Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 2, 2004, 3:08 AM   #11
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 5

Sorry to disagree with you folks but i wouldnt shoot anything digital unless its RAW or TIFF. Your lucky to get the quality of a 35 mm film camera with digital. Sure print to print comparison at up to 11x14may surely be comparable (and thats depends on the eye of the beholder) to film but i strongly disagree that digital is better. Composition has nothing to do with quality of the print. Digital prints have a 2 dimensional look with over saturated colors while film printed digitally looks far superior to Digital SLR's. While fisheye pictures are practically impossible to do with Digital due to the convertion factors in the lens makes digital impracticle.Quantaray may be junk which id agree but its made by Tamron and Sigma. And there is some very nice lenses by Sigma so i wouldnt dog it. As i stated earlier digital is more convienience and not necessary quality you'd expect from old school 4x5 chromes or negatives. Ive been a Custom Darkroom printer for 12 years and ive also worked with Lambdas, Chromiras, Frontiers you name it ive printed from it. The Digital hype is just a marketing scam. The Nikon d70 might be better featured than the d100 however it seems like there is problems with the CCD. For eg white spots on prints and back focusing probs. Id say the quality of Digital is at best closer to APS film.. LOL. I use digital but no where near impressed. Digital has made photographers lazy and sloppy. Id rather buy a Good lens, solid body none of this plastic crap nikon has been making and it will cost you far less than 1300 dollars. And if you want it digitized you can get it done for less than 8 bucks a CD..


Ritz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2004, 5:51 PM   #12
Senior Member
JerryF's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 149

Also, were the files on the CD resized (smaller) from the files on your camera's card?
JerryF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2004, 7:02 PM   #13
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1

There is no question that film still has a higher resolution than digital especially in the larger formats like 4x5. Nonetheless I find testing of that sort to be very unreliable and would opt for more controlled procedures. Film also has a greater dynamic range but you can tweakout the same range using photoshop on raw files.

I have a Nikon F3 and a Nikon D70 camera. I had digitized versions of my 35mm film made by Kodak and the results were worse than a 1 megapixel camera. I've also had digital prints made from my former Coolpix 880 that were horribly color calibrated. Since then I prefer to print my own photographs.

While film is better for now I still prefer digital especially since 99.5% of my prints are 4x6 where the average person can't tell the difference. If I want a razor sharp 8x10 then maybe I'll switch to a 4x5 but for the average family snapshots digital is just fine for me. I shoot in raw format and do all the adjusting, on balance my digital photographs are better calibrated and composed (since I can shoot many more I can pick and choose).

My dream camera would be a 24 megapixel full frame sensor attached to a Leica, maybe that would rival film...

H33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2004, 7:19 PM   #14
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 31

I don't think there is any question that film is still capable of greater (quality)enlargement. Also, film still has wider dynamic range. I also think that this is a very emotional issue, but that we should at least compare apples to apples. Would you compare a Nikon N90 to a 4X5 camera and expect the same grain. I don't think so. OK, let's be honest. Just how many people, even in this group, wander around with a 4X5 camera, looking for that spontaneous shot? Since the bodies look the same, I'll say it's ok to compare dSLR to 35mm SLR, but for most, the sensor is still not the same size.

In the last 10 years, digital has made huge strides. When 3mp cameras came out, I heard (often) that film was equivalent to 16mp. I guess film has gotten much better if someone here is now quoting 24-32 (a pretty wide range, BTW). Has anyone got access to ACTUAL, scientifically derived evidence. I suspect not, because the film companies don't want to give up their secrets. OBTW, has anyone noticed one of the more prominent "film" companies drawing away from film? Can you spell Kodak?

I've heard it argued that digital cameras have enough pixels, and the companies should concentrate their efforts in other areas. People should really think before they talk. I suspect in the next 10 years, digital will pull even with film in both grain and dynamic range, because people will demand it with their dollars (pounds, yen, whatever). In 20 - 30 years, people will be telling their amazed children about an old technology called film. There will be, like, 6 guys in the whole world hoarding the worlds remaining supply of film and processing chemicals. People will think them strange, or, at least nostalgic.

If you don't believe it, think about this. The very first computer turned 50 not long ago(last year?). My first computer, an Apple II+ (circa 1981), had48 KILO bytes of ram, 1 megahertz, and no hard drive. My first hard drive was $600 and 6 mega bytes in 1992. This machine is 1.5GHz, 1GByte ram, 2 40GigByte hard drives and is considered slow, average on memory and limited on drive space. When I got that first hard drive, I had never even considered the concept of a digital camera. I think the first one I ever saw was only 10 years ago. So keep the whole digicam thing in perspective. We are only still in the infancy of digital cameras and they have already overtaken sales of film cameras. Be patient and you will likely be amazed at what's over the horizon.


erichlund is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2004, 2:13 AM   #15
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 67

Well my 2cents worth. After shooting the manual focus Canon A-1 and Mamiya 645 for years, I thought I would try the Olympus E-10. Two reasons, mainly for the autofocus. And for the megapixel at the time of production. I was very discouraged in the beginning because i was very inexperience with the technology of digital photog. My business does not call for enlargements over 16x20, generally. Until I understood how it worked my 4x6 prints made me cry a many rivers for investing into the technology. Well my prints are at a standard today that I probably will not go back to film photog ever.But I will keep my 645, becauseit wouldnt be a learning process over again to get that monster print.

The excitement of mastering the E-10 has moved me on to the D70. And so far this is a beautiful camera. I think the X-factor with highend digital cameras (moderate priced) is the ability to be independent with the creativity and qualify of your work.
bern888 is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:17 AM.