Pentax DS vs. Film (Any company)

[mariuscosmos]

Hi everybody,

I am DSLR wouldbe. I own several digicams (Canon S45, Pentax Optio S4, another Canon) and a 35mm Nikon F65 (with kit lens). Taken up by the DSLR 'fury', I was looking to make the step into buying one. But then I was struck by the quality of prints from my 35 mm camera. So now, I have second thoughts.

I am considering buying a DS. Canon XT seems to be a good alternative. But the DS really stuck into my heart. The difference in money between a DSLR and a film camera is significant. I don't know about the quality of prints. I cannot really tell from what I see on the screen. It may be diferrent. I would like the pictures to have the 'film' feeling anyway.

The question is: can you take pictures with a DS that compare in quality with a film camera?

Thank you in advance

Mariuscosmos
Ps. I like your forum.

 

[.Sam.]

The question is: can you take pictures with a DS that compare in
quality with a film camera?

I was at my local camera store today and had a converstion with one of the pros there. He told they had tested DS/20D/D70/300D... and the DS had the most "film like" images among them.

Although he still preferred the high-end Canons, he said the DS could compete with any one of the above mentioned cameras.

As far as the quality of the images are concerned; I would say if you use an excellent lense (Pentax 1.4/1.7 50mm, any of Pentax Limited lenses, Tamron 90mm, Sigma 50EX,...) you can produce images that are as good or better than any camera out there.

--
.Sam.
Agfa 1680 ~ G1 ~ *istDS ~ DPR addict 4 years & counting

 

[John Glover]

The question is: can you take pictures with a DS that compare in
quality with a film camera?

I think that with proper technique and a decent lens, any DSLR from any manufacturer will produce outstanding images. The imaging capabilities of DSLRs are pretty much equal, so the choice becomes more personal based on the features each camera offers as well as the feel of the camera. So in that regard, yes a DS can take an image comparable or better than a film camera....you will just need to work at the final image a bit.....remember what you see on the screen may not necessarily be optimized to print.

--
John

Fuji S7000Z, Fuji 2600Z,
Pentax *ist-D, Pentax ZX-M, Oly Stylus
http://www.pbase.com/jglover

 

[wlachan]

The question is: can you take pictures with a DS that compare in
quality with a film camera?

I think fine 135 films still have the edge on fine details and dynamic range (expecially negative), but what they lack is the smoothness provided by 6MP DSLRs. But it is important to aware that almost all labs use digital printers now so they will just scan your film and print them digitally. You can scan them yourself but it is a very time consuming business, and consumer scanners will never extract all the fine details.
--
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/

 

[Todd Kindred]

The question is: can you take pictures with a DS that compare in
quality with a film camera?

Thank you in advance

Mariuscosmos
Ps. I like your forum.

I am in the hold pattern for my Pentax DSLR. In the mean time I have looked at , I think, hundreds upon hundreds of digital photos. I have been watching digital SLR's since the introduction of the Contax N Digital many years back and realized digital was the future.

In my opinion Digital and Film have two entirely different looks. They can both produce excellent images but different. I just switched to Fuji Reala film and the look the film produces would have to be accomplished with some serious post processing. To me Digital has a clean, crisp hard edge to it and film is sharp but softer. I guess it also depends on the film you use because different film types have different qualities.

When I scan my negatives I get huge files though. All my photos in my gallery are scanned from negatives. I choose the "low" quality setting when I compress them into JPGs before uploading. The originals look much better than what I have in my gallery. This is intentional because if someone copies my photos I want them to have degraded ones. Anyway, I like both film and digital very much but for two entirely different reasons. Here is one of my galleries.

http://www.pbase.com/toddk/france

The first shots in this gallery above are using Fuji Reala film. They may not look as sharp as digital but like I said I reduced the file sized tremdously and I chose not to sharpen them in Photoshop.

Night shots.

http://www.pbase.com/toddk/night

and my entire site

http://www.pbase.com/toddk

 

[mariuscosmos]

Thanks for the replies. They are really instructive. I believe I would look for a better film camera. You still can get that excitement of surprise when you look at your prints for the first time after you've taken them from the lab.

I was hoping that the DS can bring both worlds together although at a steeper price.

Mariuscosmos

 

[Rich]

you'll recover your cost in film. All things considered I'd say that shooting digital is vastly superior to 35mm film, not only is the "film" basically free, you get to see your results instantly and can try the shot again if you get it wrong. With film, well, you're stuck with the shot you took; of course you can take a bunch of shots to make sure one of them comes out nice but then you'll blow through $$ of film in the process (not to mention developing). If you want to regularly reproduce pictures larger than, say, 16 by 20, you should probably be shooting medium format and not wasting your time with 35mm. Other than the cheap introductory price (0$ for many), or the need to shoot slides for presentations, I can't think of many relevant uses for 35mm anymore. Am I missing anything?

Rich

 

[Rich]

You still can get that
excitement of surprise when you look at your prints for the first
time after you've taken them from the lab.

Or disappointment! I'm all for the instant gratification

 

[Jonas B]

No you are not.

I have my old fSLR still around, loaded with slide film. Sometimes I get the idea that pictures from a special event should be slides. Apart from that digital has all advantages.

Jonas

---snip--- Am I missing anything?

Rich

 

[Todd Kindred]

I agree with the instant feedback digital provides, the convenience, and visual qualities. But I was just wondering if you would agree that Film has a different look than digital? I personally like what each produces but still they seem different in appearence. Perhaps I am imagining things?

you'll recover your cost in film. All things considered I'd say
that shooting digital is vastly superior to 35mm film, not only is
the "film" basically free, you get to see your results instantly
and can try the shot again if you get it wrong. With film, well,
you're stuck with the shot you took; of course you can take a bunch
of shots to make sure one of them comes out nice but then you'll
blow through $$ of film in the process (not to mention developing).
If you want to regularly reproduce pictures larger than, say, 16 by
20, you should probably be shooting medium format and not wasting
your time with 35mm. Other than the cheap introductory price (0$
for many), or the need to shoot slides for presentations, I can't
think of many relevant uses for 35mm anymore. Am I missing anything?

Rich

 

[Robgo2]

I, too, have been eyeing the digital SLR field, but cannot quite pull the trigger. The major reason for this is that I am very satisfied with the results that I am getting from scanned film. Some of the modern films (e.g. Astia 100f, Provia 100f and 400f) are truly extraordinary and set a very high bar for digital cameras to reach. I scan my slides with a Minolta 5400 at maximum resolution, and the results are outstanding. The major drawback to this approach is the time and effort spent scanning. Digital capture is probably more economical, but only if one does not buy a new camera every few years, so as to have the latest technology. With film, all one needs to do to improve image quality is buy better film.

It is not my intent to bash digital photography or to start a digital vs. film flame war. I fully expect to join the growing ranks of digital users someday, and as I am a bit of an iconoclast, it may well be with a Pentax or Olympus camera. Currently, I use a Contax G2, and there is no hope of ever seeing a digital version.

you'll recover your cost in film. All things considered I'd say
that shooting digital is vastly superior to 35mm film, not only is
the "film" basically free, you get to see your results instantly
and can try the shot again if you get it wrong. With film, well,
you're stuck with the shot you took; of course you can take a bunch
of shots to make sure one of them comes out nice but then you'll
blow through $$ of film in the process (not to mention developing).
If you want to regularly reproduce pictures larger than, say, 16 by
20, you should probably be shooting medium format and not wasting
your time with 35mm. Other than the cheap introductory price (0$
for many), or the need to shoot slides for presentations, I can't
think of many relevant uses for 35mm anymore. Am I missing anything?

Rich

 

[Todd Kindred]

I have to agree with you. I personally think there is no reason people should have to argue one over the other. They can both produce great shots. I too am satisfied with my film camera for now but expect to go digital in the future.

It is not my intent to bash digital photography or to start a
digital vs. film flame war. I fully expect to join the growing
ranks of digital users someday, and as I am a bit of an iconoclast,
it may well be with a Pentax or Olympus camera. Currently, I use a
Contax G2, and there is no hope of ever seeing a digital version.

you'll recover your cost in film. All things considered I'd say
that shooting digital is vastly superior to 35mm film, not only is
the "film" basically free, you get to see your results instantly
and can try the shot again if you get it wrong. With film, well,
you're stuck with the shot you took; of course you can take a bunch
of shots to make sure one of them comes out nice but then you'll
blow through $$ of film in the process (not to mention developing).
If you want to regularly reproduce pictures larger than, say, 16 by
20, you should probably be shooting medium format and not wasting
your time with 35mm. Other than the cheap introductory price (0$
for many), or the need to shoot slides for presentations, I can't
think of many relevant uses for 35mm anymore. Am I missing anything?

Rich

 

[mariuscosmos]

Todd has a point. It seems to me that the image is quite different from film to digital. At least from what I see in my digicams and the Nikon film camera. What I don't know is if a DSLR like Pentax DS can match the same feeling.

I don't mind that there may be just 1 good picture in a 100 (although the ratio is usually like 70/30). Anyway, since I've taken thousands of pictures with my digicams I started to miss the ineffable of 1 just one good picture (and of just less pictures).

I like the Pentax because they have a nice viewfinder, large and clear LCD, is user friendly and mostly, because I've heard that can give you that 'film feeling' better than other systems.

Mariuscosmos

you'll recover your cost in film. All things considered I'd say
that shooting digital is vastly superior to 35mm film, not only is
the "film" basically free, you get to see your results instantly
and can try the shot again if you get it wrong. With film, well,
you're stuck with the shot you took; of course you can take a bunch
of shots to make sure one of them comes out nice but then you'll
blow through $$ of film in the process (not to mention developing).
If you want to regularly reproduce pictures larger than, say, 16 by
20, you should probably be shooting medium format and not wasting
your time with 35mm. Other than the cheap introductory price (0$
for many), or the need to shoot slides for presentations, I can't
think of many relevant uses for 35mm anymore. Am I missing anything?

Rich

 

[Godfrey]

The question is: can you take pictures with a DS that compare in
quality with a film camera?

The short answer is "Yes". I make prints to A3 Super size and hang them in shows right next to prints from 35mm and medium format film. No one can tell the difference unless they read the photo's tag, examine the print with a magnifying loupe, or ask me.

The longer answer is "Yes, with qualifications".

Print size, exposure, and your skill in preparing the images for a print will determine how good a print you will get, whether it be film or digital capture. What you hold as a standard for "a quality picture" is the most difficult part to define, and you have to define that before you can make a comparison.

Film capture to a print and digital capture to a print represent both a change of medium and a change of process. Quality from both photographic endeavors can be superb, once you know how to get it. That takes study and practice.

Godfrey

 

[I.G.]

Digital capture is probably more economical, but only if
one does not buy a new camera every few years, so as
to have the latest technology. With film, all one needs
to do to improve image quality is buy better film.

Excellent point, and one of the reasons I hesitate to switch to DSLR.

I wonder why manufacturers do not develop some standard for interchangeable sensors? So if you wish to upgrade, go and buy 8MP CMOS for, say, $300, open the back on your camera, remove your 6MP CCD sensor, plug in new sensor, close the camera and rock 'n' roll! (Or switch to Foveon X3 with the same body? Even get infrared? Ultraviolet? ...)

The same is already there with films, lenses, filters, not to mention PC industry (ever upgraded CPU, memory or video card?).

But not with camera sensors! Besides the obvious (maximizing profit!) is there any technical reason why they are not making standard "sensor socket" and make sensors upgradeable/interchangeable?

-= Ivan =-

 

[mariuscosmos]

Thank you Godfrey. I assume you shoot with a DS and are satisfied. Is it so? Than maybe I can go with a DS after all.

Mariuscosmos

The question is: can you take pictures with a DS that compare in
quality with a film camera?

The short answer is "Yes". I make prints to A3 Super size and hang
them in shows right next to prints from 35mm and medium format
film. No one can tell the difference unless they read the photo's
tag, examine the print with a magnifying loupe, or ask me.

The longer answer is "Yes, with qualifications".

Print size, exposure, and your skill in preparing the images for a
print will determine how good a print you will get, whether it be
film or digital capture. What you hold as a standard for "a quality
picture" is the most difficult part to define, and you have to
define that before you can make a comparison.

Film capture to a print and digital capture to a print represent
both a change of medium and a change of process. Quality from both
photographic endeavors can be superb, once you know how to get it.
That takes study and practice.

Godfrey

 

[Todd Kindred]

Some of the best photographic memories I have had were in a dark room. It was always exciting to see the prints come alive. I actually enjoyed spending time in the dark room as much as taking the photos, sometimes more. I guess Photoshop is kind of like a digital dark room now but with more control.

Thanks for the replies. They are really instructive. I believe I
would look for a better film camera. You still can get that
excitement of surprise when you look at your prints for the first
time after you've taken them from the lab.

I was hoping that the DS can bring both worlds together although at
a steeper price.

Mariuscosmos

 

[Todd Kindred]

I, too, have been eyeing the digital SLR field, but cannot quite
pull the trigger. The major reason for this is that I am very
satisfied with the results that I am getting from scanned film.
Some of the modern films (e.g. Astia 100f, Provia 100f and 400f)
are truly extraordinary and set a very high bar for digital cameras
to reach. I scan my slides with a Minolta 5400 at maximum
resolution, and the results are outstanding. The major drawback to
this approach is the time and effort spent scanning. Digital
capture is probably more economical, but only if one does not buy a
new camera every few years, so as to have the latest technology.
With film, all one needs to do to improve image quality is buy
better film.

I have owned only 2 cameras in the last 19 years! Alot of people I know with Digital Cameras seem to feel like they need to upgrade whenever a new camera comes out. The Digital Age is just what the camera manufacturers needed ($$$$$).

It is not my intent to bash digital photography or to start a
digital vs. film flame war. I fully expect to join the growing
ranks of digital users someday, and as I am a bit of an iconoclast,
it may well be with a Pentax or Olympus camera. Currently, I use a
Contax G2, and there is no hope of ever seeing a digital version.

you'll recover your cost in film. All things considered I'd say
that shooting digital is vastly superior to 35mm film, not only is
the "film" basically free, you get to see your results instantly
and can try the shot again if you get it wrong. With film, well,
you're stuck with the shot you took; of course you can take a bunch
of shots to make sure one of them comes out nice but then you'll
blow through $$ of film in the process (not to mention developing).
If you want to regularly reproduce pictures larger than, say, 16 by
20, you should probably be shooting medium format and not wasting
your time with 35mm. Other than the cheap introductory price (0$
for many), or the need to shoot slides for presentations, I can't
think of many relevant uses for 35mm anymore. Am I missing anything?

Rich

 

[Godfrey]

Yes, I'm working with a DS and a variety of lenses.

I also have a Canon 10D and a Konica Minolta A2, but since I bought the DS I've been using it almost exclusively for all my photography. All three have made exceptionally nice 11x14" (A3, cropped) to 13x19" (A3 Super) prints, as well as many many smaller prints.

I like using the DS more than the others and the Pentax lenses are excellent.

Godfrey

Mariuscosmos

The question is: can you take pictures with a DS that compare in
quality with a film camera?

The short answer is "Yes". I make prints to A3 Super size and hang
them in shows right next to prints from 35mm and medium format
film. No one can tell the difference unless they read the photo's
tag, examine the print with a magnifying loupe, or ask me.

The longer answer is "Yes, with qualifications".

Print size, exposure, and your skill in preparing the images for a
print will determine how good a print you will get, whether it be
film or digital capture. What you hold as a standard for "a quality
picture" is the most difficult part to define, and you have to
define that before you can make a comparison.

Film capture to a print and digital capture to a print represent
both a change of medium and a change of process. Quality from both
photographic endeavors can be superb, once you know how to get it.
That takes study and practice.

Godfrey

 

[Godfrey]

Todd has a point. It seems to me that the image is quite different
from film to digital. At least from what I see in my digicams and
the Nikon film camera. What I don't know is if a DSLR like Pentax
DS can match the same feeling.

Film capture to a print is a optical and chemical process. The film has certain characteristics, the development chemistry brings them out, printing the resulting negative interprets those characteristics. Because it's all time/temperature/process controlled, the results are relatively stable and inflexible within certain boundaries. When you make a mistake on the taking end (either in exposure or focus), unless you have complete control of the entire process the degrees of freedom to manage the result is pretty limited.

Digital capture to a print is much more plastic. The sensor has certain characteristics, quite different from film, and digital printers have very different characteristics from optical/wet lab printing as well. You have to understand how the sensor and the printer render your image, as well as the differences if you want to make photographs that look like film images. But basically, you can tune and alter the look of a digital image to a much greater degree than you can with a film image, more easily.

I like the Pentax because they have a nice viewfinder, large and
clear LCD, is user friendly and mostly, because I've heard that can
give you that 'film feeling' better than other systems.

The Pentax D/DS indeed has one of the best viewfinders available in a DSLR and I like the DS control arrangements very much. The DS' in camera JPEG rendering does a great job in making RGB images that have a very comfortable "film like" look, to the extent that any camera's JPEG rendering can achieve that look anyway.

However, the ability to store exposures in RAW and post-process them yourself provides orders of magnitude more options to work with. That's when you can go beyond the camera's envelope of limitations into a whole different world of imaging quality.

Godfrey