experience.