Digital SLRS... the bane of my existance

gavinlg

gavinlg

Veteran
Local time
9:04 PM
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
5,508
Location
Brisbane AU
View My Gallery
Okay, so far I've been a canon DSLR user for work and about 20% of my personal work (other 80% is leica m6 and OM2), and I have become increasingly weirded out by the image the 30d delivers. I know this sounds harsh, but I've been known to describe it as "raping the light"

I can't put my finger on it, but it seems to give off this plasticky putty image which sort of butchers how the light falls on people and general shots (street, landscape etc etc) It seems impossible to expose for both the highlights and shadows in a high contrast scene without blowing one or the other out, except for late afternoon.
Sometimes I'm really pleased with how they come out, and other times they just come out.... flat. Yes I shoot RAW and photograph consistantly etc etc.

I recently tried an epson RD1 digital rangefinder in new york, and was massively suprised at how wonderful the images came out! It had depth and a "painterly" look to the light - really delicate - a lot like film. Since then I just haven't been completely happy with the 30d.

The epson RD1 uses a 6mp sony chip as used in the Pentax IST D and the nikon D100.... What do you all think about the image quality of Nikon vs Canon stuff...
As far as I can see, the canon images are cleaner/less noise/blah blah blah, but look plasticky and flat - and while the nikon is more noisy but has a more filmy look to it.

Theres also this new fujifilm S5 Pro thats come out in the d200 body with the fuji super CCD sensor - it splits each photosite on the sensor into 2 seperate little bodies - one for normal dynamic range light reception, and one for highlights, and thus seems to have much more dynamic range. Also the pictures seem to me to have that film look...
Plus theres those new Zeiss ZF lenses that go on it (drool)

The thing is, I really dont care about noise or grain, infact I like it. It gives a bit of depth to the picture in some circumstances.


So what are your opinions on all this? Nikon or canon or fujifilm s5?
CCD or CMOS?
canons look or nikons look?
Am I crazy/just imagining things?

Gavin
 
I feel your pain, man. I shoot Nikon when I have to go digital- but that's mostly cause I have a big bag of Nikon lenses. My clients are happy, but clients are generally much easier to please than photographers. Anything I really care about, I shoot on film.

The best advice I can offer is to worry less about your equipment and more about your images. The key word with digital is "good enough". Nikon and Canon both deliver results that are good enough for most uses. Non-photographers mostly don't see the differences you are talking about, and largely don't care. So your choices are 1) try to educate every client to see the differences you are talking about, and hope that they will demand the same results you do or 2) give them results that will make them happy, and please yourself only where and when you care to. If you have to get everything up to your own highest standard every time, good for you- you are sadly in a dwindling minority these days, and I sincerly wish you luck earning a living in the current market climate. Your ethics and image quality may set you apart for those with the sensitivity to discover them, but those clients seem to be as impossible to find these days as a good photo lab.
 
I recently read somewhere that digital pictures appear different than film ( of similiar format ) because digital provides more detail. I dont know if I believe that, but come on digital and analog ( film ) are two different mediums - even if digital attempts to emulate film.

I am a recent convert to digital from mostly med format film. I have to tell you - the 8x10's I am getting from my Canon XTi and 50/1.4 are really superb...different than film, but still superb for what they are.

Enjoy the differences

Dan

PS - I am now in the dilema of upgrading to a 5D full frame, wait for its upgrade or dream about a med format digital back/camera
 
Last edited:
I think the 5d is quite superb, much better than the XTI and 30d - go try one Meleica - I dont think canon could improve upon it that much.

I'm very interested in this fuji s5 though - I'm thinking of hiring it out.


Drewbarb, thats a fantastic reply. I just enjoy my imaging and therefor I'm always looking to squeeze the most pleasing print out of anything I do. Every point you made is completely valid

Thanks
 
I know that plasticy look. It especially shows up in portraits. Lots of that stuff on Flickr. Funny how we come to accept grain as more aesthetically pleasing, when grain is just as far removed from reality as the plastic look. I shoot Nikon, but can't say whether there's a difference between the two. I've seen it sometimes in the images I produce. Canon is supposedly cleaner and has less noise at high ISO. Maybe that's a factor. I agree that the RD1 produces film-like results, but I've seen it do the plastic look too.
 
RayPA said:
I know that plasticy look. It especially shows up in portraits. Lots of that stuff on Flickr. Funny how we come to accept grain as more aesthetically pleasing, when grain is just as far removed from reality as the plastic look. I shoot Nikon, but can't say whether there's a difference between the two. I've seen it sometimes in the images I produce. Canon is supposedly cleaner and has less noise at high ISO. Maybe that's a factor. I agree that the RD1 produces film-like results, but I've seen it do the plastic look too.
Click to expand...


Good points again, I know exactly what you mean. By the way, your flickr gallery is fantastic.

The rd-1 so far to me, has the most pleasing look to files.
 
fdigital said:
I recently tried an epson RD1 digital rangefinder in new york, and was massively suprised at how wonderful the images came out! It had depth and a "painterly" look to the light - really delicate - a lot like film. Since then I just haven't been completely happy with the 30d.


Gavin
Click to expand...
Gavin,
I know exactly what you mean. "Painterly" is the word I use to describe the quality of R-D1 photos. Here's a link to one of mine which I used in a previous post where I also described the R-D1 as being painterly:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=42713&d=1174505781

This is a look I just love.

/T
P.S. This photo was taken in almost completely darkness in a small bistro theater in Manhattan. Hand held - can't remember the speed but it was slooow.
 
fdigital said:
I think the 5d is quite superb, much better than the XTI
Click to expand...

have you tested both or is this speculation...? I dont mean to sound fresh, but I cant imagine the 5D being MUCH better than the XTi....if it is, all I can say is WOW.

Dan
 
fdigital said:
Good points again, I know exactly what you mean. By the way, your flickr gallery is fantastic.

The rd-1 so far to me, has the most pleasing look to files.
Click to expand...

thanks.

I agree; If I had to go digital RF it would be the RD1. I'm hesitant to do so, though, because I love shooting film and reserve that treat for my RF gear.



.
 
Meleica said:
have you tested both or is this speculation...? I dont mean to sound fresh, but I cant imagine the 5D being MUCH better than the XTi....if it is, all I can say is WOW.

Dan
Click to expand...


To be completely honest I haven't done a HUGE amount of shooting on the 5d, however I have had descent plays with friends ones, and yes, they are definetly quite a bit better than the XTI.... I mean they both do the same thing, but the full frame sensor in the 5d is a big advantage, and the final images themselves are better in every way a digital file could be better.

I used to own an XT by the way
 
PS - here is a plastic-y portrait from my XTi.... it is heavily cropped - about 20% of the full image

madie.jpg
 
Yeah, it's funny how that plasticy look is more disturbing to us than grain. But we've had more than 100 years to get used to the idea that photographic images display grain, whereas digital with it's often plasticy look is only about twenty years old, and it has the additional handicap of being compared to film images, with their attendant grain. We have to balance two ideas- one, that it's a bad comparison- film and digital are basically different mediums; and two, the idea that a photograph is a photograph, no matter how it was made- the final product is all that matters. Finally, all this has to be balanced against how the image will be used, and what standards exist for this. Is it the best it can be? Is it good enough?

For what it's worth I have been very pleased with results I have seen from the RD-1, and from the M8 for that matter. I have plenty of experience with the 5D, and it's a great DSLR, sure, but I find I prefer the RF images- they do seem to produce a more 3-D look, and more natural smoothness of tone in many images I've seen. I tend to think the smoothness vs. plastic look issue at least must have more to do with how the software is set up to tweak the files, but I'm enough of a digital ludite to admit that I don't know the answer.
 
drewbarb said:
I prefer the RF images- they do seem to produce a more 3-D look, and more natural smoothness of tone in many images I've seen..
Click to expand...


you seem to be attributing this to the camera - could it not be because of the lenses ?

Dan
 
Last edited:
Lovely photo, Tuolumne. I agree that there's a special way that camera and lens is working for you.

I've thought a lot about that silky quality that digital has. I don't think it's bad. It's just different. It's actually more naturalistic, since we don't see grain when we look around with our eyes---everything is smooth.

The difference may be more akin to the difference between the "warmth" of vinyl records compared to how a CD sounds.
 
I have a question on the "plastic" look.

Would a grain free 8x10 shot with low iso film also be described as "plasticy."

I agree that grain is beautiful and noise is ugly...but in the absence of either, is there really a difference?
 
I have owned a Pentax K100, Nikon D40, Oly E-500 and a Panasonic L1. They gave me no enjoyment. When I need digital, I use my Pentax 750z P&S 7 meg and get as good as results as I got from the DSLR's. And when I want to really enjoy photography I go for the Bessa R3M. that's just me.
 
i think this is a very tough "arguement"... what i've found is there's so many variables in these "looks" that it can't be solely a digital vs film issue. film has a "look"... that look is heavily, heavily altered (in my opinion) in the scanning process UNLESS you really are good and practiced at the scanning buisiness. digital has a "look" largely attributed to the compression, noise reduction etc. on board. combine that with lower end lenses and you develop more of a "look". now i'm not saying there's not a signifigant difference between film and digital just that there IS a lot of variables as to how the final print comes out. understanding cs and the printing process will give you suprising results from good digital "negatives" (ie: raw files). the raw file i get out of my d1x almost always dissapoints at first... then with a little love it can be turned into a fine print. the scans (from a dedicated film scanner) from 35mm were for me a total dissapointment and i do not have the time to pursue darkroom anymore therefore i now shoot on an r-d1 and an r-d1s almost exclusively. the r-d1's are an very strange exception... i don't know what voodoo they put in those little beasts but they sure put out some fine files. like the photo above (two young girls at night) which to me has a VERY hauntingly beautiful quality to it!
what's my point? get an r-d1 or r-d1s... you'll be happy.
 
Meleica said:
you seem to be attributing this to the camera - could it not be because of the lenses ?

Dan
Click to expand...
Yeah, it could be because of lenses, but I tend to think it's due to the differences in lens designs for RF's vs. SLR's, and due even more to different image processing, both in camera and in post. But yes, you make a good point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom