Mr. Puts' opinion (2010) on film vs. digital (M7 vs. M9)

I don't think comparing Spur Nano Edge with a 35mm sensor at EI 160 makes too much sense. Spur Nano Edge is not a general purpose film. It doesn't make sense to use it unless you are willing to make certain sacrifices to get certain technical advantages. A more realistic and practical comparison in terms of trying to produce a technically excellent image would be Spur Nano Edge against the best of the larger format digital sensors used at its lowest ISO - and even that is comparing apples and oranges.
 
medium format?

medium format?

Hmm, I am just left wondering whether Ilford Delta 100 or Pan-F in 120 format in a Rollei TLR, Hasselblad 500, Mamiya 7 or Fuji 690 wouldn't be an easier route to maximise image quality. They are even pan-chromatic 🙂
 
I used to have a rule of thumb about how to know you were being too much of a gearhead and not a photographer - spending more on equipment than film, development and processing.

Since the advent of the digital world, I've been looking for a replacement rule of thumb, but haven't found one.

Now I'm thinking, "spending more time on forums arguing about technical merits than on photography."
 
This is the first in a series, so why bother supporting, or tearing down what he has put forth? Let him finish his presentation and see if there is anything of value. Clearly, there wasn't anything learned, except that the M9 does not approach the resolving power of the best lenses and digital doesn't handle curved surfaces in an analog way...go figure.

I shoot film because I have fun doing so and the pain in the tail work flow gives me an end product that I sometimes like. I would not shoot my next wedding in film, but then again, I would rather take my film cameras when vacationing. Who cares which is best? Doesn't the answer depend on the specifics of the question? Film best takes my focus off my six day per week job and that is good enough for me.
 
joachim said:
Hmm, I am just left wondering whether Ilford Delta 100 or Pan-F in 120 format in a Rollei TLR, Hasselblad 500, Mamiya 7 or Fuji 690 wouldn't be an easier route to maximise image quality. They are even pan-chromatic 🙂
Click to expand...

As much as it pains me, I shoot very little 35mm film these days. Most of my work is digital. But I do shoot a fair amount of 4x5 and 8x10 sheet film. My first 8x10 I picked up in a junk shop for $40. I equipped it with an equally economical f/9.5 Wollensak Raptar (It was a prehistoric beast.) that was quite sharp at f/22. Its negatives, scanned on a relatively economical Epson V750 scanner still produce large prints that edge out anything I do with a digital camera. The one thing that beat up, rickety old 8x10 did for me was to put ultra slow 35mm films behind me. 8x10 gave me better technical quality that was much easier to achieve.
 
Journeyman said:
If someone invented a mode of transport that would kill over 30,000 people in the US alone every year, does anyone think it would be legal?

Just because it's new, doesn't mean it's perfect.
Click to expand...

Incidentally, the same analogy shows that just because it's old and tried also doesn't mean it's perfect.
 
25asa is not so tough to use,.. on a normal day in england ive used my minox b with such a film and tech pan in 35mm.i think we all know that by using larger format better quality will result but not all of us can afford another format and not all of us want another format.its nice that 35mm film is still able to be in the game but its not important to beat any other system ,however until digital stops trying to look like film it seems,to me, that film is the winner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom