40oz said:
I respectfully disagree with your characterization of current DSLR technology. For starters, resolution is not what it seems. The top dog Canon 1Ds Mk2 has a 4992 x 3328 pixel sensor, which has 1 red and 1 blue pixel for every 2 green pixels. It generates roughly 5.5 MB files. In scanner terms, it would be roughly 1000 dpi. My ~$300 when-new HP film scanner (several years old) has an honest 2400 dpi, which is well above the resolution of the 1Ds Mk2, yet is still not capable of capturing all the detail in even 400 ISO 35mm film, and makes files 4 times the size of 1Ds files (because they contain much more data). A single 35mm film frame contains much more data than the 1Ds is capable of capturing.
People can say what they want, but a full-frame sensor DSLR like the 1Ds Mk2 is not comparable to 35mm film, much less 6x6, even if we are only comparing resolution. "People" claim that Leica lenses on an M body surpass medium format, but that doesn't make it true. The 1Ds might be superior to a crappy scan of a negative, but that's neither here nor there.
But film is about more than resolution. The range of light and dark (# of stops) that films can capture also greatly exceeds the ability of the 1Ds. ISO range is another area where a camera like the much-vaunted 1Ds is lacking. With an ISO range of 100-1600, it again is bested by existing film technology. Hell, I can (and do) shoot Tri-X over a greater range than the 1Ds, and can readily purchase both slower and faster films. And if we discuss operating environments, the 1Ds is not recommended for sub-freezing temps and fast ISO settings will suffer from increased noise as the heat approaches the top end of its envelope (45* C). Film isn't subject to the same limitations - if your camera can handle it, the film probably can too, within some more lenient parameters. Have you ever seen a high ISO color shot from a DSLR? Noise is far, far more offensive than the grain in high ISO color film, and not just to me. The 1Ds might be better here than a lot of cameras, but then, it's also more expensive than almost any other camera. And my argument isn't solely addressing the 1Ds, it just happens to be the camera people like to point to as "proof" that digital is better than film.
And ultimately, the lack of flexibility is what completely kills the digital camera for me. The fact that you get one way to capture a scene is not acceptable. Each sensor responds to light in one way, and that one way every time. You can change the appearance in something like photoshop, but it's not like using infrared film vs. color film vs. B&W. If I want to spend time manipulating each frame in photoshop, I could do so with my negative scans.
Even if money was no object, I don't see ANY advantage to a digital SLR or rangefinder. I'm not getting paid for my photography, I don't ever expect to get paid for the rate which I can pass on images, and I don't like not having a hard copy for posterity. Unless I print everything, my digital files are barely more permanent than the weather. I can scan whatever films I want if digital images are needed, and print the negatives if quality prints are needed. I'm just not seeing any advantages that would attract me to digital right now, the same way I'd have a hard time going to a Brownie box camera instead of my SLR and rangefinders. The drawbacks are way too many for it to be anything but a novelty.
Whether Zeiss ever makes a digital rangefinder isn't going to affect my decisions to buy their lenses. They might have to put some R&D into a digital camera someday, but they've been a lens company for a long time now, so maybe not. They already make lenses for the M system, the Nikon F system, the Sony/Minolta system, as well as various Sony digital cameras and a Nokia cell phone. So it's not like they don't have an outlet for their lenses as it is. I think the Ikon is more a flagship than a lifeboat at this point, but I'm no expert on their finances. I just think if something like a digital Ikon was coming, they would not be coy about it.
I just want to correct something here - mainly this part:
" The range of light and dark (# of stops) that films can capture also greatly exceeds the ability of the 1Ds. ISO range is another area where a camera like the much-vaunted 1Ds is lacking. With an ISO range of 100-1600, it again is bested by existing film technology. Hell, I can (and do) shoot Tri-X over a greater range than the 1Ds, and can readily purchase both slower and faster films. And if we discuss operating environments, the 1Ds is not recommended for sub-freezing temps and fast ISO settings will suffer from increased noise as the heat approaches the top end of its envelope (45* C). Film isn't subject to the same limitations - if your camera can handle it, the film probably can too, within some more lenient parameters. Have you ever seen a high ISO color shot from a DSLR? Noise is far, far more offensive than the grain in high ISO color film, and not just to me.
The range of light that film can capture isn't more than the 1ds. Its pretty similar really, and the difference in outright dynamic range are neglegible... However, film has a much smoother dropoff in the way it cuts both highlights and shadows, when as the digital image has more or less a "cut point" where it suddenly drops the information, rather than the smooth shoulder of film. This is slowly improving as the sensors develop - especially in the canons.
Not only that, the new fuji sensors in their s5 pro have extended dynamic range abilities due to having both highlight dedicated and normal photosites on its sensor. In fact I have seen proof in an image, that the fuji s5 can be overexposed by 2.5 stops to the point where the image is all white, and the information can be brought back to the point where it almost looks like a normal image. Thats impressive!
Secondly, the 1ds mkII has an ISO range of 50-3200. The new 1d mkIII has an ISO range from 50-6400, and the 1ds mkIII coming out this year will follow suit.
I don't believe that the noise/grain performance from film is anywhere near as good as that of the canon digital images. Have a look at these links, please look subjectively and not with "film colored glasses"
🙂
1d mkIII @ 3200ISO, unedited
http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/EOS-1D_Mark_III_ISO3200_Goalie_DPP.jpg
1d mkIII @ 6400ISO, unedited
http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/EOS-1D_Mark_III_ISO6400_Goalie_DPP.jpg
I also have a 30d and it is bloody excellent with noise at high ISOs, it's very very useable at 1600 (if I expose perfectly it is nearly noiseless) and definetly useable at 3200 (especially if exposures right on)
If you can find a film which performs better than that at those sensitivities, please let me know and I will buy bulk of it. I have tried superia 1600 and found it to be very grainy with a large loss of color saturation. Not so impressive. I think it's commonly accepted that the canon DSLRS trounce film in high ISO performance.
The other thing I have to get right is the temperature thing that you mentioned - DSLRs are fine in sub 0 temperatures. How do I know? Because I've taken my 30d which isn't even totally weather sealed like the 1d series all over canada during their winter, which was quite cold at some times, and had it hanging off my shoulder most of the time. Temperatures were pretty often around -10 to -15 degrees celcius which is quite a bit below freezing, especially up on the glaciers. It also got snowed on and rained on, and even the battery life wasn't affected much. I still got about 300-500 shots out of 1 battery. Also in increased heat, 45 degrees C etc, the camera is also fine.... I know because I live in Australia, and sometimes we get up around that temperature. Not only that, but those higher temps barely affect noise at high ISOs, and even if they do, it's not noticeable.
I love film, but I also work in photography and film is basically not useable unless its for special reasons like a traditional PJ wedding or something... In the whole of my photography, I use 50/50 film digital. Mostly film for personal, and mostly digital for work.
Before anyone says it, this is very relevant to the digital zeiss ikon discussion... I think people need to know more about digital before they turn their back on it, much like people need to know more about film before they turn their back on it. Admittedly the latter is more important.
Even if the Digital Ikon was a 1.3 crop - I'd buy it.
