10D vs film poll . . .

LesDMess · May 14, 2003

. . . but this is limited only to qualified film users - those who have owned an Elan or better, have their own dark room and those who have a film scanner that is equal to or greater then 2700dpi.

Notwithstanding SLR body performance, are the results you get from your 10D better, equal to or less then Velvia 50, Provia 100F or Provia 400F - Kodak, Agfa, or other equivalents can be substituted here. If you consider them less then these slides how about negatives at 100, 200 or 400 iso equivalents. Since grain is highly subjective, and I think that film grain is better looking then digital grain, you can qualify that if you want. If not for the convenience of making prints yourself from digital, would you still use film?
BTW, honest opinions only and intolerance will not be tolerated.

Bob Graham rvg · May 14, 2003

10D easily beats 2700 dpi scanner.

My last scanner was a Coolscan LS4000. That could keep up with a 10D, but not a 1Ds, using the best films out there. In some senses, though, the clean, pure, smooth, and softly colored areas produced by 10D, D60 can't be touched by the best scanners.

Problem with scanning: I only have one life to live, and I'm not going to live it feeding and watching a scanner. With the same time investment, I shoot ten times more digital than film.

Bob

LesDMess said:
. . . but this is limited only to qualified film users - those who
have owned an Elan or better, have their own dark room and those
who have a film scanner that is equal to or greater then 2700dpi.
Notwithstanding SLR body performance, are the results you get from
your 10D better, equal to or less then Velvia 50, Provia 100F or
Provia 400F - Kodak, Agfa, or other equivalents can be substituted
here. If you consider them less then these slides how about
negatives at 100, 200 or 400 iso equivalents. Since grain is highly
subjective, and I think that film grain is better looking then
digital grain, you can qualify that if you want. If not for the
convenience of making prints yourself from digital, would you still
use film?
BTW, honest opinions only and intolerance will not be tolerated.

paratom · May 15, 2003

I use a 1D+S40 and own a Nikon Coolscan LS400 and EOS1V, LeicaM, Leica Minilux. Scanned ProviaF100 pics I can get very good quality as well as with my 1D. Its both very good for A3 printing (I do not need larger prints).

So for me its not the question, which is better quality, its both good enough. For me its more:

-Do I want to take a charger and a Notebook with me (digital) or just some rolls of film?
-DO I want to use my big and bulky 1D (dig)or my small and light M6(film)?
-Do I want to have quick access to my pics (dig) vs wait for development (film)

-Do I need 21mm lens as 21mm (film) lens or do I maybe take telepics, where the factor of smaller sensor might even be a plus (dig)
-Do I want to have posibility to project high quality Slides?(film)

-big files (scanned slides in good quality: > 100MB) vs smaller files of digital (1D raw file 4-5mb)

-Also my finding is, that there no digital point nd shoot cameras which are close in quality (lens, speed, delays etc.) to a Leica Minilux or Contax

LesDMess said:
. . . but this is limited only to qualified film users - those who
have owned an Elan or better, have their own dark room and those
who have a film scanner that is equal to or greater then 2700dpi.
Notwithstanding SLR body performance, are the results you get from
your 10D better, equal to or less then Velvia 50, Provia 100F or
Provia 400F - Kodak, Agfa, or other equivalents can be substituted
here. If you consider them less then these slides how about
negatives at 100, 200 or 400 iso equivalents. Since grain is highly
subjective, and I think that film grain is better looking then
digital grain, you can qualify that if you want. If not for the
convenience of making prints yourself from digital, would you still
use film?
BTW, honest opinions only and intolerance will not be tolerated.

Petteri Sulonen · May 15, 2003

LesDMess wrote:
[snip]

Reference setup -- film: Canon AE-1, Canon FD 50 mm f/1.4 SSC and 85 mm f/1.8 SSC, Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II; Fuji Provia 100F and 400F (color); Kodak T400CN (B/W).

Reference setup -- digital: Canon 10D, Canon EF 35 mm f/2 and 50 mm f/1.4 USM.

They're different.

I've used the 10D for a very short time, so I can't say anything really conclusive at this point. Take these observations as preliminary:

1. I like film for black and white much better. The dynamic range and tonal response curve are way better. I also really like the grain of 400-speed B/W film. (I do shoot slower films, too, but my favorite is the 400 for the exposure freedom it gives, and the quality of the grain.) Not all films scan equally well, though: I've had much trouble with T-Max 400, for example.

2. I like digital for color better. With my scanner and workflow, files from the 10D shot at up to ISO400 print at least equally well and have at least equal enlargement potential as Provia 100 scans. I'm sure a better scanner would squeeze more enlargement potential out of the film, but for me, a $10,000 scanner is simply not an option (nor having the films scanned professionally at several hundreds of $ a frame; and my wife would definitely nix a Cibachrome lab in the bathroom). I like the 10D color a lot -- it's close enough to Provia for my taste.

However, I can get similar results at ISO400 as with film at ISO100, and for ISO400 film quality I can shoot at ISO800 or even ISO1600 (with a bit of work). Also, the inherent advantages of digital mean that I can be much more certain of getting the exposure right (I can check and re-shoot if necessary), and the workflow is much simplified.

Bottom line: I don't think I'll be buying much slide film anymore... but my scanner will be kept busy crunching through a bunch of B/W.

Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Photo lessons: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/lessons/ ]

GjB · May 15, 2003

Have made very little use of CanoScan FS2710 + film SLR since getting D30. I don't care about the supposed difference in file sizes - I find that at 10x8 the D30 is a good mach for scanned film. As for the grain, it looks wrong now that I am used to the silkiness of CMOS images. I think the "grain" look is a nostalgic throwback - the smoothness of digital images is preferable IMHO - it is easy to introduce noise afterwards should one wish.

What I do miss is the better performing bodies from film cameras. For a little more than half the price of the D30 (or about the same price as a 10D), I can buy a 1V and there is no comparison whatsoever between these cameras.

I havn't done darkroom in years and absolutely do not miss it. Good darkroom work is far more difficult to achieve than using PS7 (but maybee I'm a geek).

Also the speed/convenience of shooting digital is incredible. Scanning film is so slow and there is still a lot of work to finalise the images. No thanks.

GB

RayL · May 15, 2003

IMO it depends on what medium you shoot in. For the color print film shooter a 6mp camera is pretty equal in quality of output,but the film savings and instant review favor digital.

For the slide shooter it is tougher. I still prefer Velvia to digital. There is something about a chrome on a lighttable that digital can never replace. However can i get a good scan of a 35mm chrome.... Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Some I do myself on a Minolta, sometimes I send them out.

The area i really still like film is a medium format Velvia, that is still waaayyy more awesome than digital and a mf scan fantastic prints.

So why not shoot both? A Elan 7 is cheap, get one then shoot digital for preview and bang some Velvias to keep.

SteveW · May 15, 2003

With out a doubt a D60 or 10D print is much better than a film scan. A few years ago I was scanning (2700 dpi) and printing 8x10 and 11X14 on a Epson 1280. Back then I was wowed by the quality of the prints and thinking it was just as good as digital. A few days ago I was going through my old prints and saw fuzzy, grainy 8x10s and pixelated 11x14s from my film prints. I couldn't believe the difference in quality from then(film) to now(d60/10d). I felt so limited by film and the quality I could print at. I've printed 20x30 files from my d60 and they are darn good. Sharp, clear, and no pixels. I couldn't even say that about film at 8x10.

If the quality of digital over film isn't enough, the convinence is. It just seems pointless to sit there over the light table and weed out which ones are scannable. Scan those, then bring them into photoshop and then weed out which ones are printable. Just a big fat waste of time. Plus, the quality of a native jpg or tiff from a d60/10d is much more usable to tweak color, sharpness, crop, dodging/burning, curves, and so on than a film scan.

Digital all the way.

Peter70 · May 15, 2003

GjB said:
Have made very little use of CanoScan FS2710 + film SLR since
getting D30. I don't care about the supposed difference in file
sizes - I find that at 10x8 the D30 is a good mach for scanned
film. As for the grain, it looks wrong now that I am used to the
silkiness of CMOS images. I think the "grain" look is a nostalgic
throwback - the smoothness of digital images is preferable IMHO -
it is easy to introduce noise afterwards should one wish.

You can add grain (noise) in PhotoShop. I do that sometimes because sometimes digital photos are just to perfect to be realistic.

A week ago I took photos of microwawe owens for a catalogue. Some of the areas on the photos were just to smooth so I added some noise in PhotoShop.

But some other owens looked much better with a smooth surface. In this case my 10D beated all the sample photos made on 35mm film because 35mm film was simply to grainy.

It also beated some of medium format photos scanned on a drum scanner. These scans simply had to much dust on and Newton effect was seen on scans. Also the color depth of such scans was poor comparing to 10D.

GjB said:
What I do miss is the better performing bodies from film cameras.
For a little more than half the price of the D30 (or about the same
price as a 10D), I can buy a 1V and there is no comparison
whatsoever between these cameras.

I havn't done darkroom in years and absolutely do not miss it. Good
darkroom work is far more difficult to achieve than using PS7 (but
maybee I'm a geek).

Also the speed/convenience of shooting digital is incredible.
Scanning film is so slow and there is still a lot of work to
finalise the images. No thanks.

GB

paratom · May 15, 2003

digital GEM of Nikon Scan Software makes a big difference in quality of scannes slides. No noisy, grainy skys anymore. I was amazed.
I wouldnt say scanned pics (Nikon LS4000) are worse than digital pics of my 1D

Scott Frey · May 15, 2003

LesDMess said:
have owned an Elan or better, have their own dark room and those
who have a film scanner that is equal to or greater then 2700dpi.

Well, I had a Pentax PZ1, work in a photo lab/graphics shop and get to use a PMT Drum scanner with 11,000 ppi. Am I qualified?

Provia 100F scanned on the drum (at 3500ppi) gets me slightly more detail resolution than my 10D. Better highlight resolution, worse shadow resolution, and tack sharp film grain. Higher than 3500ppi seems to just resolve bigger and softer film grain. I have scanned at 11,000ppi (BIG file)

This is a pro scanner ($27,000 several years ago), a pro workflow (mounting oil, careful dust mitigation, calibrated everything). This system produces scans far, far better than any prosumer system. Remember, like megapixels, ppi is not the most important factor. CCDs are just catching up to PMTs, and you get what you pay for in any case. It's like pro lenses vs. consumer lenses

As I was saying, the scans are slightly better (in some ways, not as good in others)

I can do 9-12 scans an hour, if all goes well. Not including postprocessing, which is pretty comparable to 10D shots in terms of time. i.e. it depends more on the quality of the shot. Perfectly exposed most data in the midtones, sharp, all these reduce postprocessing

10D seems cleaner at all ISOs (noise/grain), especially in skies (BTW, I use neatimage on my film scans). The only real disadvantage in my experiance is to be extra careful of blown highlights.

I don't plan on shooting film anymore. Anyone want to buy a Pentax?

--
Scott

rami · May 15, 2003

if you are talking about what slide film is meant for, namely projecting the slides, rather than transforming them into digital files, then there is NO COMPARISON between the results. I did not make any comparisons, but in projecting a well exposed slide I think good slide film is going to surprise many in what it can compete with.

IMO there are many differences between slide and digital. while the 10D is smoother, the slide handles light in a very delicate way. over exposure in slide does not look just washed, like in 10D, it rather looks burned, like the way our eye react when we look into a strong light source. for the type of photography I do this is something that digital (in the little I know it) just cannot do.

btw, about shadow details, again, it is difficult to SCAN slides in a way that you will see shadow details, but when looking at the slide itself there is pleanty of shadow details, without any "color patches" as seen on the 10D.

I like the 10D allot, but I think people have a tendency to try to win in all fronts. film have its own character. slide film has a certain beauty that I just don't see in digital (not even in the 1Ds shots I have seen posted) I will be the last to buy a super CCD with 3 layers that have the latitude of negative, since I hate the latitude of negative film. it disguises the difference between shadow and sun.

btw, I still have to see grain in Provia 100F scans. I don't see it in my coolscan 4000. I hope to get the new Minolta 5400dpi when available. maybe it will have the power to show the limit of 35mm.

LesDMess said:
. . . but this is limited only to qualified film users - those who
have owned an Elan or better, have their own dark room and those
who have a film scanner that is equal to or greater then 2700dpi.
Notwithstanding SLR body performance, are the results you get from
your 10D better, equal to or less then Velvia 50, Provia 100F or
Provia 400F - Kodak, Agfa, or other equivalents can be substituted
here. If you consider them less then these slides how about
negatives at 100, 200 or 400 iso equivalents. Since grain is highly
subjective, and I think that film grain is better looking then
digital grain, you can qualify that if you want. If not for the
convenience of making prints yourself from digital, would you still
use film?
BTW, honest opinions only and intolerance will not be tolerated.

rami · May 15, 2003

btw, my film gear consists of Leica M bodies and current lenses. (21asp, 28f/2.8, 35f/1.4asph, 50f/2, 75f/1.4, 135f/3.4apo). I guess it counts as "elan or better".

rami said:
btw, I still have to see grain in Provia 100F scans. I don't see it
in my coolscan 4000. I hope to get the new Minolta 5400dpi when
available. maybe it will have the power to show the limit of 35mm.

LesDMess said:

. . . but this is limited only to qualified film users - those who
have owned an Elan or better, have their own dark room and those
who have a film scanner that is equal to or greater then 2700dpi.
Notwithstanding SLR body performance, are the results you get from
your 10D better, equal to or less then Velvia 50, Provia 100F or
Provia 400F - Kodak, Agfa, or other equivalents can be substituted
here. If you consider them less then these slides how about
negatives at 100, 200 or 400 iso equivalents. Since grain is highly
subjective, and I think that film grain is better looking then
digital grain, you can qualify that if you want. If not for the
convenience of making prints yourself from digital, would you still
use film?
BTW, honest opinions only and intolerance will not be tolerated.

Click to expand...

Petteri Sulonen · May 15, 2003

rami wrote:
[snip discussion]

Yep, for projection slide is unbeatable. Unfortunately that mode of displaying pictures is pretty severely limiting. That's why I got the slide scanner in the first place -- with the (extended) family, we've got about 15,000 slides gathering dust, because nobody bothers to go through the trouble of setting up the projector and watching them.

Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Photo lessons: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/lessons/ ]

John-G · May 15, 2003

rami said:
if you are talking about what slide film is meant for, namely
projecting the slides, rather than transforming them into digital
files, then there is NO COMPARISON between the results. I did not
make any comparisons, but in projecting a well exposed slide I
think good slide film is going to surprise many in what it can
compete with.

I shot slides for years... must have 6000+ slides in carousels. Always enjoyed the big screen.

The last step in my total digital conversion was procuring an inexpensive 1024x768 digital projector (Sanyo). Most folks think you need a super expensive high resolution projector... not so. I resample all my images to 1024x768 (Egads!) and the results are astounding ! Very very sharp and colorful. Especially on my 6ft screen. I'm sure projects slides still have the slight projection edge but the feedback I've gotten from viewers is they think the projected digital images are breathtaking.

I use a Dell laptop with a native resolution of 1024x768.

I don't miss hauling out all those carousels. Now I simply grab my binder containing the photo CD collections and have enough images to last for weeks of slide shows.

rami · May 15, 2003

I agree with you, I have the same problem, but the issue of easy of use,which obviously digital has an advantage in, and it IS the reason digital "wins" (epsecially in photojurnalism) is a different issue. the quesiton of quality is another, and people keep on comparing scanned slides to digital pictures, and their calim is that digital is better is quality. I find it highly unjustifies. The point is that we are not all photo jurnalists. for some artistic purposes making a real exhibition with a slide show is still the cheapest way to make a professional presentation. and it still get you the highest quality. people keep on making claims that are much stronger thant what their grounds allow for (here I am not reacting to your justified comment, but to many irresponsible remarks I see in this forum of people expressing themselves as if 10D bits film, no question...) . it is just not the case that digital, as of now, has QUALITY advantage for all purpses, over 35mm film.

Petteri Sulonen said:
rami wrote:

[snip discussion]

Yep, for projection slide is unbeatable. Unfortunately that mode of
displaying pictures is pretty severely limiting. That's why I got
the slide scanner in the first place -- with the (extended) family,
we've got about 15,000 slides gathering dust, because nobody
bothers to go through the trouble of setting up the projector and
watching them.

Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Photo lessons: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/lessons/ ]

rami · May 15, 2003

I don't want to talk without seeing what YOU are doing. From what I saw so far, with quit good projectors (in Art Gallery digital exhibition) I was just not impressed so much. I obviously did not think it compares to slides. (saw Nan Goldin's exhibition couple of weeks ago in Chealsea. she uses real 35mm slides. it was projected on a really big wall. size that you would expect medium format to struggle to reach. from where I was sitting it looked perfrectly sharp).

John-G said:
rami said:

if you are talking about what slide film is meant for, namely
projecting the slides, rather than transforming them into digital
files, then there is NO COMPARISON between the results. I did not
make any comparisons, but in projecting a well exposed slide I
think good slide film is going to surprise many in what it can
compete with.

Click to expand...

I shot slides for years... must have 6000+ slides in carousels.
Always enjoyed the big screen.

The last step in my total digital conversion was procuring an
inexpensive 1024x768 digital projector (Sanyo). Most folks think
you need a super expensive high resolution projector... not so. I
resample all my images to 1024x768 (Egads!) and the results are
astounding ! Very very sharp and colorful. Especially on my 6ft
screen. I'm sure projects slides still have the slight projection
edge but the feedback I've gotten from viewers is they think the
projected digital images are breathtaking.

I use a Dell laptop with a native resolution of 1024x768.

I don't miss hauling out all those carousels. Now I simply grab my
binder containing the photo CD collections and have enough images
to last for weeks of slide shows.

andyfrazer · May 15, 2003

Bob Graham rvg said:
Problem with scanning: I only have one life to live, and I'm not
going to live it feeding and watching a scanner. With the same time
investment, I shoot ten times more digital than film.

Bob

Very well put, Bob.

Andy

Petteri Sulonen · May 15, 2003

andyfrazer · May 15, 2003

Although I don't want to waste bandwidth preaching to the choir, here, I'd like to add that the single issue that pushed me "over to the dark side" was my frustration at having to 1). drive down to my local professional quality E6 lab to drop off my film, and 2). spending my lunch hour to drive over to same lab to pick up my processed film (they're only open M-F 9-5).

I had mentally prepared myself to spend hours and hours scanning in my slides in my slide scanner (and this gets back to the original post ... sorry for digressing), because I can do that at my convenience at home with the tunes cranked up. But making two trips fighting traffic was too much for me.

Andy

aevoegels · May 15, 2003

LesDMess said:
. . . but this is limited only to qualified film users - those who
have owned an Elan or better, have their own dark room and those
who have a film scanner that is equal to or greater then 2700dpi.
Notwithstanding SLR body performance, are the results you get from
your 10D better, equal to or less then Velvia 50, Provia 100F or
Provia 400F - Kodak, Agfa, or other equivalents can be substituted
here. If you consider them less then these slides how about
negatives at 100, 200 or 400 iso equivalents. Since grain is highly
subjective, and I think that film grain is better looking then
digital grain, you can qualify that if you want. If not for the
convenience of making prints yourself from digital, would you still
use film?
BTW, honest opinions only and intolerance will not be tolerated.

10D vs film poll . . .

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

John-G

Guest

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts