Scanned 35mm. VS full frame DSLR 12MP ?

Ronald_H said:
It's a dead horse...

Even my now considered obsolete Nikon D70 will kick the cr*p out of 35mm, even my M2 with a Summicron on it. A bit sad, but true. Color fidelity and pixel sharpness is much better and big prints (75x50cm) look much better. Hi-ISO is better too.

BUT, I like the look of film. Film won't kill your highlights in high contrast situations and no digital bw looks like bw film. I also like my manual cams much more than the zillion parameters and modes on my D200. So I use film for 90% of my shots these days. I develop bw myself (a bumpy road) and use my scanner to the death. I feel more involved with film.

And a nother big but, my 115 Euro Yashica Mat 124 (medium format) will destroy my D200 in picture quality.

So yes, I firmly believe a dSLR is better than 35mm for most purposes. But I use film more because it challenges me more and ultimately is more fun.
Click to expand...
Dear Ronald,

This is opinion masquerading as fact. I also have a D70, and while with a decent lens on it the results are astonishingly good, to say that it 'kicks the cr*p' out of good 35mm is, to be kind, hyperbole.

Cheers,

R.
 
I'll say what lots already have. Digital cameras have for some time in terms of absolute sharpness and lack of grain; and also sheer resolution been better in those respects than 35mm film.

That said there's more to the photo than just the sharpness and lack of grain -- for me. I like a bit of grain and I like the tonality I get from film in the negative when I print it. It gives me something that whilst achievable for digital, just to me doesn't look quite the same. It is probably all to do with that grain.

I have been shooting 35mm for a few years now and I'm always impressed just how much detail is packed into each negative/positive, a miracle enough.

Also, apart from the M9 and the small matter of nearly £5000 (of which I have only about £50 of...) my M2 still works and given that I like the results I get from using film I will keep on doing so.

Anyway -- cameras schameras, when you're watching a programme on photography or leafing through a book, it's the picture everytime that makes the photo; not the camera.

Still, as and when things like 35mm do become too expensive to fund in the way I can now, at least I can relax a little that Leica has a full frame M, a camera I love to use, it won't be the same but I am far more prepared to move over to that than any digital SLR.
 
TomN said:
But companies like Nikon and Canon aren't interested in the photographer really. What they are interested in money, and so are the shareholders. It never used to be so much like that, especially with Nikon. Their D3 and D3x are cameras which would serve pro's well for another ten years. The only real advantage that I think is neccessary, is improved dynamic range. High ISO is not required, it has just become a pissing contest now, which really has no practical use for most working photographers. Some may think they may need it, but if they bought some nice fast glass instead of using medium speed f2.8 zooms, ISO technology from two years ago would more than suffice.

But Nikon of course will release at least another six new model pro bodies in the next ten years, and they will continue to bring out these ridiculously sized, cheaply made (no aperture ring!!!!!) 'pro' zooms rather than nice fast primes. Working photographers cannot not afford to play along with this upgrade structure that is currently expected, and at present, they seem to be working for a great amount of time to pay for their next cameras. Remember when Nikon used to bring out new pro bodies every ten years, and even then alot of photographers took years to embrace the new technology? But why wouldn't these big camera companies keep bringing these updates out? With the internet now, there is so much hype created, with big name photographers selling themselves out and jumping on the marketing train, deliberate media leaks and so on. Consumers just lap that stuff up..."25600 ISO....just what I always needed". So I don't know who is going to break this cycle. Are the consumers going to come to their senses, or are consumers going to take a stand?
Click to expand...

This is sad but true. Of course Nikon and Canon and Panasonic and Sony are primarily interested in profit. Probably so are Leica, but they understand they need to follow a different path asd they cannot compete with the big companies. They aslo have a heritage that is meaningful to them.

In terms of high iso performance, I have a 3 year old 5D and it idoes all I could want at high iso. I don't have a need for the increased performance that is becoming available (thogh oftern overstated actually). The image quality drive is fine, but is predicated on one particular definition of quality - high resolution and very clean, low noise imaging. The argument that you can always mess it up is only true up to a point. I, and many artists I know, find the process also to be important in the final print. The idea that the materials contribute to the way the print looks (whether photographic or otherwise) is important to many. They are not simply blind luddites, it's part of how they express themselves.

Last weekend I made a print that had to be shot on digital because the feel I wanted needed a very clean image file. Other times I use film.


Mike
 
"But I use film more because it challenges me more and ultimately is more fun."

Different strokes for different folks. While I still shoot film when needed because I like the look for some things, and have spent decades in a darkroom, the process of messing with film was never fun for me. It was just the only means to an end, which was the images. I think it's great, though, that for a while at least there is a choice. I don't feel nostalgic about film at all, though, and have really enjoyed the last 10 years with digital.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
"But I use film more because it challenges me more and ultimately is more fun."

Different strokes for different folks. While I still shoot film when needed because I like the look for some things, and have spent decades in a darkroom, the process of messing with film was never fun for me. It was just the only means to an end, which was the images. I think it's great, though, that for a while at least there is a choice. I don't feel nostalgic about film at all, though, and have really enjoyed the last 10 years with digital.
Click to expand...
Hahaaa.... we're getting there ?

...or not ?

:angel:
J-P.
 
Merkin said:
however, it only takes 9,361 exposures for the M9 to be cheaper than the MP. If you buy a brand new MP and a dedicated film scanner, the M9 would be cheaper in a matter of months.
Click to expand...

Wow, this thread passed me by.

(I used my M6 price of ~$1000, and film plus dev price of ~$20/roll for my comparisons. For slide this is pretty good, including postage. I already own a scanner, which I need for MF work.).

I doubt that the comparison of MP vs M9 is really as useful as you think: As nice as the MP is, I and many others are not interested in the price tag of that camera because you can get a pretty equivalent camera for 20% of the price. Made by the same company. I suspect that an M7 would be a better comparison. It does not change the results though.
 
it is the fun of film .....

it is the fun of film .....

Dear all;


I started my morning with this cheery message:



You have been banned for the following reason:
No reason was specified.
Date the ban will be lifted: Never


Guess I should log in first .....


Some one early on in the thread got it, a big part of film for me is not IQ, there is just something fun about shooting with a camera made before I was born! ( Speed Graphic, Polaroid 900 ) or a camera that was made when the Berlin wall was still standing .... M6



The IQ of film is more than sufficient than what I use it for.



I develop it my self, and that to is fun .... not cheap, not better than digital, but it has a sense of satisfaction that I never get with digital. Not to say that the images digital makes are not satisfying, but the process of getting them is just less thrilling to me.


Dave
 
I made a small compare between my Nikon D2x and Linhof technika 6x9. I have a Coolscan 9000 which I used for 6x9 scanning in 4000 dpi.

The "full" image is here:
http://www.pbase.com/mxp/image/109458428/original

D2x crop here (upsampled to 6x9 crop size):
http://www.pbase.com/mxp/image/109458391/original

6x9 crop here:
http://www.pbase.com/mxp/image/109458431/original

I remember a test I saw some years ago where a person shoved that his 11MP Canon could out resolve a 6x7 Pentax........I never understod that. Think this test proves that a 12MP digital has its limitations compared to medium format film.
 
degruyl said:
Wow, this thread passed me by.

(I used my M6 price of ~$1000, and film plus dev price of ~$20/roll for my comparisons. For slide this is pretty good, including postage. I already own a scanner, which I need for MF work.).

I doubt that the comparison of MP vs M9 is really as useful as you think: As nice as the MP is, I and many others are not interested in the price tag of that camera because you can get a pretty equivalent camera for 20% of the price. Made by the same company. I suspect that an M7 would be a better comparison. It does not change the results though.
Click to expand...

The reason I chose the MP is because there isn't yet a used M9 market, and I feel that film is better than the M8. Even though I think the IQ of the M8 doesn't stand up, especially to slide film, here are the numbers: If you already have a scanner, and you get a 1000 dollar M6, and you assume a (too high in my opinion) price of 3 grand for an M8, the M6 becomes more expensive after only 100 rolls of your slide film, and it keeps getting more expensive with each roll after that.

I guess my basic point with all of this is that if you shoot something like a canonet or a K1000 you scored for fifty bucks off of craigslist, you only shoot arista film, you only shoot a handful of rolls a year, and you are happy with the performance of a 150 dollar flatbed scanner, you wouldn't be doing yourself a financial favor by buying an M9 or a D3x. For a lot of us though, now that the digital cameras have leveled the playing field, digital is becoming the smarter choice more and more, and people need to take the time every six months to a year and evaluate whether the advances in digital have made it a better choice for them than film. The answer may be yes, it may be no. It was no for me until just a few months ago.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Chris,

Photography can be art, sometimes. As painting and music, not always. Even though the consideration is always subjective... That would be a nonsense discussion.

The significance of this thread is full of sense. We're talking about visually measurable image quality. There's a difference. Those two prints are really different.


Regards,

Juan
Click to expand...
Hi Juan, Forgive my tardiness in replying.

My somewhat sophomoric sarcasm with regard to the term "IQ" meaning image quality was directed at that term, not the classification of photography as art. in fact I find the classification of art even more difficult of a subject than a direct comparison of digital and film photography. There will always be both (with the oft repeated arguments of devoted digitalists, such as Pickett and Bill M. excepted.)

It term IQ as used in internet fora such as this one (although this was my first encounter with it here - it is much more common at sites such as DPR or the Nikon Cafe) is a way to claim superiority of one's lenses. They are said to "draw" or "render" better than "glass" with a lesser IQ.

Unfortunately IQ entirely misses the point of PQ - picture quality. A 24 by 36 inch enlargement of a beautiful bouquet of flowers, done with a two thousand dollar lens and a seven thousand dollar camera, will be beautiful and a sight to behold. It will not, however mean much unless the bouquet is significant in some other way. On the other hand, a well seen, composed and exposed photo of one's 95 year old (grand) parent, or portrait of a lost soul, or any other photo that will have personal or mass appeal will have much more impact, even if it is taken on cheap black and white film and a thirty dollar camera (with lens).

IQ is a semi-measurable quantity which provides grist for lengthy internet conversations. PQ is different, it rarely generates long threads, but does result in photographs which hang in galleries, museums and on people's walls.
 
resolution of film and digital - simple math

resolution of film and digital - simple math

As far as resolution is concerned, digital is not yet at the level of film, in spite of some claims otherwise. A simple mathematics confirms this. To resolve a line one needs 2 pixels.
To always resolve n lines one needs 2n pixels (If the lines an pixels are aligned just right it can be done with n+1 pixels but to always resolve n lines on really needs 2n pixels). The resolution of Fuji Provia, Velvia, Astia is around 150 lines per millimeter. So, let's say we want to resolve 100 lines per millimeter with a CCD. Then we need to pack 200 pixels per millimeter. So, a full frame CCD with dimensions 24mm by 36mm needs to have (200*24)*(200*36) = 34560000 pixels(~34 mega pixels).
To resolve 150 lines per millimeter a full frame CCD needs to have (300*24)*(300*36) ~ 77Mpx.
The math does not seem to support the clams that digital surpasses film in resolution.
With hand-held cameras, my guess is, that we are lucky if we get 50 lines per millimeter. In this case digital may appears to surpass film in resolution.
I chose these films because I like them and the developing process is always the same. The resolution of black and white film is strongly coupled with the developer used and the agitation process. My standard B&W film is Delta 100 split-developed in D23. Its sharpness is on the par with the above films.
Cheers,
Zoran
 
You start out discussing your favorite films, but then analyze for B&W. Color digital resolution for most sensors would involve a three color arrangement.

I think that should you limit yourself to low ISO films, you can make a case for 35mm film. This of course ignores the need for an expensive scanner, increased time and a good bit of skill prior to mastering the scan side of things.

I find myself shooting at 400 - 640 ISO on a regular basis. I'm shooting film, but I suspect that the better high ISO digital handles higher ISO with less objectionable grain/noise.
 
jjovin said:
As far as resolution is concerned, digital is not yet at the level of film, in spite of some claims otherwise. A simple mathematics confirms this. To resolve a line one needs 2 pixels.
To always resolve n lines one needs 2n pixels (If the lines an pixels are aligned just right it can be done with n+1 pixels but to always resolve n lines on really needs 2n pixels). The resolution of Fuji Provia, Velvia, Astia is around 150 lines per millimeter. So, let's say we want to resolve 100 lines per millimeter with a CCD. Then we need to pack 200 pixels per millimeter. So, a full frame CCD with dimensions 24mm by 36mm needs to have (200*24)*(200*36) = 34560000 pixels(~34 mega pixels).
To resolve 150 lines per millimeter a full frame CCD needs to have (300*24)*(300*36) ~ 77Mpx.
The math does not seem to support the clams that digital surpasses film in resolution.
With hand-held cameras, my guess is, that we are lucky if we get 50 lines per millimeter. In this case digital may appears to surpass film in resolution.
I chose these films because I like them and the developing process is always the same. The resolution of black and white film is strongly coupled with the developer used and the agitation process. My standard B&W film is Delta 100 split-developed in D23. Its sharpness is on the par with the above films.
Cheers,
Zoran
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it's not quite that simple. The MTF of film at 150lppmm is far lower than the MTF of a 20Mp sensor at 60lppmm and it shows as reduced sharpness and resolution in the output. Scanning (or enlarging) adds a further problematic stage. Zeiss has a paper somewhere on MTF's which covers how 20+Mp digital can look competitive with MF film, even though we all consider MF film to significantly outperform any 35mm digital camera.

Mike
 
Fuji rates the resolution of Provia 400 at 135 lines per millimeter.
I am not trying to convince anyone one way or another. I use films that I like. If you prefer digital, then by all means use digital. It is nice to have multiple choices. It seems in most case the choice boils down to convenience and looks. I would say more convenience than looks, because before digital even came about
people were plenty happy using disposable $10 cameras with horrendous lenses. On a recent project I only used D200 and D700 because of convenience. But I still prefer projecting slides when I have time.
I read the paper by Zeiss and at the end, it is the final look that matters when I photograph for myself (I assume this holds for many others).

Cheers,
Zoran
 
jjovin said:
Fuji rates the resolution of Provia 400 at 135 lines per millimeter.
I am not trying to convince anyone one way or another. I use films that I like. If you prefer digital, then by all means use digital. It is nice to have multiple choices. It seems in most case the choice boils down to convenience and looks. I would say more convenience than looks, because before digital even came about
people were plenty happy using disposable $10 cameras with horrendous lenses. On a recent project I only used D200 and D700 because of convenience. But I still prefer projecting slides when I have time.
I read the paper by Zeiss and at the end, it is the final look that matters when I photograph for myself (I assume this holds for many others).

Cheers,
Zoran
Click to expand...

Zoran,

Look matters to me too. I was merely pointing out that rating film at 135lppmm abased on a 1000:1 contrast target doesn'[t carry through to low contrast subject rendition. Also, grain is a big deal in film whereas noise isn't at low to medium EIs in digital. For me they look different and I expect different things.

Mike
 
Re: Scanned 35mm. VS full frame DSLR 12MP ?

JPS said:
Very roughly, considering that one can't use the exact same lens on a 35mm. FILM camera and a full frame DSLR... what is the difference in dynamic range, "grain" or "noise", etc... ?
Click to expand...

Actually an important date is coming up: the release of the Leica M9 which has both a full frame sensor and the ability to use any M-mount Leica lens (or screw-mount with the M-to-Screw adapter). Someone with €5,600.00 to spend and a spare M-(2,3,4,5,6,7,P) could compare film to digital directly with the exact same lenses.

The constraining factor is that one have only the Kodak sensor to compare; the Canon and Sony sensors wouldn't be entries in this test.

I would guess that, since there aren't any 24mm x 36mm sensors that are truly monochromatic, a comparison in black & white would favor film. Color negative and inkjet/dye sublimation prints would be compared, and color slide and image on the monitor would be compared, since reflected and projected light have different properties.

If Leica would like to sponsor this comparison I'd gladly accept an M9 loaner to compare to my IIIg, M6, MP, and CL and a whole gamut of lenses...
 
".....for Black and White, the cost is more along the lines of $6 [per roll]..."

You're spending too much for black and white film. Arista Premium, which mirrors Plus-x, costs $1.89. Development is probably 25-50 cents worth of chemicals at most. Even Fuji Acros in 120 size is only $3, plus maybe 50 cents-$1 for chemistry. The real issue is of course scanning--either you get ripped off by a pro lab, send it to India, or spend $1000 for a decent scanner.
 
"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."

Leica4Ever, I did a similar test, comparing my 6mp Pentax k100D with 50mm lens. Unfortunately, it thrashed 1. my Canon F-1 with primes, Velvia, and Nikon 5000 scans, and 2. Medium format with Velvia 50 scanned on a Nikon 9000. I simply could not get the details out of film. Sad but true.

In my opinion, when deciding between digital and film one must disregard cost (because no matter what, photography is an expensive hobby) and even absolute image quality. Photos made with medium format may not be technically as sharp as the best digital, but that's not usually the issue--MF is sharp enough. It comes down to other issues.

Just because Costco sells digital keyboards doesn't mean I'll stop playing the violin, and it has nothing to do with cost, convenience, or being in tune. If it did, there would of course be no rational reason to play the violin.
 
I have read that some pro photographers are partly coming back to film. Very similar story I heard from owner of local lab - recognized local photographer, who does also weddings (to pay bills, so usual) has come back to film for important shots (body of wedding) and leaves digital for those required hundreds of table shots and similar. Reason is he can deliver main pictures fast (self dev + scan + digital prints), while digital pictures take time to be tweaked and usually go to customer long after wedding. It's not about "film is cool" or whatever - he is familiar with film and claims scans from film are very easy (for him, at least) to get ready for printing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom