Film vs Digital...

Started Nov 21, 2008 | Discussions thread
andym107
Regular MemberPosts: 104
Like?
Re: I agree with some of your points...
In reply to David Pastern, Nov 26, 2008

David Pastern wrote:
Ah, it's good to see the Nikon bashers in action. The 1Ds Mark II
isn't that far ahead of the D700 in terms of resolution - remember
all of the people that shot with a 5D (also 12mp) and argued that it
was just as good as the 1Ds Mark II for a third of the price? Note
that the hosts talked about details in the blacks, noise/grain and a
colour tinge. I think you'll find that, again, pixel size will have
an impact on contrast and dynamic range. So just plainly increasing
resolution will detract in other areas of the image. Again, science
(and nature) doesn't change just because Canon's marketing section
says it does

Why did they use Nikon? Cos Canon's last pro film camera was the
eos1v, released circa 99 if memory serves me correctly. Since then,
Nikon has released both a F5 and a F6, both of which carry
improvements over the 1v. They could have used a 1v and compared it
to a 1Ds Mark II, or a 1Ds Mark III, but look at the huge price jump!
The D700 is cheaper than the F5. Canon has no equivalent - well the
5D would be OK, but it has severely inferior AF to the 1 series
cameras for starters, not to mention build quality and weather
sealing. So, doing the test shoot with a Canon would have been
skewered price wise. Furthermore, I think you'll find more studio
photographers use Nikon than Canon, and have had for a good number of
years. Canon users have traditionally gravitated towards sports and
wildlife, mostly cos of Canon's excellent longer focal length lenses
and superior AF speed and accuracy.

And lastly, why is this on a Canon forum? Because the digital vs
film comparison is equally effective, irrespective of the marque.

Dave

malc350 wrote:

I can't see the need to blow up the images to such sizes. That just
seems wasteful of materials. A comparison of 36x24" prints would have
been more sensible and revealed differences.

We tend to forget that ISO 400 was perhaps more grainy in the film
days than we'd like to believe now. Personally I always thought 200
was a compromise and liked to shoot ISO 100 or even 50. This would
have helped the 35mm images but probably the digital images also.

If the D700 can be so far ahead of 35mm I'd imagine a 1DS Mark II or
III would kill it stone dead.

I also agree this should have been done as soon as the original 1DS
was released as it was an impressive full frame camera in its day
(still is....in fact it would be a great bargain if the battery life
wasn't so poor. I'm still more than happy to use a 1DS Mark II).

One last thing: waht is this post doing on this forum, or are D700s
and F5s made by Canon?

I'm not sure we had a Nikon basher here, but we seem to have a Canon one. I think this poster was simply refering to resolution - the 1DS MKIII as it in spades. As for the choice of top film cameras, I doubt that for this comparison it wold make any odds if the F5, F6 or EOS 1V were used - they were all to film cameras. I think what is more significant is the film used - there was no mention of that. As others have pointed out, how the film was scanned is significant. Then there is thhe question of how the digital image / film images were processed to enlarge them. Dynamic range wasn't even touched on - film wins hands down. Maybe PROJECTING a slide onto a large screen and comparing it to a projected digital image straight out of thecamera might have been more instructive.

So, overall a pretty meaningless comparison. What tou can say is that both can produce great results. I also have to say that I have rcently shot a couple of rolls of black and white using my EOS 1V, and have to say that it produced some mind-blowing results - I'd dismissed film ever since I went digital, but it was eye-opening.

So, digital is great. It produces phenominal results. It is convenient, and has allowed peoples photography to come on in leaps and bounds, paricularly since it is possible to get immediate feedback. Having said that, camears - film or digital, really ony produce great results in the hands of a good photographer, whereupon the debate over film or digital becomes a tad irrelevent.

Finallt, the fact that we have all been having this debate - and have done for a number of years - is instructive. It is both a thumbs up fr digital AND film, as the capabilities of both are still apparant. It is thte differences in both that causes the debate.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow