Re: A simple question...


"Doug Jewell" <ask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:48831c38$0$20517$5a62ac22@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The problem with that statement is that there are so many variables. There
are also many different qualities to measure - resolution, colour
accuracy, grain/noise, dynamic range etc. For the following, lets assume
by "film" we mean 35mm film, and by "digital" we mean 35mm or smaller
format. Larger format film delivers significantly better results than even
the best of the 35mm digitals. There are large format digital cameras
available, but they are priced such that they would be only used for niche
purposes.

That is true. 35mm would be a good assumption.

On straight resolution, a typical 10MP consumer DSLR is about on par with
typical consumer colour-neg film. Some of the top B&W or Slide films (eg
techpan, Velvia, kodachrome) easily exceed all but the very
top-of-the-line DSLRs for resolution.

Okay, this is what I am looking for. In the past, I shot mostly B&W and
color slides, simply because they were easier to handle in the darkroom. If
I needed color prints, I would usually use a professional lab. I could do
color prints, but it was more expensive and required more work than I was
generally willing to do.

One of the big drawbacks with digital is its highlight performance. Even
the pickiest of slide films will give more headroom in the highlights than
most digital cameras. Plus film has the advantage that when it does exceed
it's highlight range it does so in a more graceful manner, easing into it
rather than the abrupt and ugly white cutoff of digital. Some of the
latest cameras utilise various tricks to try to overcome this problem,
getting them to about on par with slide film. Negative film though is
still miles ahead of digital in this regard.

Yes, when I shot film, particularly B&W, the rule was "Shoot for the
shadows, and the highlights will tak care of themselves." I could always
burn them in. But with digital, I have had to learn the opposite.

On the other hand though, digital retains much better shadow detail than
film does. They take advantage of this capability to deliver high-ISO
modes. This is one of the big strengths of digital - changing ISO on the
fly. And while Digital cameras get quite noisy when the ISO goes up, they
still deliver (arguably) better performance than high-ISO films.
Personally I find digital noise to be much uglier than film grain.

Yes, as I say, I have had to learn to think a little differently.

And the ability to change ISO is a nice advantage. I know films have gotten
a bit faster. When I was doing film, the ISO choices (actually back then
they were ASA as I recall) started at 25 and went up to 400 for "normal"
films. I did shoot some Recording Film at up to 3200, but the results were
very grainy and were more suited to artistic results than practical use. Of
course, I often pushed Tri-X to 800 or even 1600.

The first consumer 6MP DSLRs were probably the first that were considered
on par with film. While good film could still deliver significantly better
results, the 6MP DSLRs were definitely good enough for most needs. Film
could perform better, but the difference in most cases wasn't worth the
hassle. Regardless of the technical aspects where film was better, the
convenience of the 6MP DSLRs, combined with their ability to produce
good-enough images was such that they were readily embraced, and film
started its rapid decline in usage.

That actually answers my question.

For the consumer point and click market, the Kodak DC3400 (2MP) was
probably one of the earlier digitals that was "good enough" to be on par
with 35mm & APS compact cameras. It was one of the first that could make a
6x4 print at 300dpi. It also had very good performance for noise and
colour accuracy (in fact it did this better than many much newer high
megapixel compact cameras). It probably wasn't quite up to the task of
producing 11x14 prints, but certainly up to about 6x9 it was on par with
most of the 35mm compact cameras.

Well, I was thinking in more or less professional terms. I suspect for some
consumer purposes digital caught up much faster than the professional realm.
I did have a couple of point and shots that I played with, the first was a
sub megapixel by Polaroid, that gave somewhat disappointing results, and the
second was a 1 megapixel Kodak that was good for snapshots. I remember I
could print a passable 8x10 from it, but it was nothing spectacular.

A bit over a year ago, I bought a Lumix FZ30. That got me started again.
Then I moved up to a FZ50, which had the same megapixels, but offered a few
newer features, and a better range of ISO settings. Now I have a Nikon D60
with two lenses. I immediately noticed a major improvement in the quality,
even though it has the same megapixels as the FZ50. Of course, there is a
major difference in sensor size. The FZ50 is tiny compared to the D60.
Eventually, I would love to have a full format Nikon.

--
Jennifer Usher


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What camera
    ... For the absolute best in resolution and latitude for enlargement, nothing can beat 4"x5" sheet film. ... Next would be medium format panorama format cameras that make 6x9 negs on 120 film, there are cameras that can make 6x11 negs as well. ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: The demise of film cameras - I dont like it
    ... > 35mm film cameras are going to have an increasingly hard time of it, ... For those people who shoot ... > the normal print film you find in most stores, say Kodak Gold 400, they ... I mean, jeezus, P&S digitals ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
  • Re: There is no market for real cameras anymore.
    ... Some digital cameras produce better images than some film. ... >> (you're the one who said most digitals don't go below ISO100) not exactly ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
  • Re: Does 35mm have to be film?
    ... The only reason full-frame digital cameras have a sensor ... 36mm nominal) is so the lenses designed for a manufacturer's 35mm film ... SLRs are built using 35mm film SLR bodies that that qualifies the DSLR ... Digitals, SLR or otherwise, ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
  • Re: Ideas for Muddypaws!
    ... of people having fun with their horses. ... With digital cameras and big flash memory cards it'll be a lot cheaper ... cameras, it's usually very short, but digitals vary enormously, especially ... Equivalent film speed - Action shots reveal how fast ...
    (uk.rec.equestrian)