Image quality of a digital SLR compared to a conventional film SLR?

My first digital camera was a 1.2 MP Agfa P&S - My film camera at the time was a Canon EOS620 - The amount of hassle, expense, waiting for processing, sorting through cr@p, and inability to ever find the slide I was looking for made digital a no brainer. Obviously, at the time my prints were limited to 8 1/2 x 11's from an old junky inkjet printer. But the cost savings and simplicity of switching to digital reopened a part of my life that I had given up on as too expensive and time consuming. Another reply stated that the old pros like Adams were the originators of photo manipulation - someone else said there was a huge amount of digital infrastructure. Take a look at setting up a color darkroom -not even accounting for paper and chemicals - and you could buy 1DSmkII's with all the L glass your heart desires for what a basic color darkroom would cost.

Basic Image editing software and the local drugstore will produce far superior results for the vast majority of the photo taking public.
--
Rob

Check the very thorough test in the latest issue of Foto Magazin (www.fotomagazin.de)

oh c'mon lets be realistic. this question is posted on the 300d/350d forum. The 300d/350d is a prosumer dslr, so lets compare prosumer dslr's with prosumer slr.

There will always be some exotic camera (which cost you a fortune) that might perform better (either digital or film).

DMillier said:

Better than what?

Do you think there is any 35mm colour film (even drum scanned) that
can stand up to a Kodak 14n (or any other top digital camera) for
detail/sharpness?

Have you looked at a big print from a 14n/D2x/1Ds ii ??

They don't have the detail of large format but when you consider
the grainless, colour quality, acutance etc, you can easily see
that not only has 35mm been surpassed (as has 645) but 6x7 and 6x9
are under serious attack and 5 x 4 inch is under distant threat (in
fact the newest MF digital backs with 22MP are already knocking at
the door...)

Click to expand...

--
Regards,
Hans

http://www.pbase.com/hansaplast26

You'll find nice thoughts here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Personally I think still film but future belongs to digital. To me the best solution is peaceful existing these two kinds of photography . Everybody can do great photo film or digital.

Regards, swnw.

Im not having a go at you. Simply stating that its not really a true indication of which is best. If is used a crappy P&S camera and did the comparison, film would win. Would that be an accurate test? of course not.

Yes it matters what camera you use, same as it matters what scanner you use. The quality of your film isnt indicated by taking it to your local crapilab

and getting a dirt cheap scan. Thats all i was trying to get across, I tend to agree that DSLR will give better results, generally, than 35mm film.

sheesh.

Print film and digital in the same size, in the biggest size you can scan.

Scan both printing and then compare...

This way both film and digital will go though printing and scaning
when both of them reduce the quality!

Actually I have a 350D as well and it's ridiculous to say you cannot compare it to a higher end camera. The Kodak is based on a modified F80 which is no more high end than the Canon body. It's advantages are: 14MP, full frame and a bit of sticky rubber coating.

If you don't need full frame and you don't need 14MP, then the 350 is about as good as it gets image quality wise. Print a bit smaller and you couldn't tell the difference (except at ISO 200 and above, in which case the Canon slaughters the Kodak).

Hansplast26 said:

DMillier said:

Better than what?

Do you think there is any 35mm colour film (even drum scanned) that
can stand up to a Kodak 14n (or any other top digital camera) for
detail/sharpness?

Have you looked at a big print from a 14n/D2x/1Ds ii ??

They don't have the detail of large format but when you consider
the grainless, colour quality, acutance etc, you can easily see
that not only has 35mm been surpassed (as has 645) but 6x7 and 6x9
are under serious attack and 5 x 4 inch is under distant threat (in
fact the newest MF digital backs with 22MP are already knocking at
the door...)

Click to expand...

--
Regards,
Hans

http://www.pbase.com/hansaplast26

Click to expand...

Ken Rockwell is a lovable (??) ecentric who is an attention seeker. Take no notice. There are plenty of authoritative sources on the web.

swnw said:

You'll find nice thoughts here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Personally I think still film but future belongs to digital. To me
the best solution is peaceful existing these two kinds of
photography . Everybody can do great photo film or digital.

Regards, swnw.

Click to expand...

Former Van B Boy said:

Im not having a go at you. Simply stating that its not really a
true indication of which is best.

Click to expand...

I would think it is a fairly typical result myself. Three people in this thread alone have had very similar results it would appear.

"The film scans look a lot like what I have made with my film scanner"

"I agree, I have tested my Canon 300D against slides... ...The main problem with the film is mainly grain sh'owing at relativly small enlargments... ...KIWI examples show it rather well."

"I think Kiwi's post shows the difference very well... ..I have an Epson Perfection 4870 scanner that I use to transfer clients film and negatives to my computer, every one of these scans require processing, at 4800dpi a 35mm slide has very evident film grain which is a nightmare to work with compared to DSLR high ISO noise."

Former Van B Boy said:

If is used a crappy P&S camera
and did the comparison, film would win. Would that be an accurate
test? of course not.

Click to expand...

They were both taken with the same lens. This means I was recording the exact same image circle... only one with a film Rebel and the other with a DRebel mounted on the back of it. And look at the different results I got. We are not just splitting hears here are we. The differences are night and day.

Former Van B Boy said:

Yes it matters what camera you use, same as it matters what scanner
you use. The quality of your film isnt indicated by taking it to
your local crapilab
and getting a dirt cheap scan.

Click to expand...

I know this, but sending a slide off to the other side of the country or halfway around the world and being charged a small fortune by some "pro lab" is neither practical nor economic on a sustainable basis. Economics does come into it as far as "bang for your buck goes" in the quality equation.

Former Van B Boy said:

Thats all i was trying to get
across, I tend to agree that DSLR will give better results,
generally, than 35mm film.

Click to expand...

Okay, but you think my example isn't a very fair representation perhaps. Do you have any good examples of some of your scans giving a DSLR a run for its money to share with us? 100% crops to show all of the detail and not just some resized 640x480'...?

--

'It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.' Proverbs 21:19

Chronosphere said:

That's the question! Which one is better regarding image quality; a
digital SLR or a flm SLR?

Click to expand...

Film quality depends heavily on ISO. (Much more so then digital quality)

You often hear that film has a resolution up to 60 MP. That's just plain nonsense. The resolution depends on grain, and thus on ISO.

ISO 100 film has resolution comparable to 6 MP. ISO 200 allready drops to 4 MP. You really don't want to know how low resolution you get for ISO 1600...

ISO 50 film gets up to something like 12 MP.

Pretty obvious that for resolution, digital has allready cought up with film a long time ago.

As for color... Do a search on the web. Lots of sites that demonstrates very clearly that modern digital camera's allready have a larger dynamic range than film.

Ofcourse, film and digital have some different characteristics, making one sometimes just that little better suited than the other. But overall, digital has allready passed film in quality for most purposes.

DMillier said:

Actually I have a 350D as well and it's ridiculous to say you
cannot compare it to a higher end camera. The Kodak is based on a
modified F80 which is no more high end than the Canon body. It's
advantages are: 14MP, full frame and a bit of sticky rubber coating.

If you don't need full frame and you don't need 14MP, then the 350
is about as good as it gets image quality wise. Print a bit smaller
and you couldn't tell the difference (except at ISO 200 and above,
in which case the Canon slaughters the Kodak).

Click to expand...

I don't get your point here. You are now talking about a personal preference. This conversation was about what is superior, film or digital. and my opinion is that film is technically better, but end of the day digital will win due to a/d conversion losses.

--
Regards,
Hans

http://www.pbase.com/hansaplast26

My point was only to counter your suggestion that because the 350D is 'only' a consumer class product, you should expect it to have inferior image quality to pro cameras. With the exception of sheer resolution I don't believe this is the case.

I also don't understand what you mean by "film is technically better". I don't have a lab so I can't perform a detailed forensic examination of the images but from simply printing out 6-8MP digital images and comparing them visually it is obvious to me that the latest entry DSLRs have as much detail as scanned 35mm colour film, better dynamic range than slide films and far less grain. The higher pixel count cameras are proportionately better again. Beyond that I'm not really sure what to say...

Hansplast26 said:

I don't get your point here. You are now talking about a personal
preference. This conversation was about what is superior, film or
digital. and my opinion is that film is technically better, but end
of the day digital will win due to a/d conversion losses.

--
Regards,
Hans

http://www.pbase.com/hansaplast26

Click to expand...

I agree with you, but digital cameras has adventages that are obvious. Day per day I learn how to use my digital camera and every day I can make better images with my EOS 20D, but I love film too, (B&W and Slide film).
I shoot with my Elan 7 yet.
Every medium has its own advantages.

First off it looks like the scanner did not focus on the film properly.
Secondly no postprocessing was done on the scan.

I can take a scan of film and apply noise reduction that moves the grain way back in the image and then sharpen it and get very comparible results to the 300d. Couldn't do this 2 years ago but the products I use today have gone way up in quality. Course the file size for the film will be huge and it takes longer to do. 300d is way more convenient.

--len

Jacom said:

The main problem with the film is mainly grain showing at relativly
small enlargments. An A4 print from a scanned slides (100 asa,
sorry ISO100 showing my age) shows grain especially in areas like
empty skies and other expanses of plain colour. Where as Digital
(ISO400) seems to be able to go up to about A2 before it reachs the
same level.

Click to expand...

I've noticed the same thing when looking closely at Kodak PhotoCDs I had made from film in the early ninties. I don't mean the cheapo Picture CDs they make, but the 3000x2000 scans they used to offer.

At the time I didn't have the computer hardware to really take advantage of images that size, but comparing them with my 300D now, the grain manages to distract me from the moment and remind me I'm looking at a photo, if you follow. And this was with 100 ISO film too. I never shot 400 ISO because the grain was easily visible in 4"x6" prints.

I'll certainly take digital, and that's even before considering the lack of paying for film/processing/prints 24 or 36 shots at a time, the lack of immediacy, the ability to change ISO at will (even if it causes me to forget to change it back sometimes!), white balance, white balance, white balance, and all of the post-processing options available without having to maintain a darkroom.

ohyva said:

I actually saw some time ago a comparison between 15MP dSLR (cannot
remeber any more which) and film. The conclusion was there were no
visible details in the film that the digital camera would not have
recorded.

Click to expand...

I read one (at Luminous Landscapes, I think?) which concluded the 1Ds2 is the equal to medium format film. The images he produced for comparison were quite compelling...

nickleback said:

Images on flash memory is pretty tough to kill, and you can make
multiple perfect copies in seconds.

Click to expand...

I mistakenly left a MemoryStick in my pocket and it went through the wash. Twenty minutes in the washer and an hour in the dryer. It still works perfectly fine...though I don't use the camera I bought it for any more.

arcterex said:

arcterex said:

arcterex said:

• Film can be enlarge a lot - Already mentioned here, but remember

that you can get a 20x24 print out of a $20 P&S film camera far
more easily than from digital.

Click to expand...

But fast film (ISO 400+) has big grain. Fast digital doesn't. You
can enlarge fast digital much bigger than fast film.

Click to expand...

Really? While I admit I've never actually enlarged either digital
or film to anything larger than 8x10, I haven't seen much noise at
400ISO (film) at all. Different experiences I guess shrug .

Click to expand...

I see grain on 4x6 with 400 speed film. I blew up a image from my 20D to 20x24 and it is great looking. I think it was taken ISO 200.

Ah, ok, I now see your point. I think it is true that 350d compared to a same class film SLR will have a higher quality picture.

I think that in general it is also true that you need to 'do' a lot in order to achieve 6-8mpixel alike image from a film camera (i.e. using expensive films)

What needs to be understood here is that when using a film a scan is most likely made of a print. a print needs is exposed paper and due to that is another loss of detail/colour from the negative. The next loss is the scanner.

when i was still using film's they recommended to make slides in order to avoid any adjustments that the development machines make automatically.

I do not have a lab either, so neither i can do any examantion. The articles I read were quite clear though.

lets rephrase my standpoint: film is better, though end of the day overall quality of dslr's output will be higher.
;-)

DMillier said:

I also don't understand what you mean by "film is technically
better". I don't have a lab so I can't perform a detailed forensic
examination of the images but from simply printing out 6-8MP
digital images and comparing them visually it is obvious to me that
the latest entry DSLRs have as much detail as scanned 35mm colour
film, better dynamic range than slide films and far less grain. The
higher pixel count cameras are proportionately better again. Beyond
that I'm not really sure what to say...

Hansplast26 said:

I don't get your point here. You are now talking about a personal
preference. This conversation was about what is superior, film or
digital. and my opinion is that film is technically better, but end
of the day digital will win due to a/d conversion losses.

--
Regards,
Hans

http://www.pbase.com/hansaplast26

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Regards,
Hans

http://www.pbase.com/hansaplast26

Film

Film has much less colour fringing and CA, much better dynamic range and sharpness
(digital you need to sharpened up the images).

I believe film translated into megapixels is about 20mp

(but digital is more versatile of course)