Roger Hicks
Veteran
This has interested me for a long time, in terms of pure information held in an image. This is the only useful definition of 'image quality' because it is widely agreed that the 'look' of film and digital -- and of different films, for that matter -- can be very different.
Before you can make any comparison, you have to assume that the camera is firmly bolted down to a substantial tripod and that the lens is perfectly focused. Otherwise, all comparisons are meaningless.
Second, you have to assume the sharpest possible lenses, and slow, sharp film. Let's assume the best Leica lenses and Kodak Ektar 100.
Third, you have to consider your subject matter. The best definition I ever heard for a truly demanding subject was 'a portrait of Art Garfunkel, with every hair sharp and no jaggies' (I understand he has less hair now but the argument holds good).
Fourth, you have to allow that film is a random array, while digital is regular.
Fifth, not all information is meaningful information -- except that there's scope for a BIG argument here about whether grain is 'meaningful' or not. Some say it isn't. I'd say it is, because it's part of what contributes to the 'look' of film. Thus, a 5400 dpi scan of even a slightly soft 35mm shot contains more information in the form of grain than an 1800 dpi scan.
With all this in mind, the broadest consensus I have found among all the industry experts to whom I have spoken, which also mirrors my own experience, is that 35mm has the potential to equate to at least 18 megapixels, and conceivably even twice that with the right subject. Even so, for most purposes with the camera hand held, 12 megapixels is about equivalent to 35mm and for many purposes 6 megapixels is astonishingly good (as born out by putting top-quality Zeiss lenses on my Nikon D70 as compared with the kit zoom).
Cheers,
R.
Before you can make any comparison, you have to assume that the camera is firmly bolted down to a substantial tripod and that the lens is perfectly focused. Otherwise, all comparisons are meaningless.
Second, you have to assume the sharpest possible lenses, and slow, sharp film. Let's assume the best Leica lenses and Kodak Ektar 100.
Third, you have to consider your subject matter. The best definition I ever heard for a truly demanding subject was 'a portrait of Art Garfunkel, with every hair sharp and no jaggies' (I understand he has less hair now but the argument holds good).
Fourth, you have to allow that film is a random array, while digital is regular.
Fifth, not all information is meaningful information -- except that there's scope for a BIG argument here about whether grain is 'meaningful' or not. Some say it isn't. I'd say it is, because it's part of what contributes to the 'look' of film. Thus, a 5400 dpi scan of even a slightly soft 35mm shot contains more information in the form of grain than an 1800 dpi scan.
With all this in mind, the broadest consensus I have found among all the industry experts to whom I have spoken, which also mirrors my own experience, is that 35mm has the potential to equate to at least 18 megapixels, and conceivably even twice that with the right subject. Even so, for most purposes with the camera hand held, 12 megapixels is about equivalent to 35mm and for many purposes 6 megapixels is astonishingly good (as born out by putting top-quality Zeiss lenses on my Nikon D70 as compared with the kit zoom).
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Kozhe
Well-known
I´m hating scanning more and more. I have an Epson 2400 which is not a great film scanner...
It´s like recording music on digital or analog. Digital has more resolution and a cleaner signal, but analog just has a different taste and some say the human ear likes the imperfections of analog audio.
Same about film and sensors. I find my digital street shoots cold and too clean for my taste, film (tri-x in my case) brings some rendering that I love and in some way "defines" the shoot.
I vote digital for quality and its clean signal. I vote film for bw, highlight forgiveness and atittude, but specially because my manual film cameras fit a lot better my shooting style.
In the end, it just doesn´t matter at all as long as you feel confortable with what you have on your hands, isn´t it?
It´s like recording music on digital or analog. Digital has more resolution and a cleaner signal, but analog just has a different taste and some say the human ear likes the imperfections of analog audio.
Same about film and sensors. I find my digital street shoots cold and too clean for my taste, film (tri-x in my case) brings some rendering that I love and in some way "defines" the shoot.
I vote digital for quality and its clean signal. I vote film for bw, highlight forgiveness and atittude, but specially because my manual film cameras fit a lot better my shooting style.
In the end, it just doesn´t matter at all as long as you feel confortable with what you have on your hands, isn´t it?
Merkin
For the Weekend
Yes, most digital cameras cost more than most film cameras, I don't think anyone is disputing that. However, the cost of film and processing have to be factored in to the equation, as well as the cost of a film scanner if you use one. Over time, shooting film ends up costing more, unless you are one of those people who insist on getting a new digital every six months, which is unnecessary now that we are finally getting digital cameras with sensors that are incredibly competitive with film.
Jason Blake
Member
Thanks Roger for your post. Very interesting information which I agree with wholeheartedly.
I just spent 10 minutes looking at the gallery of nome_alice. I'm going to bed now but intend completing my viewing tomorrow. I shoot film, both 35mm and 120. I was reminded why I shoot film when looking at nome's gallery. Beautifully rendered colour, tonal range, correctly exposed and well composed.
The detail in these images is extraordinary and it makes them live. I couldn't help but notice the foliage in the trees, again the detail, the richness and the colour.
Thank you nome for this experience, I look forward to more viewing tomorrow.
I just spent 10 minutes looking at the gallery of nome_alice. I'm going to bed now but intend completing my viewing tomorrow. I shoot film, both 35mm and 120. I was reminded why I shoot film when looking at nome's gallery. Beautifully rendered colour, tonal range, correctly exposed and well composed.
The detail in these images is extraordinary and it makes them live. I couldn't help but notice the foliage in the trees, again the detail, the richness and the colour.
Thank you nome for this experience, I look forward to more viewing tomorrow.
lorriman
Established
For me film wins despite reservations about quality. With digital I can effectively machine-gun myself a good pic, but the final chosen pic can only give me pleasure. With film I have to carefully set the whole thing up, direct my subject and ambush the moment. The satisfaction of success eclipses any pleasure and can be savoured again and again. I wouldn't do this if the numbers didn't work: I take so few pics that it'll take me 8 years to reach the cost of a cheaper digital equivalent (processing included). I use my brother's digital kit when I must.
I suspect this isn't as true for non-portraitists.
I suspect this isn't as true for non-portraitists.
Last edited:
Merkin
For the Weekend
Yes, with digital you can machine-gun your way to the shot you want, but you certainly do not have to. I still compose my shots, check my exposure, check my focus, and shoot, just as I would with film. It is nice to have the machine gun feature for very fast moving subjects, although I rarely use it. Also, you can certainly machine gun film as well. That is what motor drives (and 250+ exposure backs) are for. There is nothing inherent about digital that prevents you from using it the same way you would use film, except for the lack of reciprocity failure, which I admit I don't like, as I enjoy making six to eight hour exposures. When I get the same results in a couple minutes, it doesn't feel quite as satisfying.
For you, it does sound like film is the better option cost-wise. One thing to mention though, is that with digital, a lot of people find themselves taking a lot more pictures, as you don't have to worry about capacity and added cost. Also, it allows you to take a few more chances, which can sometimes lead to some really good stuff, since you don't have to worry about conserving your resources other than battery resources.
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
I have a pretty good quality DSLR. I have not taken it out of the house in a year. My problem is not digital, per se, but bulk and weight: If I am going to carry lenses that big (not to mention the body) I might as well have the Mamiya 7. It is almost exactly the same bulk as my DLSR and less weight.
If, on the other hand, I am walking around and just carrying a camera, I use a leica or voigtlander RF because they fit easily in my jacket pocket.
So, the only equivalent digital camera (M9) would be $6K more than my currently most expensive rangefinder. At $20 / roll (slide film and processing) that is 350 rolls. Not ridiculous, but it is a lot to pay for a camera that will be superseded in a couple of years.
For Black and White, the cost is more along the lines of $6 / roll (1000 rolls), which I might get to in my lifetime. But not in 35 mm.
This changes, of course, if you are a professional photographer. If I were a wedding photographer, for instance, I could justify that in a very few events. Possibly the break even point would be three to six months. One, if we account for post processing time. (Scanning is slow, so you pay someone else to do it... the price adds up)
Running the numbers for medium format: Price difference of ~$45K, 2250 rolls, I suspect either camera would be destroyed before reaching 22500 frames.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
Think M8...8.2...9
Or, if you prefer, D70...D80...D90
It is a problem I have with camera makers: you can't just replace the part that has an improved replacement. Of course it still works, but do you see anyone using a D1? How old is the D1? 10 years? I have three cameras that I still use that are more than twice that age. They still produce wonderful full resolution images.
JPS
Member
I agree with all your points !
BTW, I hadv never read the article in Luminous Landscape, but when one think it has been written more than 6 years ago..... and that, since then, a LOT of progresses have been made in the digital world, but none -or very little- in the FILM world, it looks as though, effectively, the overall quality of digital image has well surpassed film, once for all !
...and about dynamic range, the newer cameras, be it Nikon or Canon, have reached a DR that maybe (?) is now wider than any actual film (as the choice of film is getting scarce !). I shoot with a Nikon D700, and when I compare the DR I get, as compared to my previous D200, the difference is huge !
