Another test where 35mm b&w outperforms digital cameras:

[OldMaster]

It actually doesn't say much for the performance of the M9 does it, particulary the colour "noise"...Kodak sensor or just poor processing software...how would those charts look with the noise removed or shot with a different lens??

I refer all those interested to the Clarkvison site...Don't pretend to understand a lot of the theory he goes into but I suspect his conclusions regarding digital vs film still hold true...

Personally, being pro, and coming from Hasselblad 500CM's usually loaded in the real world with iso 100 Reala and commonly NPH 400, I am aware that both my S5 and D200 produce cleaner images for the majority of purposes where the lack of grain is apparent and the fine detail resolution more than adequate for any print sizes I am asked for.

 

[win39]

I remember the Clarkvision site when he said that digital would not equal 35mm film until it reached the unheard of, impossibly high 8 MP. I stopped looking when that MP target for parity started moving up.

Use your eyes, not obtuse hypothetical arguments.

 

[win39]

Film's ability to resolve detail is directly related to the contrast of the detail being resolved.

Take Velvia 50, the highest resolution color film in production. Shoot a 1000:1 transmissive test chart and you will get 160 lp/mm, far more resolution than any digital sensor in production with a comparable frame size. Just one problem: you will never encounter fine detail at 1000:1 contrast in pictorial applications.

Now shoot a printed B&W chart under bright lights (like in the cited test). You might achieve 100:1 or better contrast, and just over 100 lp/mm. But you've got essentially the same problem: fine detail almost never occurs at this contrast level either.

Now shoot a 2:1 gray chart. You'll be lucky to hit the manufacturer claimed resolution of 80 lp/mm. Now you're in the ballpark of fine detail contrast in pictorial applications. (Note that most low ISO films only hit 50-60 lp/mm at this contrast level. Higher ISO films are lucky to hit 40 lp/mm.)

Digital sensors do not work this way. Their ability to resolve detail is not strongly correlated with detail contrast. In real world applications the better DSLRs now clearly out resolve 35mm film.

Even this test target (below) has higher detail contrast than the average contrast of fine detail in the world. Yet the Canon 7D has comparable performance to the legendary Tech Pan. A little bit better in fact. If you could still buy Tech Pan, and you shot very high contrast B&W charts, would it pull ahead of the 7D? Probably. If you then went outside and shot real photographs of real subjects, where fine detail contrast is lower than the contrast of the text below, would the 7D pull ahead? Probably.

 

[The Davinator]

It actually doesn't say much for the performance of the M9 does it, particulary the colour "noise"...Kodak sensor or just poor processing software...how would those charts look with the noise removed or shot with a different lens??

I refer all those interested to the Clarkvison site...Don't pretend to understand a lot of the theory he goes into but I suspect his conclusions regarding digital vs film still hold true...

Personally, being pro, and coming from Hasselblad 500CM's usually loaded in the real world with iso 100 Reala and commonly NPH 400, I am aware that both my S5 and D200 produce cleaner images for the majority of purposes where the lack of grain is apparent and the fine detail resolution more than adequate for any print sizes I am asked for.

I think that's they key....having enough for the size of prints we do. As most of my wedding and portraiture....like 99.99% is 16x20 or smaller...and normally 8x10 and 11x14.....I find the 7D to be pretty much perfect. I may still use some film when I'm after a particular look.....but for the most part, for a wedding, 18mp is more than enough to handle those print sizes.

Case in point was my testing my RB67 with Fuji ProS160, and scanned on an Epson V700, with the same shot on the 7D. At 16x20 there was no difference in fine detail. On a bigger print, the Mamiya pulled ahead, but as I'm not printing weddings larger than that, it doesn't really matter.

Daniel is bang on with his comments about contrast. For portraiture, low contrast differences are the norm. The DSLR is good enough for that.

 

[sattaway]

Anyone else in this thread actually shoot any film last year?

I did - went through 30-40 rolls of 35mm slide, print and 120 - and I say it still holds its own. I also use a D300 and Kodak slr/n, so I have a point of comparison.

In real world terms, film gives me better tonality and more detail than the D300 (yes, I use D2x profiles, etc.). The old slr/n is a good match for Kodak Porta 160 nc, in color, tonality and resolution. While the Kodak compares well with film, it doesn't do so well matched up against other digital cameras.

In geek world terms, film scanned at 5400 dpi gives me 35 mp files with about 2800-3000 lph, given good technique. Thats d3x territory, is it not?

Measured noise (in Noise Ninja) for 100 speed slide film is roughly equal to the D300 at iso 800.

There you have it - film gives you a big noisy file with lots of detail and rich tonality.

And a hybrid workflow is lots slower than digital, unless you have a building full of assistants like Galen Rowell used to.

But I think its fair to say 'don't knock it if you haven't tried it'.

 

[knox]

My God man . . . can't you even give it a rest on Xmas eve? Who cares what anyone says or prefers? Shoot what YOU want and shoot it quietly without all THIS! What are you ENDLESSLY trying to prove on and on and on? Look at all the forums here . . . you are in every 'film' thread going on and on. I'm a film shooter and I'm sick of it!!

There is a great saying . . . . "Those who speak do not know and those who know do not speak" - - Confucius

I truly wonder about the sanity of all this. This has been going on forever with you. Good heart-ed, passionate debate is one thing (we all do it from time to time) but this is obsessive beyond belief. Do you ever work? Ever work on some sort on inner spiritual peace where this is just not important? Isn't there something else for you to do?

You fall for Scott, Joe etc every time . . then you are off to the races one more time.

There is nothing to prove . . no scorecard. Just ego. Shoot what YOU feel and be happy. I wonder about someone trying to convince people of something time and again on an internet forum (especially for this long). There are so many other things you could be doing for some sort of growth, then internet forums. There is no growth here . . . just ego and wasted time trying to get the last word in and TRYING to prove something. It's an addiction of some sort to some people, (this internet cr*p). There is a whole world out there that has more in store then all this.

If you're seeing more detail in the M9 shots, I'd suggest getting your eyes checked....it's plainly obvious comparing the two that the Delta resolves more fine detail.

And that's just 35mm....a format never designed for high quality. Where is the M9 and other DSLRs left when MF or 4x5 enters the equation, It has nothing to do with defense.....and everything to do with desiring the highest quality output. If you can't see it, then you should be perfectly fine with the digital capture.

It's really amusing to see comparisons with very expensive digital gear....trying to beat the lowly, humble 35mm format. I seem to recall the LL "test" being quoted many times in threads here proving the old D30 beat 35mm Provia on an Imacon. Many of us who knew better laughed, and were derided here. And the tests continue to this day....

Some of us can see it, and choose to use the materials that work well for us. If that makes us fanboys, then so be it.

--
Knox
--
Avatar Photography
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
Alley Cats . . . Urban Tails (the book)
http://www.urbantailsbook.com

http://www.pbase.com/streetkid/galleries

 

[The Davinator]

My God man . . . can't you even give it a rest on Xmas eve? Who cares what anyone says or prefers? Shoot what YOU want and shoot it quietly without all THIS! What are you ENDLESSLY trying to prove on and on and on? Look at all the forums here . . . you are in every 'film' thread going on and on. I'm a film shooter and I'm sick of it!!

Interesting....I have to give it a rest, but the other side of the opinion is free to post. I suggest you give it a rest.

There is a great saying . . . . "Those who speak do not know and those who know do not speak" - - Confucius

Kind of eliminates the teaching profession doesn't it.

I truly wonder about the sanity of all this. This has been going on forever with you. Good heart-ed, passionate debate is one thing (we all do it from time to time) but this is obsessive beyond belief. Do you ever work? Ever work on some sort on inner spiritual peace where this is just not important? Isn't there something else for you to do?

Why is it that the "obsession" of those who enjoy film, and it's attributes is beyond belief....but the other side of the debate seems OK with you? Odd. Is there something else for you to do....or those that disagree with me? You seem to support one side of the debate....which is fine....but don't scold those on side of using both film and digital media.

You fall for Scott, Joe etc every time . . then you are off to the races one more time.

