The DSLR vs Bridge vs P & S Debate. Quick Thought

Just wondering if there is someone on this forum who is standing around laughing their a$$ off, thinking to themselves "your all wrong, my 35mm film camera makes all your shots look inferior, including the DSLR ones" I'm sure there are people on here who still haven't gone the digital route because of that logic, I might be wrong.

Barry
--
'Kicking Back With My s8000FD' & s700
Cameras Make Pictures, People Create Them

That's a good one Barry! I still keep a Leica M3 which takes netter photos than any digital...but I haven't taken any shots with it in recent memory. I pick it up and crank the film advance every once in a while for nostalgia sake.

--
Best regards,

Andy

FCAS Member
Pbase Supporter

Isn't that the truth? I don't have a Leica, but I do have several old 35mm bodies and assorted lenses stashed away, waiting for some future archeologist to find them. LOL

On a more serious note, I was pleased to find that my Canon flatbed scanner does a very reasonable job scanning my old Kodachromes, Ektachromes, and negs. As long as they are clean anyway...
Ron

Barry,

That thought is not only quick but a bit disturbing as well. I have an old Nikon Nikkormat that's been shelved a good while, plus an old German Wittnauer Challenger that I inherited from my dad. I'm almost afraid drop in the film and start shooting, for fear of how good the results might look. Then I'd have to think, "Let's see. If I'd never bought that first digital and all the ones since, plus accessories, and if I'd kept shooting away as much as I wanted with those film cameras, how many rolls of film could I have bought, shot and developed, how many great enlargements could I have paid for, how high quality a scanner could I have acquired, and how many lenses could I have purchased (for the Nikon, anyway) before I'd have even come close to what I've spent on digitals since that first fatal purchase?"
I don't want to go there.

Doug
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8889975@N02/

I still have two nice film cameras that get occasional use, but with the lack of decent processing labs and the cost of scanning on a high quality drum scanner they are just WAY too expensive to even think of using too much. Scanning the images on a nice $500.00 flatbed scanner I can say that even the 6 mp Nikon D70 was giving film a run for its money, I am fairly sure that in strict terms of critical sharpness digital has passed film by some time back. Todays 10, 12 and even 16 megapixel APS and full frame sensors in my opinion are better than 35mm film. Film is limping along on its last legs, it will survive for sometime but it will never again be the dominant media.

I guess whats more curious is the reason for the question, is it just curiosity or are you once again leaning on that old tired "its better than my Vivitar POS" argument? What I mean is are you attempting to interject a completely different aspect to the equation? I shot film for 25 years, and was a little late to the digital party. I know you too claim to have been a film shooter for some time as well. However in all honesty, and I dont mean this in a rude way, I haven't seen that experience evident in your work, or in the types of questions you ask, any reason you can think of for that?

Anyways, I am sure there are still many film shooters around, I still have a few friends that have not yet even looked at a digital camera let alone wanted to buy one. I'm sure you too probably know people that have not made the jump yet as well.

Your own profile statement in your posting profile has read something along the lines of you werent going to switch to digital until it was as good as what you were getting with film, the fact that you now shoot digital I guess suggests you feel digital has surpassed film, is that the case?

Also, why call this thread what you called it if what your really asking is digital vs film questions? That seems odd to me.
Ted
--
http://photobucket.com/albums/y260/tdkd13/

But then you wouldn't take nearly as many shots as you do with your digital camera(s) - many of which you put on your computer and never print or just throw away.

Cheers

The point of this post was not to say what kind of digital camera was best, i was just making a point that here in the year 2008, there are a lot of hold outs to this digital age. The current debate were having sounds like the debates in the 70's when I would read Popular Photography when a Nikon F owner would say his prints looked much better than a less expensive Mamiya/Sekor , it was like it is now, a battle of the brands. Along came a medium format 120 user and would put every 35mm user to shame except those who didn't feel the need to carry a 10 + pound Hassleblad around their neck. I got some nice shots in Miami and most people on here seemed to like em or were they "just being nice" to me in your opinion? No matter what others say including those in China who consider Fuji a "cheapo brand" I think otherwise and that's one thing you and I can agree on. Again, the purpose of this thread was just show that someone will eventually say that all DSLR cameras suck and scan a photograph taken with film and compare it to digital. What will you say then?

Barry

tdkd13 said:

I still have two nice film cameras that get occasional use, but with
the lack of decent processing labs and the cost of scanning on a high
quality drum scanner they are just WAY too expensive to even think of
using too much. Scanning the images on a nice $500.00 flatbed scanner
I can say that even the 6 mp Nikon D70 was giving film a run for its
money, I am fairly sure that in strict terms of critical sharpness
digital has passed film by some time back. Todays 10, 12 and even 16
megapixel APS and full frame sensors in my opinion are better than
35mm film. Film is limping along on its last legs, it will survive
for sometime but it will never again be the dominant media.
I guess whats more curious is the reason for the question, is it just
curiosity or are you once again leaning on that old tired "its better
than my Vivitar POS" argument? What I mean is are you attempting to
interject a completely different aspect to the equation? I shot film
for 25 years, and was a little late to the digital party. I know you
too claim to have been a film shooter for some time as well. However
in all honesty, and I dont mean this in a rude way, I haven't seen
that experience evident in your work, or in the types of questions
you ask, any reason you can think of for that?
Anyways, I am sure there are still many film shooters around, I still
have a few friends that have not yet even looked at a digital camera
let alone wanted to buy one. I'm sure you too probably know people
that have not made the jump yet as well.
Your own profile statement in your posting profile has read something
along the lines of you werent going to switch to digital until it was
as good as what you were getting with film, the fact that you now
shoot digital I guess suggests you feel digital has surpassed film,
is that the case?
Also, why call this thread what you called it if what your really
asking is digital vs film questions? That seems odd to me.
Ted
--
http://photobucket.com/albums/y260/tdkd13/

Click to expand...

--
'Kicking Back With My s8000FD' & s700
Cameras Make Pictures, People Create Them

Barry, I apologize if I misinterpreted you post, that happens from time to time in a text based communication environment such as these forums. I rarely try and compare film to digital as I find that regardless of the outcome I wont be shooting film so it matters not what the results would be. I have two nice Nikon film bodies and each has seen fewer than 5 rolls through them last year and probably about that the year before. Its just too big a pain to get the film processed, scan the images I like etc. etc.

Digital is the medium I choose to work in so that is all that I bother concerning myself with. As to photographic images made with film impressing me, that happens all the time. I actually go into several art galleries a month and I see images that blow me away every single time I go in one, so be it. I have learned to live with the fact that I simply do not have the talent that many of these guys and girls have, I'm cool with that. I understand that I lack artistic sense, but I try, and even if I cannot be as artistic, I have no reason to not try to be technically accurate, that would just be ignorant.
Ted
--
http://photobucket.com/albums/y260/tdkd13/

This topic could have been easily been about "defining quality levels" My sister still has her 1.2 MP Sony Mavica that takes "that" 3 1/4 inch floppy disk we already forgot used to be a must on every computer and if it's still on yours, it belongs on "Antiques Roadshow" lol My sister told be while on vacation that friends and photographers alike were "blown away" at the high quality it delivered. I saw some of these pictures on her High Def TV via hookups to her television and well they looked like "bleep" but in 2001 they were fantastic, every year we raise the bar, agree Ted?

Will the best DSLR OF 2008 take shots we'll call "bleep" in 2014? Will memory cards (SD or xD still be a format) Maybe we'll have chips implanted in our heads and we can take shots of what we see in our brains.

Barry
--
'Kicking Back With My s8000FD' & s700
Cameras Make Pictures, People Create Them

Just kidding.

The truth of the matter is that I shoot both. I have an s6000fd that I am trying to get to know better. I really love the camera. I use it quit often with the famliy.

However, for my own personal enjoyment, I still shoot my Contax 167 MT with a Zeiss 35mm and 50mm lens. To be honest, it is cheaper for me to shoot this camera than a digital FOR WHAT I SHOOT. (And I really want to stress the last part because I am an odd duck)

I got 7 - 100ft rolls of outdated Arista 50 (which is rebadge PanF+) for $12/roll , some Rodinal and and enlarger which allows me to print quality BW prints for less than a inkjet print does (because I do not have to by any ink, and I got wome great AGFA paper and ultrafine online for less than cheap inkjet photo paper).

Film slows me down, makes me think and I enjoy it for what it is.

I am not a great photographer in any stretch of the imagination, but I just enjoy the theraputic qualities of looking for beauty in little things and trying to express it. Here are some examples of my 50 with a closeup lens attached in the fall on Panf+

If a picture was good in 1951 its likely still good today, thats my opinion. I have pictures, many in fact, that were taken with a 3 mp Fuji that I still love. To me simply because a more modern camera can take a more detailed image or whatever that doesn't change the intrinsic qualities of the image captured some time back with antiquated equipment. Advances in equipment just allow us to work in broader conditions or allow for more detail, they wont make better pictures, thats totally up to the photographer.

While I agree that the bar should be raised every year, aparently camera companies do not, the biggest debate about Fuji's new line of cameras is that the image quality simply didnt stand up to what they were capable of in 2006. Fuji though would counter that the public wants more zoom and more megapixels so they were forced to make concessions to deliver a camera in that class. It is conceivable that DSLR's will go down that same road as well. Companies could start cheapening the products image quality in order to deliver something at a better price or that has 30 megapixels or something just as silly. Who knows what will happen, but I do agree with the general point you have made, our expectations do keep increasing. Although I still feel a good 1 megapixel image is better than a bad 10 megapixel image.
Take care, Ted

--
http://photobucket.com/albums/y260/tdkd13/

navillus said:

Just kidding.

The truth of the matter is that I shoot both. I have an s6000fd that
I am trying to get to know better. I really love the camera. I use
it quit often with the famliy.

However, for my own personal enjoyment, I still shoot my Contax 167
MT with a Zeiss 35mm and 50mm lens. To be honest, it is cheaper for
me to shoot this camera than a digital FOR WHAT I SHOOT. (And I
really want to stress the last part because I am an odd duck)

I got 7 - 100ft rolls of outdated Arista 50 (which is rebadge PanF+)
for $12/roll , some Rodinal and and enlarger which allows me to print
quality BW prints for less than a inkjet print does (because I do not
have to by any ink, and I got wome great AGFA paper and ultrafine
online for less than cheap inkjet photo paper).

Film slows me down, makes me think and I enjoy it for what it is.

I am not a great photographer in any stretch of the imagination, but
I just enjoy the theraputic qualities of looking for beauty in little
things and trying to express it. Here are some examples of my 50
with a closeup lens attached in the fall on Panf+

Click to expand...

Nice shots..

I agree that film does slow you down, or rather make you think more. Not a bad thing.

I still use it, still like it a lot.

Esp for b&w.

Digital is in many ways great, its handy..sure lets move with the times. On the other hand, you can buy a high end film SLR for peanuts nowadays, and a not bad scanner, all for less than a budget DSLR.

Digital esp bigger sensors are good enough, but I have to say. Film beats the hell out of digital for subtle tones and colour hues..by a large margin IMHO.

Slide or negative..









--



Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)

I like the last one best. I do agree that film certainly slows you down, and that is likely a good thing for most of us. When I first began shooting digital I would blow through hundreds of shots a day. Lately I have slowed down, not quite to film speed, but no where near where I was. Went for a hike yesterday and I think I shot 9 pictures, at Christmas I took about 12. I certainly dont miss the developing baths, I did a lot of B&W back in the 70's but I think I overdid it because now I cant stand it, I almost never convert to B&W but have shot a few rolls of B&W film in the last year.
Take care, Ted
--
http://photobucket.com/albums/y260/tdkd13/

Nice pics. Was the castle shot with Tri-x?

Any 35mm film camera has a large (so-called Full Frame) sensor, regardless of the size of the camera. Therefore, any compact 35mm camera has a (much) larger sensor area than any compact digital PnS. Therefore, assuming parity in lens quality (which is quite often lacking in digicams), the film camera has a much better chance of having a good final result, especially if you use good film ie no Kodak Gold or supermarket own branded rubbish. I have an old film Oly PnS that is superb. It's broken at the moment (no time to investigate why...), but the results from it are often better than I get from my Fuji E900, especially if I start upping the ISO. It's a 'Full Frame' camera in a compact size - it's not much bigger than the E900. Even APS film is larger than most digicam sensors - shame the APS film cameras were mostly junk.

Another benefit of film cams is that you actually get to choose your sensor. No more getting stuck with a noisy 12mp pin-head.

OK, digital is quicker, more convenient etc. It's also 'cheaper' (although I think that's often exaggerated - we take more pics, but are many of them actually worth taking? Would we have bothered if we had to pay for processing?). No, I'm not saying we should throw out our digitals - I own 3 (only use 2, though). By the same token, we shouldn't dismiss film just because it's so last century... For image quality, compact film cams win. And seeing as they're cheap as these days, I think that for a serious photographer, as opposed to a happy-snapper, quality compact film cameras are a good choice. If you can stretch to a classic Voigtlander or Leica, bully for you!

One thing I'd really like to do is to get modern film emulsions put on to 126 or 110 size film, and have a shoot-off between some 'classic' small film cameras and the latest digicams with tiny sensors - I like to think that the film would be the winner, and I'm pretty sure it would. Whether the great unwashed would be convinced (or even care) is another matter, of course. Sheep, mislead by marketing wolves.

As for the larger formats - my old film SLR, a Mamiya NC1000s (GBP20 when I was there a few months ago) is more than a match for my Nikon D200 (AU$2500 when I bought it 2 years ago) in ultimate image quality. Sure, it's a little slower (1 fps vs 5fps, manual focussing etc), doesn't impress people and needs feeding every 36 exp or so, but it's 1/3rd the weight, doesn't eat batteries and I'm not always worried in case anyone nicks it!

In the end, a camera is a tool. You use whichever tool you need to use (or have to hand) to get the job done. Both formats have a place, and both will hopefully live on for a long time to come - I've got at least 40 years more in me, and I want to keep on shooting for as long as that right index finger holds out!

--
Rob

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everyone, everywhere, has to do everything for a first time. There is no shame in failure, only in failure to try.

Some of it very nice. Just a shame you had to subject it to pixelisation to be able to share it with us!

--
Rob

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everyone, everywhere, has to do everything for a first time. There is no shame in failure, only in failure to try.

I always wondered why they called the developing bath "soup" until I did it myself, it was more rotten vegetable soup. Yuck!! That Kodak DX-76 chemical made both my parents want me to give up the hobby, reason why they probably gave me a Polaroid Colorpack Camera for Christmas one year. Nice try mom and dad but a 13 year old can't afford $5.00 for a pack of film which gives you only for 8 instant color in a 1970's economy (more than 5x my weekly allowance) and Polaroid B/W film had that gawd awful roller that you used to preserve prints and that smelled like a dumpster left unemptied for months.Looking back, it was fun and I haven't looked back. Funny but every digcam is like having a Polaroid again, just a hell of a lot better quality. Ted, thanks the "smelly" memories

Barry

tdkd13 said:

I like the last one best. I do agree that film certainly slows you
down, and that is likely a good thing for most of us. When I first
began shooting digital I would blow through hundreds of shots a day.
Lately I have slowed down, not quite to film speed, but no where near
where I was. Went for a hike yesterday and I think I shot 9 pictures,
at Christmas I took about 12. I certainly dont miss the developing
baths, I did a lot of B&W back in the 70's but I think I overdid it
because now I cant stand it, I almost never convert to B&W but have
shot a few rolls of B&W film in the last year.
Take care, Ted
--
http://photobucket.com/albums/y260/tdkd13/

Click to expand...

--
'Kicking Back With My s8000FD' & s700
Cameras Make Pictures, People Create Them

Your post reminded me of Ken Rockwell's review of the Olympus Trip, and the comparisons he made with his 5D.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/olympus/trip-35.htm

navillus said:

Nice pics. Was the castle shot with Tri-x?

Click to expand...

No it was HP5, but the camera goofed the exposure and underexposed it. (it was just an ok ish olympus compact)

I brought it back up, with the effect off uber grain..

It was shot 2002, but it could be 1902 from the shot! However...in this case, a bit of luck. I went back again to pembroke castle to shoot it in digital, but I came nowhere near the feel of the film shot. So...let it be I said! lol
--



Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)

My 35mm film camera made it very clear that (at the time) I was just rubbish. Most of my pictures from before 1999 are just rubbish. They are fuzzy, they often lack DOF because I needed a large aperture (with film you cannot quickly up the ISO for a single shot), and because I used rubbish film and developing services.

I'm sure that a good photographer can make film pictures that put almost every digital camera to shame. But for amateurs like me a digital camera gives me at least some decent pictures whereas my film camera gave me almost none.

Barry Nelson said:

Just wondering if there is someone on this forum who is standing
around laughing their a$$ off, thinking to themselves "your all
wrong, my 35mm film camera makes all your shots look inferior,
including the DSLR ones" I'm sure there are people on here who still
haven't gone the digital route because of that logic, I might be
wrong.

Barry
--
'Kicking Back With My s8000FD' & s700
Cameras Make Pictures, People Create Them

Click to expand...

--

Slowly learning to use the DRebel (only around 32.000 shots) and now also the Fuji E900.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .