A test I'd like to see: Fuji Natura 24/1.9 vs. Fuji F30s (ISO3200) digital

[jano]

ode to iso 800+

ode to iso 800+

Take a picture of some hair
like a stuffed toy or fuzzy bear
any picture with the f30
will not appear at all dirty
but rather like one big smear

😀

 

[Bill58]

Bill: What I did mean, and what I did not understand, how can you compare a film camera (you did not even specify a film!) to a digital one with a small sensor. Maybe if you said, Delta3200 or Tri-x pushed to 3200, I would see a reason to compare. But i don't see how the 24/1.9 lens would influence the result.
Anyway. I did not mean to offend you or something.

NO offense whatsoever. If I were doing the test (which I can't) I would put the same cameras under the same conditions in their optimal capability state (film type/ speed,etc) then see what happens.

It's sort of like a 100 meter race between two sprinters on the same day/ time--I wouldn't, for example, ask each one what he/ she had for breakfast that morning and try to compensate for one having had Wheaties and the other bean tacos (jet assisted take-off?) or whether one was wearing shorts and the other a sweatsuit, etc. Perhaps my test is flawed scientifically, but I'd like a real world "demonstration", a better word? 'Glad I never tried to be a scientist.

 

[Pherdinand]

I don't think it's about being scientific or not, but more about having a useful answer or not. If the base of comparison is weak, you can get an answer" F30 sucks" because someone tried in a certain way and did not like the result as much as the best result from the film gear - which was obtained with different circumstances.
And there's extra stuff involved, like, some people have great scanners and scanning technique and some others don't so the final result on a monitor can look different even for the same starting conditions.