Do you mean question unfounded opinions? Yes, I guess I fall for it each time.

There is nothing to prove . . no scorecard. Just ego. Shoot what YOU feel and be happy. I wonder about someone trying to convince people of something time and again on an internet forum (especially for this long). There are so many other things you could be doing for some sort of growth, then internet forums. There is no growth here . . . just ego and wasted time trying to get the last word in and TRYING to prove something. It's an addiction of some sort to some people, (this internet cr*p). There is a whole world out there that has more in store then all this.

I don't see what it being Christmas eve has to do with anything? Some of us like to use both digital and film capture....rather than burying our heads in the sand with the same old "film is dead", "move on", "living in the past" moronic comments. Maybe your time would be better directed speaking to those people that can't see beyond a CMOS sensor.

If you're seeing more detail in the M9 shots, I'd suggest getting your eyes checked....it's plainly obvious comparing the two that the Delta resolves more fine detail.

And that's just 35mm....a format never designed for high quality. Where is the M9 and other DSLRs left when MF or 4x5 enters the equation, It has nothing to do with defense.....and everything to do with desiring the highest quality output. If you can't see it, then you should be perfectly fine with the digital capture.

It's really amusing to see comparisons with very expensive digital gear....trying to beat the lowly, humble 35mm format. I seem to recall the LL "test" being quoted many times in threads here proving the old D30 beat 35mm Provia on an Imacon. Many of us who knew better laughed, and were derided here. And the tests continue to this day....

Some of us can see it, and choose to use the materials that work well for us. If that makes us fanboys, then so be it.

--
Knox
--
Avatar Photography
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
Alley Cats . . . Urban Tails (the book)
http://www.urbantailsbook.com

http://www.pbase.com/streetkid/galleries

 

[oeoek]

After looking through this thread, I wonder if anyone here ever worked with Orthopan or a similar film? I have not used this specific film, but I have worked for years with similar films from Kodak and Agfa:



Notice anything weird? No, I was not using a ND filter... In order to get the dynamic range up to 7 stops I had to overexpose and underdevelop the film untill the effective iso was... 6. Not Iso 60 or Iso 600, but 6, this is no typo.

Orthopan films have an excelent sharpness. They also have a dynamic range of virtualy nill. They are graphic films, as in black and white with little or no grey in between. I am not surpriced Mr Puts got an excelent result from his test wall.

As for the Ilford Delta 100, the results might have an edge, but less convincing. I wonder what could be done in black and white PP with the Leica files. Mr Puts is quite clear, he does not simply state that film is better or anything like that.

"Basically you can say that the M9 sensor and post processing does now deliver the same level of quality we can expect from a top-class ISO100 film. "

I do not agree with him, but that is because I look at it from a more practical way; I have more control in digital, which gives me an edge.

Greetings, Janneman

 

[knox]

My God man . . . can't you even give it a rest on Xmas eve? Who cares what anyone says or prefers? Shoot what YOU want and shoot it quietly without all THIS! What are you ENDLESSLY trying to prove on and on and on? Look at all the forums here . . . you are in every 'film' thread going on and on. I'm a film shooter and I'm sick of it!!

Interesting....I have to give it a rest, but the other side of the opinion is free to post. I suggest you give it a rest.

Yes but this place is not just about you! Some of us just want to come and learn or give. I read 'film' posts because I prefer film, though I shoot both formats. And you ruin damn near every thread where it's not even enjoyable. We all know what Joe / Scott etc are going to say . . . . but you fall for them every time. But in the end YOU are the one that drags these into obsession. Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results equals insanity . . . so why do it? If you fall for their posts . . . you are no different. At least Scott posts once or twice and leaves. Not you. I disagree with him, but at least he doesn't drag it out.

There is a great saying . . . . "Those who speak do not know and those who know do not speak" - - Confucius

Kind of eliminates the teaching profession doesn't it.

No because there are MANY ways to teach. One of the greatest is not cramming your personal views down other people's throats or trying to get them to believe YOUR way and letting them learn on their own.

I truly wonder about the sanity of all this. This has been going on forever with you. Good heart-ed, passionate debate is one thing (we all do it from time to time) but this is obsessive beyond belief. Do you ever work? Ever work on some sort on inner spiritual peace where this is just not important? Isn't there something else for you to do?

Why is it that the "obsession" of those who enjoy film, and it's attributes is beyond belief....but the other side of the debate seems OK with you? Odd. Is there something else for you to do....or those that disagree with me? You seem to support one side of the debate....which is fine....but don't scold those on side of using both film and digital media.

I have no idea what "side" you assume I am supporting. Doesn't matter to me.

You fall for Scott, Joe etc every time . . then you are off to the races one more time.

Do you mean question unfounded opinions? Yes, I guess I fall for it each time.

. . . . the endless, childish name calling and going on and on about it. The obsessive NEED to be right.

There is nothing to prove . . no scorecard. Just ego. Shoot what YOU feel and be happy. I wonder about someone trying to convince people of something time and again on an internet forum (especially for this long). There are so many other things you could be doing for some sort of growth, then internet forums. There is no growth here . . . just ego and wasted time trying to get the last word in and TRYING to prove something. It's an addiction of some sort to some people, (this internet cr*p). There is a whole world out there that has more in store then all this.

I don't see what it being Christmas eve has to do with anything? Some of us like to use both digital and film capture....rather than burying our heads in the sand with the same old "film is dead", "move on", "living in the past" moronic comments. Maybe your time would be better directed speaking to those people that can't see beyond a CMOS sensor.

Remember who you are talking to. I primarily shoot Hasselblad V cameras (my preference) w/ FILM backs I might add, Rollei, Nikon F100, D3 and D1X (D1X being my preference for digital). I am open to anything that shoots a photo. The reason it seems extreme on even Xmas eve is regardless of beliefs, this is suppose to be a time of peace and others.

There are producers of confusion and ones of harmony. There is living IN the upset or IN the solution. This is about no one but yourself (what you shoot). Are you the world police righting wrongs wherever you go? Must be a hell of a job. In the end it doesn't come across as you are clarifying false claims . . . just your need of being right. As if some sort of incredible insecurity.

Say what you will. I'm outa here.

If you're seeing more detail in the M9 shots, I'd suggest getting your eyes checked....it's plainly obvious comparing the two that the Delta resolves more fine detail.

And that's just 35mm....a format never designed for high quality. Where is the M9 and other DSLRs left when MF or 4x5 enters the equation, It has nothing to do with defense.....and everything to do with desiring the highest quality output. If you can't see it, then you should be perfectly fine with the digital capture.

It's really amusing to see comparisons with very expensive digital gear....trying to beat the lowly, humble 35mm format. I seem to recall the LL "test" being quoted many times in threads here proving the old D30 beat 35mm Provia on an Imacon. Many of us who knew better laughed, and were derided here. And the tests continue to this day....

Some of us can see it, and choose to use the materials that work well for us. If that makes us fanboys, then so be it.

--
Knox
--
Avatar Photography
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
Alley Cats . . . Urban Tails (the book)
http://www.urbantailsbook.com

http://www.pbase.com/streetkid/galleries

--
Knox
--
Avatar Photography
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
Alley Cats . . . Urban Tails (the book)
http://www.urbantailsbook.com

http://www.pbase.com/streetkid/galleries

 

[The Davinator]

My God man . . . can't you even give it a rest on Xmas eve? Who cares what anyone says or prefers? Shoot what YOU want and shoot it quietly without all THIS! What are you ENDLESSLY trying to prove on and on and on? Look at all the forums here . . . you are in every 'film' thread going on and on. I'm a film shooter and I'm sick of it!!

Interesting....I have to give it a rest, but the other side of the opinion is free to post. I suggest you give it a rest.

Yes but this place is not just about you! Some of us just want to come and learn or give. I read 'film' posts because I prefer film, though I shoot both formats. And you ruin damn near every thread where it's not even enjoyable.

Really? Take a look thru the films threads....you'll quickly see they were civil until the likes of Joe, Eaton, et al decide to enter the fray with derogatory remarks, etc. How can you you tell.....well, I haven't been banned three times like Joe......there's your proof.

Sorry, but you have it in reverse. They post negative comments regardless of what I post. This has been commented on before.

But I guess if we follow your advice, if someone posts that film has a 3 stop DR and their DSLR has 20 stops....everyone should chime in and agree.....and those that question it are simply obsessed, mean spirited, and trolls.

Interesting concept.

 

[knox]

. . . . you just don't get it. It doesn't matter what they post. If you feed them, they will keep doing what they do. How many times have you stated that you have blocked DP / Joe etc . . . then as soon as they say something . . . you are teeing off one more time . . . . . 'an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind'. If the threads were indeed civil before they came . . . why respond to make them MORE uncivil? It's exactly what they want you to do. There is no score card and the childish name calling and wild assumptions and supposed scenarios dreamed up are just grammar school cr*p. They have their opinion too . . so what? Especially when at the end of the day it just doesn't matter what anyone shoots but you. Film doesn't need you to defend it. It will be just fine w/o you. This is a visual art . . . not a 'text' / verbal one. I look at the photos of the supposed experts who can spout charts / facts and figures and every time I am amazed at how bad they are and that with all the supposed knowledge, the photos don't back up the data spouted. I would rather see someone who has no idea about any of it is or has no need to post endlessly on forums who takes great photos then all the forum gurus. Hence my Confucius quote.
Sometimes the real 'truth' is in being silent. Take care . . .

My God man . . . can't you even give it a rest on Xmas eve? Who cares what anyone says or prefers? Shoot what YOU want and shoot it quietly without all THIS! What are you ENDLESSLY trying to prove on and on and on? Look at all the forums here . . . you are in every 'film' thread going on and on. I'm a film shooter and I'm sick of it!!

Interesting....I have to give it a rest, but the other side of the opinion is free to post. I suggest you give it a rest.

Yes but this place is not just about you! Some of us just want to come and learn or give. I read 'film' posts because I prefer film, though I shoot both formats. And you ruin damn near every thread where it's not even enjoyable.

Really? Take a look thru the films threads....you'll quickly see they were civil until the likes of Joe, Eaton, et al decide to enter the fray with derogatory remarks, etc. How can you you tell.....well, I haven't been banned three times like Joe......there's your proof.

Sorry, but you have it in reverse. They post negative comments regardless of what I post. This has been commented on before.

But I guess if we follow your advice, if someone posts that film has a 3 stop DR and their DSLR has 20 stops....everyone should chime in and agree.....and those that question it are simply obsessed, mean spirited, and trolls.

Interesting concept.

--
Knox
--
Avatar Photography
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
Alley Cats . . . Urban Tails (the book)
http://www.urbantailsbook.com

http://www.pbase.com/streetkid/galleries

 

[RRJackson]

The interesting thing is that a lot of M9 shooters are shooting black and white. I wonder when Leica will wake up and create an M9bw? As I noted above, it would probably blow away B&W film. Leica could easily recoup the extra cost.

I emailed Kodak and asked them if they were making a monochrome version of the sensor back when the M9 was introduced. The reply I got said I needed to ask Leica that question.

It seems like an obvious product, particularly given the "purist" marketing banter that Leica uses. It's easy to make a case for Bayer being pretty "impure" and of course you're also gaining a stop or so of extra high ISO performance as well as some extra resolution. Maybe they'd feel comfortable enough with the extra resolution to sacrifice a little of it on a proper AA filter. That camera would be pretty impressive, IMO.

 

[RRJackson]

For a while the Horse and Buggy was a better form of transportation than an automobile too...

It's still a lot more fun to go horseback riding than it is to commute to work. I'd rather not ride a horse to work, but I really go enjoy riding them as a leisure activity. Which is very similar to film, in a way. Digital is much faster, more consistent and less of a hassle to use day to day.

Shooting film on a deadline for an employer isn't so appealing anymore. And yet it's still quite appealing to shoot film as a leisure activity. It yields results that don't look like digital. Not "better" necessarily. And in fact, I like futzing with alternative processes in an attempt to impair film's performance even more.

Something pretty satisfying about the derangement of chemical photography. Particularly when you can make minor tweaks in the scanned output in Photoshop.

Why not let people enjoy what they enjoy? I have a friend who seems angry when I shoot film. Like he's offended or something that I'm doing something so clearly wrong. We're all turning into little neurotic ideologues anymore.

 

[capanikon]

jlf wrote:

For a while the Horse and Buggy was a better form of transportation than an automobile too...

Yes, but when was the last time you saw a horse and buggy maintain highway speeds with the rest of the auto traffic? Coz in this fellow's test with Delta 100, that's basically what happened. The horse and buggy is actually in the passing lane, passing the more modern automobiles.

I found this post:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&thread=34028317

To be amusing: "All images were made with the 50mm f/1.4D and G lenses, then processed as Kodak T-Max 100 with Nik Silver Efex."

... some fellow making some nice photos with a $2,500 Nikon D700 and $199 worth of software to emulate the horse and buggy. But the cost of the horse and buggy -- say a Nikon N8008 full-frame 35mm SLR from keh.com -- is $100 and a roll of real, authentic Kodak T-MAX 100 is $3.89.

 

[JoeR]

--
joer56

 

[apaflo]

... some fellow making some nice photos with a $2,500 Nikon D700 and $199 worth of software to emulate the horse and buggy. But the cost of the horse and buggy -- say a Nikon N8008 full-frame 35mm SLR from keh.com -- is $100 and a roll of real, authentic Kodak T-MAX 100 is $3.89.

Yep, and if you shoot 15,000 images a year that works out to $1620.83 without ever processing the roll. It it costs 10 cents a shot to process and another 10 cents a shot to either print or scan the negatives...

Why use a D700 when that sort of economy would pay for a D3 every couple of years. Film is very economical for those who like to look at a trophy camera sitting on the shelf unused.

 

[rayman 2]

... some fellow making some nice photos with a $2,500 Nikon D700 and $199 worth of software to emulate the horse and buggy. But the cost of the horse and buggy -- say a Nikon N8008 full-frame 35mm SLR from keh.com -- is $100 and a roll of real, authentic Kodak T-MAX 100 is $3.89.

Yep, and if you shoot 15,000 images a year that works out to $1620.83 without ever processing the roll. It it costs 10 cents a shot to process and another 10 cents a shot to either print or scan the negatives...

Why use a D700 when that sort of economy would pay for a D3 every couple of years. Film is very economical for those who like to look at a trophy camera sitting on the shelf unused.

Not quite understand your economy there.........

If a 24 MP camera rivals MF format film then we can safely say that you pay 6$ for the roll of film and another 6 $ for the processing... thats if you have someone nearby if you have to send it thats some more money.... then there is the scan....
There is 10 frames per roll so you have at least 1$ 20 cents per picture.
At 15000 images thats a whooping 18 000 $ thats the price of a Hasselblad H3 50

a year ! WITHOUT the rushing from and to the lab and you rushing the film from and to your studio and the scanning business.

You need drum scans ? thats another at least 30 $ A PIECE for the drum scan.......
Factor time ? not included in the equasion........
thats just for 1 year......

 

[RRJackson]

Not quite understand your economy there...

All of which is well and good for working professionals. It's a little disheartening to hear people profess to be doing it for love and then get overly caught up in economics.

 

[rayman 2]

Not quite understand your economy there...

All of which is well and good for working professionals. It's a little disheartening to hear people profess to be doing it for love and then get overly caught up in economics.

Where do you get that information from . I´m a working professional and have lots
of love for my job....

 

[RRJackson]

Where do you get that information from . I´m a working professional and have lots
of love for my job....

I wasn't accusing you of anything personally. I was just saying that the subject of cost comes up with film a lot. Which is completely understandable from the standpoint of people making a living. Film isn't nearly as predictable, consistent or inexpensive as digital. Not much incentive for a pro to use it. But for people shooting for the joy of shooting I always have a problem with cost being such a primary motivator. Of course, I've spent a retarded amount of money on photography and cinematography stuff over the years, so maybe it's just my inner dialogue screaming, "Hey, what do you mean we're supposed to be frugal!?!?!"