Cheers,
J-P.
Last edited:
Merkin
For the Weekend
Yes, new cameras do come out, but just because an M10 is basically inevitable, it wont make the M9 any less of a viable camera.
I do however, agree that modularity would be nice in the 35mm world. It is present in the MF world because MF has always been more modular than 35mm. I don't know if it would be practical in non-pro 35mm equiv. DSLRs, but it would certainly be practical for the top canons and nikons, as well as the leicas, assuming the weather sealing could be worked out well.
wgerrard
Veteran
I took Toms comment to refer to the turnover in digital technology, not the lifetime of any given digital camera. While a digital may well survive for 15 years, I question if anyone would want to use it if the underlying technology changes as much as seems likely.
Personal computers from 1994 may work just fine today, but the inconvenience of using them, their incompatibility with standards developed since their manufacture, and the low cost of replacing versus repairing them certainly discourage anyone from doing that (in many cases repair is not possible).
For that matter, a matter as mundane as finding compatible memory cards 15 years hence might easily prove impossible.
Factor in the low cost of buying into better tools, too. In 15 years, I expect cameras with better specs than today's topline digitals to sell for under $100.
All this means that a digital camera user is likely to bear the expense of a replacement much more often than a film user.
Bottom line: There's a large market for quality vintage film cameras. I'm pretty sure there will never be much of a market for quality vintage digital cameras.
Last edited:
JPS
Member
Thank you gentlemen !
At least, -even if the "pro-film" will never agree with the "pro-digital", one thing is sure: this was my FIRST thread on this forum, and it got more than 70 posts in less than 24 hours ! This is MUCH more than any thread will ever be answered in most -if not all !- other photo related forums !
Apart from that, most of the threads are constructive and intelligent, and I have learned quite a few things by reading them !
...only for these reasons, I feel more like getting myself a film-camera, 35mm of medium format, and spend some time re-learning the old way of shooting, developping and printing...
Cheers,
J-P.
At least, -even if the "pro-film" will never agree with the "pro-digital", one thing is sure: this was my FIRST thread on this forum, and it got more than 70 posts in less than 24 hours ! This is MUCH more than any thread will ever be answered in most -if not all !- other photo related forums !
Apart from that, most of the threads are constructive and intelligent, and I have learned quite a few things by reading them !
...only for these reasons, I feel more like getting myself a film-camera, 35mm of medium format, and spend some time re-learning the old way of shooting, developping and printing...
Cheers,
J-P.
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
Actually, I would love to have a modular digital rangefinder camera. Just take the back off, and replace the electronics.
I would also like to see digital cameras that used wireless / bluetooth to send the pictures to your phone and got rid of the (fragile) LCD. That is never going to happen, of course.
I liked using the digital, I currently like using film more. That does not make film better than digital, just different. Also, I have a tendancy to print 30" or 40" prints (scanned and optical) and MF rules on that. In the past couple of years, I have completely fallen for medium and large format.
I suppose it is time for me to bow out of this discussion. As we have all experienced: this is not going anywhere.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear David,
As long as the camera does what you want now, it ain't going to stop doing it when something new comes out.
Of course there is room for improvement with any camera. But anything bigger than full-frame is deeply unlikely -- that was the big jump for the M9 over over the M8/M8.2 -- and 18 megapixels equates roughly to 35mm, so I see no great need for improvement there. Quite honestly I'm not that fussed about higher ISOs. What other improvements do you expect that will make an M10 'supersede' an M9?
Addressing others' concerns: yes, SD cards might disappear. But it's more likely they'll just increase in capacity and decrease in price. What advantage is there in changing the interface? Anything smaller would be too hard to use anyway. Software and applications? Hands up everyone who believes that it's impossible to maintain Raw readers, or that TIFF is doomed.
Most people are brainwashed by consumerism. It doesn't have to be like this. I finally stopped writing on a 386 (with Wordstar) a couple of years ago when the main board fried. It was about 16 years old.
The thing is, I earn my living with my word processor and cameras, and have done for decades (first camera 1966, first computer c.1984), so I'm reasonably confident that it's my knowledge, ability and experience that count, not whether I'm using a 'superseded' camera or computer.
I buy new kit when I have no choice (the fried motherboard being the sublime example); or when there is a really significant advantage in the new kit (I couldn't really live without digital, especially for pack shots); or when I both want it and can afford it. This is ever less often, because although I am better placed financially than ever before, I buy far fewer things because I want far fewer things -- and one of the reasons I am better placed financially is that I buy far fewer things...
