Re: A simple question...

Jennifer Usher wrote:
"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.

Nothing much has changed, anything above a base ISO is problematic,
sometimes you have no choice, but if you think that the full ISO range
that you can dial up are actually valid then you are deluded. Just about
all reports for anything less than full top shelf professional cameras
mention ISO noise problems. Read some reviews.


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,

No it doesn't, the FZ30 is eight and the FZ50 is ten.

but offered a few newer features, and a better range of ISO settings.

But not really usable 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.

With the D60's kit lenses?

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.

Why? If you noticed a huge difference between the FZ50 and the Nikon D80
with a couple of kit lenses you must be a pretty poor photographer.
Having a D3 won't make you a better one, look at the crap RitaRded puts out.

You seem to be one of these wannabe photographers who thinks photography
is about the equipment. It isn't, it is about the photographer. If you
couldn't take high quality photos with an FZ30 or FZ50 then you will
never take good photos.

Read this and maybe you'll learn something:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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)
  • Re: How far...
    ... in comparing Film cameras to Digitals. ... If we asked how well cameras reproduce what we photograph, ... By and large though, comparing "equally well ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
Quantcast