Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Sun Jan 22, 2017 4:05 am

All times are UTC

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Why go Digital?
PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2007 6:56 am 
Hopefully a little provocative question.

A friend of mine is admanant he will not get a DSLR until:-

1 They are as small and light as a Pentax *ist (film)
2 They resolve as well a film
3 They cost under £500.

And in addition does not really see the benefit over film.

Plenty come in under £500 and those same ones are no bigger than the ist, but are heavier.

But the crux - resolution and benefits.

Gordon - how about a review of film vs digital like one of your your lense reviews. Would be interesting to see the difference rather than hear relative equivalent pixel counts.

His interestes are bird watching, wild flowers and landscapes and has to hike the camera around in a rucksac. He does have a digital compact.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2007 9:59 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 9978
Location: Queenstown, New Zealand
Hi Nick, that's an interesting question!

Like many people here I grew up with film and was a great fan of what you could achieve. But as digital matured it just became much more practical and usable. I in fact sold my remaining film gear just over a year ago, which included a 6x7cm Mamiya medium format camera.

The quality question is one which continues to crop up, so I'd like to comment on that. Many people believe that because there are film scanners with 4000 dpi resolution (or higher), that film can contain this amount of actual detail. If it did, then this would result in a 24 Megapixel file which would clearly out-resolve all but digital medium format cameras.

I've done tests with very high-end professional drum scanners and found at this point you're mostly capturing the structure of the grain and there isn't really any extra detail there. It's also crucial to note the resolving power of film is greatly influenced by the type of film, how well it's been exposed and how well it's been processed - not to mention how well it's been scanned if you're after a digital file at the end of it.

So the only time film can perform at its best is if you're using professional stock, exposed perfectly, processed at a pro lab and scanned with some very serious kit - and scanning kit that's operated by a pro. Don’t kid yourself than average negative film processed on the high-street and scanned at home can come close.

I used Fujifilm Velvia 100 film towards the end of my days with analogue and had it processed at Metro, a pro lab in London. Through my magazine work, I was lucky enough to know pro repro houses which could do the occasional drum scan for me.

I personally knew 35mm film was over for me once I found the images from cameras like the Canon EOS 5D were as good, or often better than images delivered using the media and workflow above. I'd also argue that a 10 Mpixel DSLR will beat the output from most 35mm negative film processed at a high street lab.

This of course is in terms of resolution and detail captured. There is still an analogue look to film which some people will always prefer to digital imaging, in the same way some people prefer the sound of vinyl to CD. But that’s a subjective opinion. Technically speaking the current crop of affordable DSLRs will out-resolve 35mm film SLRs used under anything but the perfect conditions. And if you invest in, say, a Canon 1Ds Mark II, it will easily outperform 35mm.

Quality aside, there are of course more obvious benefits to digital – each with counter-arguments by the film fanatics. And counter-counter arguments by the digital crew!

1: You can record hundreds or even thousands of images on a memory card as oppose to a maximum of 36 on a roll of 35mm film. The film folk would rightly argue that their restrictions make you think more about each shot with less wastage as a result.

That’s certainly true, but it’s a real pain carrying a load of film on a trip and potentially losing a shot as you change a roll. And the ability to change the ISO for just one shot rather than committing to whole roll is a killer benefit of digital – and don’t forget you can change the White Balance as and when you like too.

2: You can see your images straightaway. For this one the film folk counter that it ruins the anticipation and excitement of waiting for your photos to come back from the lab. Receiving them later allows you to relive the trip or event once more.

Well, there is some romance in that, but I’d sooner see the pictures straightaway and make sure they’re right. There’s nothing worse than coming back from a trip of a lifetime to discover your images are over-exposed and there’s nothing you can do about it.

3: There’s no processing costs with digital, nor the environmental impact of chemicals. And no wastage as you only print what you want. Aha say the film folk – but how many digital photographers rarely if ever make any prints. They take their photos, transfer the images onto a computer and never see them again.

I’d say there’s certainly some truth to that, but the days of handing prints around and worrying about fingerprints and fading are over. When I come back from a trip, I can quickly and easily share my digital images by either uploading them to sites like flickr and Photobox, or by creating a webpage with some captions. At home I play them on a nice big TV screen which everyone can see and discuss at the same time – so there’s no need to repeat the same commentary to every person thumbing through prints.

Yes I love prints and yes, I’ll still print my favourite images, but no, I don’t miss the box-loads of photos I used to amass with film. Indeed I’d argue with sharing websites and TV or desktop slideshows, that I’m enjoying more of my photos than ever before – and it’s considerably easier to find what I’m looking for too.

4: You don’t need to scan a digital image. There is no counter argument to that one!

So while I loved film, for me digital is now superior in every respect.

Well, almost anyway... While DSLRs have fallen considerably in price, the cheapest models are still pricier than budget film SLRs and still heavier too. So I’ll give those two to the film crowd, but the benefits of digital still greatly outweigh it for me.

What does everyone else think?


 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 10:17 pm 
Thanks for that lengthy reply - you mention most of my friends film arguments and most of my counter arguments.

I certainly don't miss the boxes of prints or the massing boxes of slides. I was interested in particular in your quality comparisons which concurs with my totally unscientific "gut feel" when I zoomed in on one of my 7MP shots. I was stunned by the magnification before it became grainy (OK pixelated!) I don't think my slides projected were much better, probably because I had a cheapish SLR and mid-range projector.

I would agree that taking more time over a shot can create better results because I fell down the hole of "free images I'll take several" when I 1st went digital and ended up with loads of c**p pictures rather than one decent one. You soon learn (hopefully!), so its not something that is exclusive to film.

I would add that the best camera in the world still needs a good eye behind it.

As no one else has responded, I guess its a case of "daft question" !

I don't really need convincing and I think there is not enough to convince my friend - I feel its more a "political" statement against the world as much as anything. And he still has price and weight in his favour.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:19 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 8003
Location: Germany
Hey NickNick,

this is a very good question, but if you think a little not so easy to answer.
As Gordon has already pointed out many valuable and correct observations, there are only few that I can add:
- I've seen my slides and my prints deteriorate over time (I'm photographing since 1971). this is really heart-wrenching to see some of your best photos decay and you can do nothing about it!
- Postprocessing is easily done on electronic images, but on flm you had to be a chemical and dark-chamber wizard. I often find (a little) postprocessing necessary to turn out the best of a photo.This was a no-no to me in the film times.
- If you transfer film via scanner to electronic pics the ugly dust rears its head - even with professional scan-gear. If you invest a little effort, your DSLR (or compact) can be kept far cleaner than a slide and the associated scan!

So for me fading and a lack of postprocessing made it easy to leave the analog world

Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D810+assorted lenses

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group