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
Ok, one quick story:
I just bought a new drill. My old one was only 6 years old. I had no desire to replace it, but it was cordless and the battery would no longer charge.
I went to the big box hardware store to buy a battery, asked the sales associate and he says : you need to go online for those, they don't make them anymore. Eventually it comes out that the cost of a new battery for my old drill is more than the cost of a new drill with two batteries.
Needless to say, I bought a new drill. After all, I needed to use the stupid drill.
The same story, replace drill with cell phone, six years with two years, and me with my friend.
Now look for a computer battery from three years ago. (here, the price difference between a new battery and a new computer is more substantial. But you want a new computer, don't you?)
So, I would be more worried about rechargeable batteries than about memory cards. With continuous use, they do not last very long at all.
Not that this would stop me from buying a camera. I would just consider it when I was making the purchase.
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
Roger,
Quite honestly, I have no fundamental or even surface disagreement with anything you have said.
I was presenting a different view, but not really in disagreement. I do what I do because it works for me, and works better than my DSLR. Most of that is related to the SLR more than the D.
My fundamental complaint about digital cameras is that the camera went from being a lifetime investment (I know there are many people on this forum using 50+ year old cameras) to being an investment driven by electronics. Electronics do not age gracefully. In fact, I was just looking for a link but could not find it. There was a study explaining why they don't age gracefully involving the growth of new "threads" inside the electronic components.
MTBF (mean time between failure) is a design parameter in electronics. Typically it is five years in computer internals. I have no idea what it is in cameras.
You can get a awful lot of use out of a camera in five years, of course. Something else to not worry about if you are going to use the camera.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear David,
Yes, but a cordless drill is cheap consumer electrics/electronics; an M9 is not an almost disposable purchase. Leica has said they will support the M9 for 20 years, which one might fairly take to include continuing to provide batteries.
I am told in any case that there are companies who will take your old battery; rip it apart; replace the cells; and glue it together again, and that this costs surprisingly little.
Abandon the consumerist mindset -- as Leica says they have done, and as their history indicates -- and as I say, 'superseded' looks a lot less threatening.
EDIT, in light of your new post. Sure, I fully accept your arguments too, but I suspect that the M9 may be as close as you can get to a digital 'camera for life': if not a camera for life, then at least, a camera for a generation. A couple of days ago (in hospital!) I did a piece on exactly this, with respect to high end cameras.
Cheers,
R.
Yes, but a cordless drill is cheap consumer electrics/electronics; an M9 is not an almost disposable purchase. Leica has said they will support the M9 for 20 years, which one might fairly take to include continuing to provide batteries.
I am told in any case that there are companies who will take your old battery; rip it apart; replace the cells; and glue it together again, and that this costs surprisingly little.
Abandon the consumerist mindset -- as Leica says they have done, and as their history indicates -- and as I say, 'superseded' looks a lot less threatening.
EDIT, in light of your new post. Sure, I fully accept your arguments too, but I suspect that the M9 may be as close as you can get to a digital 'camera for life': if not a camera for life, then at least, a camera for a generation. A couple of days ago (in hospital!) I did a piece on exactly this, with respect to high end cameras.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
I am going to have to go with the "I don't have $7K for that" argument. Otherwise, I have been talking myself out of ordering one since it was announced.
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
I did a small scale test with my old leica R4 and my 6Mp pentax 100d with standard lens.
I took a lovely scene with a river and bridge. I printed out 13x10 prints from both. I loved the print from R4. it is not comparable. If you didnot know the print from fil, you would think the digital one is satisfactory because it is still good but the amount of details I got from film is unbelievable...I could see the pole and the wire kms away, and the colors are impressive.
So what you may say. Yes I still have digital camera and I do take photos with it but I personally like film more. That is something personal.
At the end if you know the + and - of what you have you can produce good photos...
By the way I never replace my color slides and the joy of projecting them to my wall to anything else...The colors produced by my leica lenses!!! impressive!
I took a lovely scene with a river and bridge. I printed out 13x10 prints from both. I loved the print from R4. it is not comparable. If you didnot know the print from fil, you would think the digital one is satisfactory because it is still good but the amount of details I got from film is unbelievable...I could see the pole and the wire kms away, and the colors are impressive.
So what you may say. Yes I still have digital camera and I do take photos with it but I personally like film more. That is something personal.
At the end if you know the + and - of what you have you can produce good photos...
By the way I never replace my color slides and the joy of projecting them to my wall to anything else...The colors produced by my leica lenses!!! impressive!