35mm film vs 5DII - Low light performance

<blockquote>

<p>Now try something like an 8 hour star trail exposure with film and digital.<br /> Add in winter cold such as 17 below zero like we had last night.<br /> Manual film cameras still work just fine in the cold and with long exposures.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree entirely. Apart from the danger of film snapping due to the extreme cold I much prefer film for very long exposures. With digital you end up fighting for power and messing around with image stacking etc etc.</p>

<p>Jamie, you should give Portra 400 a try. If you have difficulty finding it in stock, email me and I can send you some.</p>

<p><em>Now try something like an 8 hour star trail exposure with film and digital. Add in winter cold such as 17 below zero like we had last night.</em></p>

<p>Star trail exposures are a non issue for digital using stacking techniques. The final product is much better than with 35mm film in one straight exposure and gives the tremendous benefit of being able to control for light pollution and foreground exposure. I've done 2 hour star trail stacks of 30s exposures in areas which would wash out 35mm film at the same ISO and aperture in about 5-10 minutes. And there's no reciprocity failure or color shifting of any kind. I've also got 1-2 hour star trail exposures with moon lit foregrounds.</p>

<p>Sensitivity is also incredible with digital. On the 7D a f/2.8 lens and ISO 800 will yield low noise prints that are literally saturated with stars, more starlight than dark sky. And this is, again, in relatively light polluted conditions.</p>

<p>My older xxD bodies could do about 90-120 minutes on one fully charged battery. It looks like the 7D can do about 3-4 hours on one fully charged battery, and in freezing conditions. A vertical grip should double that. Falling below 0F would reduce it (my experience is in the 20+F range). An AC adapter plugged into some form of external power source could easily last the full night even at -17F. You would need to protect the electrical connections from any potential condensation of water or ice of course, but this is doable.</p>

<p>The real problem is keeping the lens and body warm enough that they don't literally freeze over. I underestimated the potential for this last time I did star trails in cold conditions and walked outside after a couple hours to literally find ice all over the equipment. The 7D was still shooting faithfully with more than half a charge left. But with ice over most of the filter on the front of the lens the stack was naturally ruined. Though it did make for a cool effect single frame. I was shooting with a house in the foreground, with some lights on inside, so as ice started forming around the filter edges and moving towards center it produced this weird, glowing vignette.</p>

<p>For those who are wondering you can deal with the condensation issue using camping hand warmers, I just didn't think it would be an issue that night. And of course that's not a digital/film thing. An old manual camera will ice over just as easily.</p>

<p>I know a hard core amatuer astronomer who shoots starts trails, and who enters competitions and has one awards for his work. He uses a helium cooled 20D, not film.<br>

Professional astronomy went to digital about 25 years ago.</p>

<p><em>"Even after these examples I am sure you film fanboys will still no doubt say 35mm film can compete. I even know what's coming next from you... pictures of coloured pencils and crayons taken at different exposures, talk of dynamic range blah blah blah..."</em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

<em>"Don't you realise you are all a laughing stock in photographic circles? You're still clinging on to this insane belief after all this time. Sure, 35mm film is better than digital. That's why emulsions are getting dropped all the time and film sales are through the floor compared to 10 years ago."</em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

<em>" I'm not going to waste hours of my time digging through my archive to try and find shots for you to shoot to pieces. I know the truth, the vast majority of professional photographers know the truth and so do most people on photo.net. It's just the small handful of die-hard film fanboys that will fight to the death for something they know was outdated years ago.</em>"</p>

<p>Now this just prove my earlier point on the <strong>'digital fanboys'</strong> having plenty of attitude problem! Sorry I only call you that because you seemed to like this sort of derogatory remark on others. Can't you just save your breath if you really think that we the <strong>'film fanboys' </strong>a laughing stock in the photographic circles? Why even bother to participate, if you don't even bother to 'waste your time digging blah blah...' Just to show your superiority (which in any case has yet to be proven <strong>AT ALL</strong>)? Please, have some sense When you want to disprove a point then show prove it with actual proof. <br>

You know what, we 'film fanboys' would not even bother to go into any of the digital only forum just to pick a fight like you did because, sorry to say, it is either we behave better, or know better, or in the worst case, we're all silly but stick to ourselves and don't behave like someone who's short of medication.<br>

Further to that, apart from the convenience factor, the hyperbole of <strong>DIGITAL superiority </strong>by the margin described by you is the clear fact of blind leading the blind, well sorry to say in the <strong>digital fanboys</strong> world.<br>

<a name="00YHXT"></a></p>

<p><em>Convenience is the driving force here, not quality.</em></p>

<p>That's simply not true. To get close to the sharpness and fine detail I see out of my 7D I would have to shoot Velvia 50 and scan it on an Imacon. Those sell used for, what, $5,000? And that combination would limit me to ISO 50, or ISO 100 with Ektar. Understand those combinations would not surpass the 7D, merely come close enough that it shouldn't matter for a 24" print. (I'm not going to get into any long, drawn out arguments over that statement as I've done hours of testing and pixel peeping with results published and critiqued in threads on this site. I know how these items stand in relation to each other.)</p>

<p>Use different emulsions, especially higher ISOs, and/or more affordable scanners including the CoolScans and the 7D has a significant, print observable edge in IQ. It's really apparent pixel peeping 35mm portrait films. They may have greater DR, but they can't touch current digital sensors in sharpness or fine detail. Some of the portrait and fashion work I see from top tier DSLRs like the 5D mkII or 1D series, and from the 7D as well, looks like high quality MF film portrait and fashion work. I've got an ISO 800 20" 7D portrait print I will set next to any 20" portrait print from 645 using ISO 160 or 400 portrait films.</p>

<p>That's not to say you can't make excellent prints from 35mm, or that there are no applications where a particular film's properties are desired. But the output from current DSLRs, crop or FF, is excellent.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That's simply not true. To get close to the sharpness and fine detail I see out of my 7D I would have to shoot Velvia 50 and scan it on an Imacon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The vast majority of 35mm photography is not high definition artwork needing expensive scans, etc. but is just family snapshots, holiday pictures etc. Where the film was handed in to a minilab and prints were picked up later.<br>

This has now been replaced by people downloading their memory cards to their computers and sometimes printing them, sometimes not. The perception is that this is more convenient. In reality, it might not be.</p>

<p>What is odd is that Mauro was never saying that 35mm is a silver bullet. And yet critics are not targeting their criticism at the right place. Instead they make straw-man arguements about how Mauro is a film 'fanboy' - and by extension, anyone who agrees with him is also a fanboy.</p>

<p>I have some criticisms for Mauro and he knows that. BTW Mauro, film has to compete with digital without the luxury of drum scans. Most people can't afford having all their good photos drum scanned, let alone every single frame. If film can hold its own with something like an LS-8000 or Plustek, then that's valid. Drum scans will then offer a bit more quality on top of that if needed.</p>

<p>As it happens, I have only in previous months discovered the capabilities of colour negative film (before digital I only took colour slide film seriously, for obvious reasons). Portra or no Portra, I am amazed that I never investigated negative film properly, even though I've long been into motion photography as well. Now I understand why many people stuck with film.</p>

<p>Because of all that I have been shooting mostly with digital since about '04. I am hoping to change that, but only if it works for me. I will always shoot both. I guess someone will force me to 'choose', right?!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Jamie, you should give Portra 400 a try. If you have difficulty finding it in stock, email me and I can send you some.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Mauro, I have 40 rolls of 120 Portra 400 in my fridge. I have also just had to stop typing this post to answer the door to the postman who was delivering 2 sets of negatives. I was out yesterday afternoon shooting on Portra. My 5D2 has been sat in the cupboard for the last 3 weeks because I'm enjoying film so much. But you can be rest assured, if I have an important shoot or I need the utmost quality I will be opening that cupboard again!</p>

<p><strong>Huang Shao Hui, </strong>thanks for the rant. However, I'm not just a digital fanboy who comes into a film forum to cause trouble<strong>. </strong>If you'd taken the time to read the rest of my posts you'd see that I'm actually a film fanatic who loves shooting the stuff. But I am also a realist. I know which medium is better because I have vast experience of both. Shooting film is more fun but shooting digital almost always yields better results.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I know which medium is better because I have vast experience of both. Shooting film is more fun but shooting digital almost always yields better results.<strong><br /></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sure you know your capabilities of either medium very well and you are probably correct that your digital camera gives you better results than your 35mm film. But this needs to be qualified as <em>your</em> personal experience and not a fact which needs to be applied to everyone else.<br>

For me, I get my best results with black and white film and optically printing. I have never had good results scanning and printing digital but many other people, presumably including you, get excellent results with an all digital process.</p>

<p><strong> </strong></p>

<p>Jamie, I hope you get to shoot it at EI 1600 and share your results.</p>

<p>Huang,<br>

I presume you'll be telling me next that cell phone cameras are better than DSLRs as more people use them. Oh, I guess MP3 is better than a CD as sales of CDs have been dropping....must be because MP3 format is of higher quality.</p>

<p>Spare me that nonsense please.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Dave,<br /> Did you just address the above post to the wrong person, as I think I'm the only 'Huang' in this thread... Which part on which of my post did give you the impression that I'm talking nonsense? The one in italic is what I quoted from Jamie's replies.<br /> Steve, <br /> You just said whatever I wanted to say to Jamie's reply.</p>

<p>Steve Smith<br>

<em>The vast majority of 35mm photography is not high definition artwork needing expensive scans, etc. but is just family snapshots, holiday pictures etc. Where the film was handed in to a minilab and prints were picked up later.This has now been replaced by people downloading their memory cards to their computers and sometimes printing them, sometimes not. The perception is that this is more convenient. In reality, it might not be </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I would argue that once you have dropped your film off at a minilab the quality you are going to get back is so low that even a old, low end digital camera can beat it. I get much better prints from scanning my own film and then printing from the digital file then I ever got from a minilab. But scanning is a pain and I am getting far better results from my digital cameras then I ever got from film.</p>

<p>Mauro, yet again all I am asking for, with no bias either way, is a fair comparison. This is what annoys me, you may well be right in all you say but until you post samples taken under identical conditions I can only assume that you are in the debate purely to stir things up. All I have ever asked for is a fair and accurate comparison. Why are you not prepared to do that? I am sure that all those involved in this debate would be interested to see that, unless they are afraid (either way) of the truth.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Jamie, I hope you get to shoot it at EI 1600 and share your results.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I very much doubt that. I shoot for myself, not for the enjoyment of others. Besides, if I need to shoot at ISO 1600 the 5D2 will come out of the cupboard.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would argue that once you have dropped your film off at a minilab the quality you are going to get back is so low that even a old, low end digital camera can beat it. I get much better prints from scanning my own film and then printing from the digital file then I ever got from a minilab. But scanning is a pain and I am getting far better results from my digital cameras then I ever got from film.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You are probably right but as I said, most 35mm use in the past was snapshots and holiday shots, not professional or serious amateur stuff. Having said that, most minilab prints I have had done have been fine. The usual reason for poor results from minilabs is the happy snaps three rolls for £5 ISO 400 film which people used to get.</p>

<p>The snapshot crowd are not so concerned with quality as we are here and in reality, it can't get much simpler than dropping off a film and picking up prints later or the next day.</p>

<p>The perception is that home printing from a digital camera is easier and more convenient but I think the reality is that many people now don't bother with prints and those who do may struggle with it. Again, I'm not talking about the professionals and hobbyists, just the general public documenting their lives with pictures.</p>

 

<p>Steve, that's a very valid point you make. That's the sad fact about digital. Nobody seems to print any more, myself included. It makes you wonder why we use 21MP DSLRs when, at best, the images get displayed electronically at 1080p (2 megapickles). I suppose those of us that don't print just like living in pixel peeping heaven for self gratification.</p>

<p>As much as I enjoy all the benefits of digital I would still rather it had never been invented. That way the playing field would still be level and we could all enjoy picking up our latest shots off the doormat.</p>

<p>Sorry Huang, I thought the italics were your text. I misread the whole thing. I've had my coffee now so that may help me the rest of the day.</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

<p>I just sketched a new post "Film vs Digital - Color Rendering".</p>

<p>It will have a twist with a surprise and a little competition.</p>

<p>Mauro, thanks for the informative comparison. I would be looking forward to your next post on color rendering. I haven't seriously use a digital SLR yet but all my friends around me have all the latest DSLR. FF digital camera may or may not have more details and sharpness than 35mm film. However, as long as I can made high quality print of 12x18 from 35mm and 24x30 from 645 film, resolution-wise the film is good enough for me.</p>

<p>What really attracts me to film though is its color rendering. With my Coolscan 9000 and various film stock (Velvia, Ektar, Portra, etc), I found that I can easily produce images with beautiful colors. Most of the time I just spent a couple of minutes in Photoshop on an image and I am done. While my digital friends sometimes spend hours on color correction of an image (especially for shots under flat light, which is what I love to do) and still end up with an overcooked one, which really scares me away from digital. I have always been interested in whether other film shooters have the same observation or not.</p>

<p>Hopefully I will see you next post soon!</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>It makes you wonder why we use 21MP DSLRs when, at best, the images get displayed electronically at 1080p (2 megapickles)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is something which I have wondered about too. On another forum, there was a thread asking who actually prints their pictures. Over half of the respondents claimed that they only looked at their pictures on screen or up-loaded them to websites yet they were the same people who were always ready to get the next new camera upgrade with more MP (pixie-megals).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That is something which I have wondered about too. On another forum, there was a thread asking who actually prints their pictures. Over half of the respondents claimed that they only looked at their pictures on screen or up-loaded them to websites yet they were the same people who were always ready to get the next new camera upgrade with more MP (pixie-megals).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>One major benefit of the 5D2 that I intially didn't take into account is the capability to brutally crop away at a shot and still end up with a high res file. That is the only benefit I have found from shooting at 21MP. That is also a reason why, in the future, I would probably consider a camera with an even higher resolution. The ability to brutally crop is such an advantage that it has completely driven away my desire for the expensive 500mm+ lenses. Now I can shoot birds and wildlife with my lightweight 300mm f4, happily crop away at it and get the same final image as I would have got with a 500mm or 600mm lens (albeit at a lower resolution but still more than satisfactory).</p>

<p>Buying an expensive high res DSLR with no intention of cropping or printing is just money wasted. I think that's why the 12MP Nikon D700 has been so successful. It has adequate resolution and astounding low light performance, a nice happy balance.</p>

<p>In my case, most of my prints are large for display and that is the reason fine details are important to me.</p>

<p>Charles, I believe the next post will be great for discussion and also fun.</p>

<p>The quality of color from film is only half the story. The other portion is the predictable response that can be obtained by selecting a specific film with its reaction to different wavelengths that cannot be reproduced with digital unless the film is used along side and the colors match in PS.</p>

<p>Like I said the new post will be fun. It will just take a little bit to prepare.</p>