Digital vs 35mm Cameras
- Started
- Last post
- 55 Responses
- Thinkfresh
I thought this was interesting...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/…
Basically says how even the high 6megapixel still doesn't compare to 35mm in terms of quality. Also if you are seeking to print out something larger than 5x7 in digital, you'll lose quality.
Anyone disagree?
- slappy0
i disagree i have a 6 megapixel canon eos 300d
and it does 300dpi at 8 x 10...
or 250 dpi at 9 x 13...
- slappy0
oh yeah and iv shot around 3600 shots this year so thats around U.S.$6000 worth of processing that i havent had to do.
shoot 500 shots and use 1 for the final... its a lot cheaper.
- Thinkfresh0
Well, there's no doubt that a digital camera is definately MORE FUN because you can shoot anything and not have to worry about processing fees.
But professionally would anyone use it to create a front cover of a magazine or a poster.
They say it takes 25 megapixels to equal a photo taken with 35mm. Color sharpness is greater as digital uses RGB which limits the amount of colors used (all from that article)
But if I'm a designer, only on web or video, using a digital camera should be fine since they work in RGB.
- nuarmy0
What about a nice Hasselblad with a digital back? I think those shots would come out pretty well..
- rxphoto0
you will learn that there are pros and cons to either film or digital and the choice will boil down to what your needs are. if yo know what you're doing 8x10 prints are no problem and even 9x12s are ok. check out the links below to give you a better idea of how digital performs in terms of sharpness and tonal reproduction:
http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/d…
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutor…
http://www.normankoren.com/digit…
- superbaka0
i have yet to see any artist produce something interesting in terms of style with a digital camera because of how visually rigid ccd's are and how they lack the nice analog artifacts that film produces.
also, digital cameras can't compare to a view cam because of the inability to manipulate perspective. (of course you could probably build one...hmm.)
- slappy0
If i throw a mirror lens on my digital slr you would get a pretty interesting perspective but i think im missing your point maybe...
- quamb0
digital is handy n cost effective- but it's true what superbaka said- there is omething about ccd's that i just aren't fond of. ESPECIALLY on digital video- yucckk.
- superbaka0
what i ment regarding view cameras is that their main strength is in the way you can distort perspective by offsetting the film back. look at the work of andreas gursky, for example. you simply cannot capture images like that with an slr.
http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/…
or just ask any architectural photographer.
note im saying film cameras are stylistically stronger than digital, not more pracitcal.
- slappy0
hmmm if money was not an option...
- ribit0
You can do all that stuff with a high-end (I mean really high-end) digital camera. I've seen landscapes printed 1meter high and 5meters long (you walk into a panorama), where the detail was perfect from inches away....just depends how fast you want to go, how much you want to pay.
The guy who did this was showing a demo of film vs digital, of a scene of San Francisco...he progressively zoomed in on the 2 shots, and one of the shots started to break up (that was the film), kept zooming another 3-4 times on the digital...
Also showed trees against bright sky, with digital showing way more dynamic range than film..
now if I can just find his name...
- abstrakt0
that comparison between the D30 and film has been past around for as long as the D30 has been around. The only problem is it's completely BS. There is no possible way that a 3 megapixel camera can equal anywhere near what film can. I own the Rebel 300G and the image its 6.3mp sensor produces can't compete with consumer grade grocery store film. Using a Minolta 5400dpi film scanner to scan my negatives produces a 100mb file at about 7,000x4500px, with Kodak Gold 100ISO film, from a grocery store. It's a little bit fuzzy and grainy, but it's acceptable. printed at 18x24 it's beautiful. If you do the math, 7000x4500 is about 30 megapixels. (http://www.netg.se/~hugge/java... The 6.3mp rebel produces a 3,072 x 2,048px image. i do large print editions of my photography. i believed all the talk about how a 6.3 is just as good, if not better than film, in terms of resolution and quality. i'm dissappointed and now i need to upgrade to at least a 10 megapixel to get decent quality prints like what i was getting with film. again, a 3 megapixel being better than film? i can't believe people would believe that.
- TransFatty0
i've resisted going digital for so long now i don't think i ever will ... but my man timajick makes miracles happen with his hi-end digital camera.
-
myself - i think it's cheating to be able to see the photo you took on a little digital screen immmediatly after taking it ....me, i enjoy being very picky with the shots i take --- i sit there for as long as it takes before i push that little button .... i relish the fact that i only have 24 or 36 shots and
that i have to make every shot count ....and also the accidents that happen with film ....
some of my best shots admittedly have been flukes or accidents, double exposures, misfires or what have you.
-
all this being said - we just finished a promo using a high-end high definition video camera and the results are fucking gorgeous.alot cheaper too ....
but in my heart i'll always love the thrill of waiting for my prints to be ready at the 1/2 hour photo lab on 1rst avenue ....
pentax k-1000 for life bee-otch!
:D
- TransFatty0
my friend ian kennedy (slip)
blurs the line -
i can never tell if he's shooting digital or film ...
but i'm pretty positive most of this stuff is retouched digital ....
he takes pictures all day long, every day it seems ....
- shaft0
My 3000x2000 (around 6MP) scans of regular ISO 200 Fuji film show that this is about the limit of detail, and if you go further you'll get some more, but mostly grain. With slide film the effective limit is said to be about 12MP, but.. http://194.100.88.243/petteri/po…
The luminous-landscape comparison is not about resolution, where D30 obviously can't compete, but about quality of the prints. However, unlike you, I haven't tried it myself, so I can't argue.
Another test page:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedeta…
http://clarkvision.com/imagedeta…
And here 12MP 1Ds compared to film:
http://www.photographical.net/ca…
Go then 12MP if you need it :)
- slip0
nah, patrick, i'm film. well, everything on 50mm is film anyway. i shoot with a leica m3 and a bessa r2. i used to shoot with a nikon d100, then i switched back.
- defender0
I shot some frames with my Canon Elan 7e 35mm and then shot some with a Canon digital rebel using the same lens.
Had them both blown up to 8x10 and the 35mm looked better.
Sharper resolution and cleaner colors. The digital colors looked muddy.
- shaft0
Transfatty, great pics.. I mean both sites :)
I think the film vs. digital issue is not that important. It's just a medium. I don't subscribe to film fetish, but it's a personal thing, to me film was always photography's biggest flaw. Probably one day my attitude will change. Film will be sooo damn expensive by then ;)
- TransFatty0
goes to show you ian- i can't tell the difference between the stuff you shoot digitally and the stuff you shoot on film ....
no matter what i ask or say - it's always the opposite ...
"oh that's an awesome shot - film right ?"
"nope digital..."
"oh..."
"so this one is digital too ?"
"nope, film."
"oh..."
*sips coffe thoughtfully