Digital SLRS... the bane of my existance

[gavinlg]

These are great replies.

As for a grainless low ISO film shot, it still has a very different look to the digital files

 

[NickTrop]

From a recent Popular Photography,


5 Reasons to Shoot Film
Five cases when film beats digital hands-down.

By Russell Hart
December 2006

5 Reasons to Shoot Film
Photo by Russell Hart

Seeing Things: While DSLRs can be retooled to capture infrared, they won't give you the crystalline grain and glowing highlights you get from Kodak High-Speed Infrared film, used to shoot this Florida sunbather.

Digital is the earnest child of photography, always striving to better itself. Film is the adult, having had more than a century to mature. That's why there are times when film -- and only film -- is the best insurance that you'll get the result you want. Here are five arguments in its favor.

1) ULTIMATE IMAGE SHARPNESS
For most purposes, digital will do. But unless you're shooting with an ultra high-resolution digital back or top pro-level DSLR, film still produces the sharpest possible images. A 35mm frame converted to a digital file by today's desktop scanners simply clobbers the sharpness of a typical consumer DSLR.

Yes, you can sharpen a digital image in software. And with most DSLRs you must, because images are considerably softened by anti-aliasing filters that keep their sensors from recording jagged edges and moiré patterns. Yet if you overdo your sharpening, the image can take on a distractingly "crispy" appearance. The sharpness you get from film is more natural looking.

2) A SPECIFIC "LOOK"
Films have personality; DSLRs don't... (Continues...)

http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/3442/5-reasons-to-shoot-film.html

 

[gavinlg]

Thats a great link! cheers!

 

[RML]

Half the job is shooting. The other half is post-production.

IMO my R-D1 gives me more pleasing results straight from the camera but I still run them through Paint Shop Pro.

 

[Harry Lime]

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"

Oh, that's brilliant.

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 S5 PRO is the only DSLR I have ever seen that produces images that almost look like film. It has true 10 stops of range, which is a solid two stops more than any other DSLR out there. It's also 16bit. If I need to get another DSLR, this will be it with some Zeiss primes.

If Fuji made a true 10 or 12MP version of this camera I would be in heaven. If they threw in another stop or two of range I would hardly be able to contain myself.

I also have high hopes for the new 1D mk III. It has a new highlight mode, where it shifts the available DR from the shadows up to the highlights. It also has 14bit A/D converters. But this is a $4500 camera the size of a Speed Graphics.

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?

Images from a CCD tend to look less plastic than those produced by CMOS chip. I have no idea why. The M8 and several Nikons use CCD's. A weak AA filter also helps keep things crips. Canon is all CMOS and they process the hell out of everything to get the noise out. They also use strong AA filters. Image quality is very, very clean, especially with high asa figures, but Canon images have a certain look that some people do no like.

 

[rpsawin]

Gavin,

I shoot most of my digital stuff with a Nikon D100 and have not shot with a Canon. Based on my comparisons of the two systems I think your description is quite accurate. I had a D200 and sold it. My preference is the D100. I just did not like the results from the D200 and did not really enjoy shooting with it.

I also shoot with a DMC -LC1 (the Panasonic version of the Leica Digilux 2) and find the images from it to be very, very nice. Well, with a vario-summicron lens they should be.

Best Regards,

Bob

 

[Avotius]

I know 110% what you are talking about...I like a good high contrast image but the contrast settings on my 20d are always too low or way too high.

This is a problem with all digital images for those of us moving from film, it really just is not the same thing, just a different way of capturing images I guess. Anyway, I tried some tests before on shooting at the low contrast settings for a change

while its nice its not for everyday. The other shot in high contrast, can work on it after words but still...

 

[Avotius]

.......The tonal range of digital is just not nearly as good as film, just something to deal with I guess...that said my color shots come out great

keep playing with the bw settings using the raw thing and the canon viewer software that came with the camera to play with the perks of the canon raw capture, and once you find some settings that you like you can simply alter them on the camera then shoot away!

 

[nksyoon]

I've used the R-D1, Canon 20D and 5D. While there are differences, they're not enough to bother me. I do tend to prefer less noisy images though.

One difference between the 20D and 5D is that the 5D needs less sharpening, sometimes none. I believe the 5D has a weaker anti-aliasing filter than the 20D. I don't know about the XT/XTi.

Some samples from Canon 5D with different lenses for your consideration:

EF85/1.8, ISO800, natural light:

Larger: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/227/495426117_b9ef013434_o.jpg


Summicron 90, ISO3200, artificial light:

Larger: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/170/436888460_10e6c50085_o.jpg


Summicron 90, ISO400, natural light:

Larger: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/167/436890133_3e48b4a080_o.jpg


EF135/2, ISO200, natural light:

Larger: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/205/477313802_95c499b73c_o.jpg

 

[dazedgonebye]

I know 110% what you are talking about...I like a good high contrast image but the contrast settings on my 20d are always too low or way too high.

This is a problem with all digital images for those of us moving from film, it really just is not the same thing, just a different way of capturing images I guess. Anyway, I tried some tests before on shooting at the low contrast settings for a change

When shooting raw, settings such as contrast are not very important. They determine the default settings for your raw conversion, but you can change them as you do the conversions.

I've shot 300D, 20D, 350XT and 5D and every one produces files that require different post processing.
Following my standard 300D workflow with 5D files is a disaster. Once I learned what the 5D files wanted though...very nice stuff.

 

[NickTrop]

My Gawd, Avotius, these pics are outstanding. Esp. the last two though I'm in love with the subject matter of the first : )

 

[5:00 PM]

Great thread!

Great thread!

I haven't bought a DSLR (although I'm tempted by the D40 form factor), mostly because everytime I borrow one, I find I can't get better results than my high-end Canon P&S for the type of shooting I do. Lately I've been shooting a lot of color with the ancient camera in my avatar and getting the negatives scanned by a Noritsu minilab. I love the look I'm getting with this setup and I find I just can't get close to it with any digital camera I've tried. Recent favorite:

It's possible that the elements of this shot that work for me are, in fact, "flaws." If so, I wish I could get the same flaws with my digicam.

 

[GeneW]

5:00 PM, great shot! RF (or SLR) + Noritsu minilab is a viable way of combining film and digital, and almost as convenient if the lab is close to you.

Gene