35mm film vs. Digital - where is the border?

Comrads,

 

last week after some nights in the darkroom I started thinking... maybe it's

time for a DSLR. Beat me, but I am seriously considering to buy one.

 

I am used to working with two EOS 3 bodies. Most of my work is landscape

photography, part of that is done with a 4x5", but in most cases I am too lazy

to use it.

 

Of course, when I ask the camera makers or DSLR enthusiasts they will tell me:

"old man, what are you waiting for? You need a (insert camera name here) and you

will be happy!"

 

Well, I am waiting for an honest answer by people who are experienced enough to

know what can be done in both worlds - so I am asking you.

 

So far I have seen images from DSLRs that actually were sharper and clearer than

what I can do with film, and that told me that I might get the same or better

pictures now with pixels than with film.

 

Provided, you were used to VERY high image quality like me as I am used to work

with some Canon 'L' lenses and extremely fine-grain-ultra-sharp film (Velvia and

low-ASA B/W), what is the cheapest digital EOS that delivers at least the same

quality? Where is the borderline between the film and the pixels? 5D? 1DS/II?

20D equals it.

5D beats it easily.

My Canon 5D does as good or better than my medium format Mamiya 645 and it handles much easier. Thus all I have now is 3 Canon digital cameras (20D - 8mp, 5d - 13mp and a Canon G6 7mp pocket style camera). I use L lenses (17-40, 24-70, 70-200, 100-400, and the non-L 50 f1.4 and 100 f2. I have blown up 16x20's from the G6 and when I show people the photos and then the camera that took them, they are amazed. With the 5D 24x30's are non problem. Film is basically finished. When you get a little proficient at Photoshop (or the cheaper Photoshop Elements), you will be amazed at what you can accomplish with a decent digital camera.

Ditto!

 

I've replaced my Pentax 645 SLR with a 1DS & now 5D.

A 20D replaces my 35mm SLR.

 

See http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=128000&include=all

for a few samples.

The 5D took me from dark to light. But I've grown to appreciate soft light in the landscape

since then. I wouldn't overlook the idea of scanning film and printing digitally.

Dark Matter, I too have an EOS-3...great film camera...I have often taken it on landscape shoots along with my 5D....after several trips, I look at the film output, then the digital raw output (after post processing) and in every single case, the 5D blows the film results away...and by far.

 

Since you're use to the EOS-3, and shoot landscapes, then your best choice in a DSLR is the 5D....it's results will blow you away in comparision to anything your EOS-3 will produce....this is no exaggeration.

 

35mm film is dead.

I agree with the above replies.

 

"Most of my work is landscape photography, part of that is done with a 4x5", but in most cases I am too lazy to use it."

 

Here the 4x5 still has the edge. Not only in detail but in tilts and swings.

 

I have done some basic 4x5 with a Speed Graphic. It was worth the effort for the perspective corrections or for a large DOF. Still I didn't stick with in because, like you, I was too lazy to use it.

 

I am now about 99% digital. I sold my Hasselblad system and put aside my 35mm film bodies.

 

Digital is that good.

 

Philip

Dark- if I may be that familiar with you- with proper post-camera image-teasing, a 6 megapixel camera will beat 35mm film at and above ISO 800. The current Rebel XTi and D30 DSLRs will about equal 35mm film at ISOs below 800.

 

 

The only downside to shooting DLSRs is a digital sensor's dynamic range. Though you can do some post-camera gymnastics with digital images, digital sensors respond more like slide film than negative film. That is to say DSLR shooting places a premium on precise exposure.

Well, maybe <a href="http://www.jandcphoto.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=471">this</a> is still better ;-)

I have a 5D and am very happy with it. But 4x5 blows it out of the water.

 

I would say 4x5 >> 5D > 30D > 35mm

 

Those last two are pretty close in my opinion. Depends on the film used.

 

Since landscapes are you're thing, I would seriously consider the 5D or even 1Ds/II. Since it's the same sized sensor as 35mm, you don't have to worry about your lenses acting differently with the "crop factor" of the 30D. Your wide angle lenses stay wide.

 

Since you shoot slide film, the exposure latitude shouldn't be too much of an issue with digital. When you shoot Raw, you may be able to squeeze a bit more latitude from digital.

The border is where the sensor or film can record more line pairs per mm tha a good lens will put on it. Try a Google search for wollstein copex imagelink ,and use the translate function.The Kodak Imagelink microfilm will resolve about 200lpm at good contast as illustrated in fig 2 of that article.I believe with the 5D the contast drops off quite rapidly above 50lpm. I have prints from a colleagues 5D and agree that that for practial purposes they look sharp at 11x14. But compared to microfilm,well......

All of the plaudits being heaped on digital Vs. film only holds true with <i><b>pixel-peeped <u>projected</u></b></i> images shot with multi $thousand DSLRs.<br>With prints, and the ease of enlargements, film prints excel. Nearly any quality film negative shot with a quality film SLR using quality lenses can be taken up to 16 X 20 size, even 20 X 24 with ease.<br>Medium format film goes to 40 X 50 and 48 X 50 prints with ease. <br><i>Caveat: Only high end, multi $thousand digital SLRs can go there, and then <b>only with further, expensive interpolation</b></i>. The point of the expensive steps needed to produce <I>genuine wall sized prints</I>should not be minimized, as that point is often enough glossed over by supporters of digital.<br>Interpolation costs and requires multi $hundred programs and very expensive printers to do so. <p>Barring high end DSLRs, other digital cameras, in particular <I>every digital point and shoot camera</I>-can`t make the same trip as film, no matter what post-processing techniques are used.<p>Medium format film used for printing on paper, slaughter DSLRs. Be mindful that those who brag on digital are speaking about <I>projected (pixel peeped) images</I>, not prints. <br>If your objective is <I>prints</I>, film still dominates.<div></div>

Like others, I'd reccomend a 5D with Canon's TS lenses. This combo will not match 4x5, but will beat the pants off the EOS3.

 

FWIW, I've shot a bit with MF, and really loved the Mamiya 7II, but hated the lack of teles. But that's my reference for image quality; the 7II with Velvia. Super combo, and the 5D will approach that, but won't beat it.

Ed Greene,

 

A lowly Canon XTi at around $800 will provide the same image quality as the Canon 1D Mark IIn at $3,500, so it does not take a multi-thousand $$ DSLR to beat 35mm film...the $800 XTi can do easily, and all day long. I would not be surprised if the new XTi will beat the Canon 1D Mark IIn today!

Shot with a DSLR 100% crop colors straight from the camera ISO 200.<div></div>

For a good reference see: http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

 

Looks like 8 to 10mp equals film, which is about what I have found with both the 20D and D200 (comparing shots with velvia). Consequently, I sold all my film gear.

I put up a four-stop, ISO 100, (<i>straight out of camera, no post processing</i>) image of a rose.<br>Are there <i><b>any</b></i> DSLRs which can shoot four stop shots which also retain shadow <i>and</i> highlight detail like my rose?<p>Convince me.<div></div>

The Digital Rebel XT (not XTi) is the least expensive 8 Megapizel Canon DSLR.

If you really want to know where the border is then you should be comparing DSLR's to scanners, not film. Velvia is good, and scanned on a tranny hood on a flatbed will make nice prints. Scanned on an Imacon it will be a whole lot better. My experience as a former P645, P67, Fuji 69 with Velvia user? 6-8MP = 35mm, 16mp = 6x7 in my opinion.

these arguments are tired. fundamentally they're always unfair, too. The real question is not digital vs. film, it's digital vs. digital. Compare the DSLR to the scanner you're going to use (you did say Velvia, right? optical printing of transparencies is dead as doorknobs). Any current or recent DSLR will beat a consumer-grade scanner. You might achieve image parity with some very expensive scanners with high actual DMax (not spec DMax). A $100 drum scan (or a $3000 surplus drum scanner, check ebay) will beat current DSLRs in many ways if you're talking ultra-sharp low ASA film.

 

B/W, it gets more complex. Are we comparing DSLR to scan? Optical enlargement? If so there are too many factors of darkroom skill and equipment to enumerate, aside from artistic taste in hundreds of years of highly evolved darkroom techniques. Serious digital B&W printing is still an infant art form.

The 'border' is in your eyes only.

There were a lot of photos taken on film through the years, are these now obsolete?

 

Now about comparing scanned film to digital...

I got a novel idea... Why don't someone compare a projected provia, velvia or whatever, to projected digital. LOL

You may not be happy.

 

The digital world is extremely convenient - instant feedback, immediate images, limitless amounts of film this is basically free...

 

But, digital is a new technology and as with anything new it has a lot of initial limitations that can be very frustrating. One of the first is that for serious work the camera does not take a useable image -- you must do considerable "post-processing" on your computer after the shot to get it looking right (colors, contrast, sharpness, etc.). This is why you see so many new digital owners disappointed with their images. The problem here is that if you are not quite literate in image processing programs like Photoshop then you are not going to get the best from your camera. A lot of the great photos you see from digital have had extreme amounts of sophisticated edits done to them on the computer. Expect to spend a lot of time doing this before you will get great results.

 

Even more limiting is the dynamic range of the digital sensor -- it is very unforgiving in blowing out highlights that you cannot recover, and fading dark areas to black or preventing recovery of them because of digital noise. One reason is that the dynamic response curve of film is not linear; if you apply more light to film then the emulsions get less sensitive and therefore more difficult to overexpose. In digital the response is linear ? you apply more light and wham! it goes off the top to be completely blown out. Add to this that the dynamic range in digital is less than film to begin with. In fact, a cheap film camera can handle dynamic range better than the most expensive digital so expect to spend a lot of time looking at the histogram after each shot and adjusting your ND Grad filters. This is why Aunt Marta can send you film shots of the wedding with all the white detail of the dress while your $7,000 MkII Ds blows out to no dress detail.

 

There are other issues too, like the anti-aliasing filter in front of digital sensors. This is there to prevent aliasing with the pixel layout of the sensor, no such thing exist on film. All it does is blur the image a bit, will that be acceptable to you when you have your best lens on the camera?

 

While composition rules are the same of course, the border of the mechanics between digital and film is a difficult question because they are so very different. Digital requires you to be very proficient in a whole new skill sets before you can approach what can be done on film. I?m not saying it cannot be done, it can, but it?s a whole new animal. The thing about digital is that it is so convenient and easy on the one side but there?s a long leaning curve depending on where you are on the other. If you like high-tech things and have the time and patience to work at it then I would say digital is a great option for you. If you are very happy with what you have and are not looking for something new to twiddle at then I?d stay with film.

 

--Peter

You don't have to decide - shoot both. I use a Nikon D200 - great for sports and fast action. And I shoot medium and large format because I really enjoy darkroom work. And sometimes I run color film, too. Lots of choices and a different look from different technologies and formats.

ah, there's the other standard unfair comparison. what film are we talking about? low contrast negative film? Then let's talk about grain and sharpness. High contrast, low ISO slide film? The 5D blows velvia away for dynamic range so bad, it's not even funny. Anyone still bother with ND grads with the 5D? Why, when the 5D has at least 3 stops of dynamic range over velvia? I never needed a 5 or 6 stop ND grad with velvia, only 2 and 3. A little work with contrast curves on the 5D and you're there.

 

A color negative film like Reala can pull around 10 stops, the 5D, 8.5 or 9. That isn't as big a difference as some would paint it. And I have no problem pulling detail from blown highlights - if you can't, try a different RAW converter. They're not all the same.

Excuse me for interjecting such a crass subject as money into this discussion but I just checked the price on BH of the 1Ds/II mentioned above that allegedly blows film right out of the water - it's $6,869.95! Without even a single lens!

 

My FM10 cost $200. At $4 a roll for film, $4 a roll for processing, 36 slides per roll that 1Ds/II is equivalent to 30,914 images!

 

I think I'll stay with my FM10 thank you, or maybe upgrade someday to a F3HP which can be had close to mint for $500 or so on fleecebay. At least if I drop it off the side of my boat I won't have to jump in after it.