Nikon F3 compared to D700 (Huge Enlargements)

I think the biggest grievance people have had with this test was that ISO 400 was used and the type of film used was not specified.

That said, you can get cleaner images (i.e. less grain) from a high end digital SLR at like for like ISO than on 35mm film. It might not be the same case at ISO 100 (e.g. Provia 100F, Astia 100F or the new Ektar 100) would probably still pack a punch. If they had used 120 format film even with 6x4.5, I think the differences would have been increasingly minimal.

But of course, not many people will print that large (most people are happy with 6x4s, and looking through my grandparents photos, most prints I have found are straight 120 and 127 contact prints! And people were happy enough for the cost with those too! Staggering to think that!)

I like grain sometimes and this is why I continue to shoot film, with the right film for the job. With PanF 50 and even Tri X I have on occassion printed 16x12's and even a couple of 20x16s which were very acceptable for the Pan F and still decent on the Tri X (grain was evident but that made the picture to me.)

So I say don't take it personally. At the end of the day this was The Gadget Show, not "The Second Hand Real Steal Show" -- most people would still 'get away' with a Nikon F5 and chuck out very pleasing results, it might take a bit more work but the camera as ever doesn't really make the photographer. I won a local competition 2 years ago for a photo I took on a throw away camera! It baffled many including me!

At the end of the day, it always come down to your results. Are you happy with them? If yes, then that's the main thing. I certainly enjoy my photos with my "out of date" cameras as do others. What fills me with the greatest joy is that excluding glass, on what I spent first on an EOS 5 some years ago (5 years ago?), then an EOS 3, followed by a Mamiya C330F, an Olynpus XA and most recently a Leica M2 - I have spent only half of what I think a D300 would cost (£615 is what I have spent) -- and with the pleasure it brings it makes it all the sweeter :)

I know my consumption of film does begin to add to the cost but that's one of those things that I accept perhaps like a classic car owner accepts that running costs might be higher than buying a more recent car.

To me, the photograph is the most important thing and I'll enjoy a good one whatever the process.
 
Low quality film scanner tested. I've reached out to them via email to see if they have any info. In reality they are about selling new stuff, not used so I'm not surprised at their results.

B2 (;->
 
Perfectly ridiculous. If you're using film it's meant to be wet printed, not scanned and then digitally processed! If the film picture isn't as good as the digital one it's because the processing wasn't done properly.
 
Oh to add, now I'm not trying to suggest anything, or maybe I am ;) But you could say that they didn't waste too much time in making sure the viewer registered which model of digital Nikon camera that was.

For those of you who appreciate Alan Patridge, perhaps the inference from this joke might be apt:

Santa: What kind of car goes 'woof woof'?
Tony Hares: It's not a Rover is it?
<Alan gesticulating madly at Santa to try and avoid an awkward moment live on BBC television>
Santa: It's not a Rover. It's a Vauxhall Labrador.


In case I have lost you: product placement... :)
 
Complete waste of time. Why don't they try a drum scan frame of Ektar 100 vs the D700 on a high end printer at 16x24 and see which one holds more detail? I have. And the DSLR didn't win (well, it was a 5D....but cloes enough).
 
... "and next week we get some potatos, peeled diced and deep fried in canola oil and compare them to the latest oven bake chips available at your local supermarket in the frozen food section ... you'll be amazed at the results!" :rolleyes:
 
I agree with many others. The unanswered questions were which film, where processed, which scanner, at what resolution? How were they both digitally processed? Was the scan raw, was the digital file raw? Who did the manipulation. Way too many variables.
 
Rhoyle said:
I agree with many others. The unanswered questions were which film, where processed, which scanner, at what resolution? How were they both digitally processed? Was the scan raw, was the digital file raw? Who did the manipulation. Way too many variables.
Click to expand...

Yes!

Who does this sort of crap serve? Certainly not the public who would like to make a informed decision. I wonder who pays those two idiots?
 
with the amount of variables involved in printing, the only thing that "test" can vouch for is the ability of the print shop to print something big. Couldnt be more irrelevant and worthless in comparing the two mediums.
 
They do a great job of telling you the cameras are 35mm format at the outset, however in the title they just say "film" vs. "digital". Even though I'm in agreement that this test is total BS. it'd be great fun to test this against large format film!!!
 
its not a test
its just an industry lobbied promotion for digital
they have to move camera's
they can't have customers thinking, they need customers buying
blablabla
(yes, I'm fiercely cynical about this. In fact, realizing this has hastened my move to film)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom