Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 15, 2003, 8:48 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 438
Default

Nobody has said that there is more to quality that the film or the megapixels. I have a point-and-shoot film camera that cannot get even close to what my 3 MP digital camera produces. I could scan the same picture taken with both cameras and put them side by side for comparison purposes if anyone is interested.

The cameras are an Olympus Freedom Zoom 70 and a Kodak DX4330.

If you are all talking about SLR cameras, then that's a different story.
luisr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2003, 9:12 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 212
Default

The biggest difference in the long run (when we start talking about SLRs and dSLRs) is definitely megapixels. With the current crop of dSLRs, once you've bought your camera you are locked into the camera's megapixel range FOREVER *dun dun DUNNN*. With film you can change the film media as you like for a very low cost. You can use Velvia slide film one day, TriX 1200 the next, and Walmart el Cheapo brand the next, your film camera doesn't care.

The megapixel ranges of dSLRs has definitely closed the gap with film quite a bit, especially with units like the Canon 1-Ds with its full frame sensor and 11MPs. Also, Kodak has made insinuations that they will not be spending more money researching new film technology so film may go the way of the dodo at some point. So buying into a digital megapixel range now may not be a serious handicap.

But as with all things digital, the top of the line camera you buy today will be yesterday's news tomorrow. Take the plunge and don't look back.
Lauren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2003, 9:30 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Rage
It would seem that the main advantage of a film camera is the resolution.
You seem to have formed your opinion before you asked the question and nothing anyone might say is likely to change it. You didnít read that here.

Digital canít compete in resolution with large format film. But 35mm does not have a resolution advantage over the best DLSR cameras. Compared to 35mm, the Canon EOS-1Ds has at least the resolution of 50ASA Velvia and 6Mp DLSRs compete well with any ASA 100 film in resolution. That is if you stay completely in the photographic process with the 35mm. If you convert to digital even on a drum scanner the images taken with DLSRs have a slight advantage.


Quote:
Do they have zoom lenses available for digitals that are comparable to what's available for film cameras?
DLSRs use the same lenses as 35mm SLR cameras.
slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2003, 10:31 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slipe
DLSRs use the same lenses as 35mm SLR cameras.
I'll take issue with this as it's only half the story. While it is true that the lens mounts of dSLRs are the same as film SLRs and will generally take any lens that a normal SLR will take, the vast majority of dSLRs will not use the lenses in a 1 for 1 manner with film SLRs. This is because the dSLR sensor is smaller than the standard 35mm frame, so the area of the light circle used by the digital sensor is much smaller than what could be ideally used (and is used by some dSLRs and all film cameras). The lens is essentially 'lengthened' by a certain amount (typically about 1.5x) over its stated focal length.

So what this all gets at is that while the lenses are interchangeable between 35mm and dSLR systems, a long 500mm telephoto lens becomes a very long 750mm telephoto lens and a wide angle 24mm lens becomes a 36mm lens on a digital camera.

Nikon and Canon are coming out with digital camera lenses which are designed to work with the smaller sensors without having to adjust for the multiplier, but I think this is only a stopgap until all digital SLRs have 35mm full frame sensors like the Canon 1-Ds.
Lauren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2003, 10:37 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
koruvs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 439
Default

Both film and digital SLRs have advantages and disadvantages. I won't get into a film vs. digital however here are my (hopefully non-bias * ) points:

1. Lenses, never go cheap on the lenses and the cost is equal for film or digital.

2. Body, a D100 is approx $2000; a F80 is $500 (Canadian $)

2. Storage, a 1GB CF card is $400ish, Fuji Reala 100 film is $7.00 for a 36 roll and $3.50 for developing (no prints).

4. Light, Flash cost is equal for film or digital.

5. Add cost for a scanner and printer for the film solution and only a printer for the digital solution.

Basically you are looking approx. $1500ish for the total difference in price right off the bat with the digital solution. Looking at it from another angle that $1500 savings would give you 142 rolls with 36 pics (including developing, no prints) or 5143 photos.

* I started with a 5700 but, moved back to film as digtal quality and features are moving too quickly for my wallet to keep up. I'm deciding to watch and wait until the prices are lower and the quality/speed is higher in digital. If I had the money, I would go for a high-end DSLR from the start but, at the momment that is impossible.
koruvs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2003, 10:45 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 212
Default Nikon, you listening?

DM3a with upgradeable digital back!

I'll go crawl back into bed now...
Lauren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2003, 9:40 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

It's tempting to let this die, but I find it an ineresting topic (when it stays away from the religious-style argument... which it has! At testiment to people here.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_PEAT
It depends on what class of camera you get...you can get digital cameras that exceede consumer films, but then you're getting close to or above a 5 figure amount.
I don't believe this is true. It is my understanding that even the low end DSLRs complete favorably with the majority of 35mm (the 10D, D100, S2 Pro.) At least in US dollars, they are well under 5 digits. Maybe you are refering to Canadian (since you are from BC)? Now, it should be said that there are Pro grade film cameras which are better than the three I listed. Cameras like the Nikon F5. Of course, it costs about $2,000USD... but other than picture quality (which is a more a matter of film and the photographer) it is superior in almost every way (but weight. )

To answer the origional direct question, there are several film vs. digital compairsons on http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ There is a list of all the reviews & essays:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/
and
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/index.shtml

I would wander around the web site. It has lots of good information about photography in general and film & digital issues. And some really nice pictures scattered around.

Here are just a few that I found. Please look yourself... I'm sure I was not exaustive in my hunt:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re..._vs_film.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es..._vs_film.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...shootout.shtml

And just for fun, a comparison between Velvia and Provia films:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...vs_povia.shtml

koruvs

Your comparison of prices is a little off. A really good scanner costs a fair amount.... the Nikon LS-8000 is $2,300 USD at B&H and a good 1G CF card is only about $300 (I just got the 1G Lexar WA recently.) I don't believe it's fair to compare film vs. digital without equipment which is fair to film.

One thing that isn't fair in general (not with korvus's list) is that you will shoot more with digital. You'll experiment a lot more (and learn faster) with digital. So he is right that the number of shots you'll have to take when digital could be a lot more to catch up in savings... but you'll also shoot more, making it hard to actually make that comparison in practice.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2003, 9:51 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slipe
...
Digital canít compete in resolution with large format film. ...
Just to pick a nit, there are cameras that arguably match 4x5" negatives, e.g., http://www.betterlight.com/ Keep in mind that even with their "economy' models ($7-$10K) you get only the back. You have to add the price of the camera and lens to that.

You aren't going to be able to take pictures of hokey games with that kind of camera.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2003, 10:49 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillDrew
Quote:
Originally Posted by slipe
...
Digital canít compete in resolution with large format film. ...
Just to pick a nit, there are cameras that arguably match 4x5" negatives, e.g., http://www.betterlight.com/ Keep in mind that even with their "economy' models ($7-$10K) you get only the back. You have to add the price of the camera and lens to that.

You aren't going to be able to take pictures of hokey games with that kind of camera.
Interesting Ė I wasnít aware of their existence. 144Mp is certainly in the ballpark based just on resolution. Besides the camera I would suppose you have to carry a power supply and data storage tank of some sort. Even if I had 12k laying around earmarked for toys I think I lack the dedication. Iím guessing from the file size compared to the pixels it captures raw.
slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2003, 10:01 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slipe
... Besides the camera I would suppose you have to carry a power supply and data storage tank of some sort. ...
Plus a computer, more batteries, a pack horse, ...

A few people use those cameras for landscapes, but they are mostly used in a studio.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 2:31 PM.