Jump to content

DSLR with 35mm image depth?


Recommended Posts

<p>There are a lot of posts on the relative technical differences between the D200, D300, D3, D3x - frame rates, battery life, sensor size etc. I've read many of them but none of them seem to cover the image quality regarding picture depth.. Eg: my D200 gives me good shots but they look digital, flat, not with the depth I was able to get with 35mm. My question is do any of the later Nikon DSLRs improve on image quality in this regard?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<blockquote>

<p>my D200 gives me good shots but they look digital, flat, not with the depth I was able to get with 35mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Could you post some image samples to demonstrate your point? I have a D200 and my images with it does not look flat at all to me.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Learn to adjust your camera to your preferences. This means taking sample shots at various settings until you know enough to set it the way you want. None of my images from the D200 look flat. You can give them as much contrast, brightness, saturation, ets as you wish.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>What is "depth"? Do you mean color? Did you try different picture modes or shooting raw and upping the colors in post? Or do you mean depth of field? You need good fast lenses to compress the depth of field and get nice bokeh.</p>

<p>All those cameras have differences in their color reproduction, of course.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>at first i thought that by <i>image depth</i> you were referring to how optics behave on 35mm format vs the d200, and if that's the case, you could try/loan/rent a d700 and see if you came closer to your preferred result. use the same lenses you did/do with 35mm, do a comparison if you like.</p>

<p>not sure if that <b>was</b> in fact what you meant by <i>image depth</i>, color reproduction is another chapter, and you said nothing of which film(s) you favored...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you're talking about tonal depth, the D3/D700 are very good in this respect. If it is something that the grain and "character" of film creates, this would be difficult to imitate. But for color I tend to think digital capture in the FX format is better almost in every way than 35mm film. I felt when I was using DX that the images are a bit "thin"; I'm not really able to detail what creates this feeling. It's something to do with the lack of robustness of detail (due to >half of the image area being not recorded) and not so good tonality (because of small pixels which can't record clean tones as well). I think 6x7 film has even better depth but it's expensive to use and the equipment is comparatively cranky.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>When I look at my scanned Leica shots I see the debth you speak of. Nikon up to D700/D3 does not give the same even when I adjust settings to match. It can be close, but not the same even if I do the same subject at the same time.</p>

<p>My tests with a M8 and Nikon give the nod to Leica digi, so it is not just digi vs film. I only go a film Nikon a while ago so someday I will run a test.<br>

Digital is so convenient though.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi James</p>

<p>Obviously depth is not a quality that can be measured and will be perceived differently by different people. I believe that the D1 (Shun don't shoot me) had a certain quality to the images, for lack of a better way to describe it, more 3d than other dslr's I have either owned or had a chance to use. Clearly dslr's have advanced significantly since the D1 but there was something very particular about those images that might be called depth.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The good news is it's likely not your DSLR's fault.</p>

<p>The bad news is that there are an almost infinite number of variables that can potentially be interacting here to produce images that, as you state, lack "depth". If you mean that "3D look", read on.</p>

<p>It <em>could </em>be the way you have contrast set on your DSLR, the way you're viewing your images (on screen or prints), the way you're printing today versus back then, the local contrast and dynamic curve of the film you were using versus the default on your DSLR.</p>

<p>Or, it could be <em>optics. </em>If you shot with Zeiss glass on film and now you're shooting with Sigma glass, or something like that, you could have different "depth". Or, if you're shooting with a protective filter, that might do it.</p>

<p>Also, as a general rule, the larger the "film" format, the better the "depth" is. You can't compare medium format to DX and expect the same "look".</p>

<p>Is your monitor calibrated?</p>

<p>Do you shoot raw?</p>

<p>Do you post process or expect automatically brilliant images with none?</p>

<p>I'm sure you'll figure this problem out sooner rather than later.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>my D200 gives me good shots but they look digital, flat, not with the depth I was able to get with 35mm.</em></p>

<p>The logical term for this phenomena is "<em>Post hoc ergo propter hoc</em>" - a logical falacy wherein you incorrectly assign the cause of an event. In short, digital images are "flat...without depth" because you imagine they should be (e.g., based on what you've read), assuming you aren't completely inept when you view or print them.</p>

<p>If you can provide an example, perhaps someone can show you how to do better, assuming there is actually a problem.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I guess we are all trying to take a stab at what the poster means. It's probably hard to descibe, but easier to see.</p>

<p>Here is my try:</p>

<p>I don't yet shoot digital. However, when I threw in a roll of slide film, for the first time, I was really amazed at the brighter colors and an over all sharpness that I saw. Most likely, it was better developing at a pro level business vs a 1 hour super market machine, more than anything. But, there is some evidence that slides do have more "pop" than prints. I suspect that the OP is feeling or seeing this sort of visual comparision. Digital, from what I have read requires more out of the shooter, in post production, to be it's best. If you shoot jpegs and do little too it, it may indeed not have the "pop" that film can have, right from a good shop.</p>

<p>Here's a question: When was the last time anyone , in this thread, has shot 35mm film ? I ask because if there IS any difference, if you haven't used film in years, you may have forgotten something about how it looks. I don't know if this is true, but we can all get used to something, after we do it long enough.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>This image was taken with a <strong>D200</strong> and 12-24mm DX lens. I feel it has plenty of "depth" to the scene - I focused on the rock (circled in red) in centre foreground @f/9.</p>

<p>I now shoot with a <strong>D700 </strong>(and totally different set of lenses) and don't believe the D700 body would add more depth to the image apart from maybe exposing some more detail in the shadow cast areas, but certainly no significant jump in "depth"</p><div>00TLsX-134455584.jpg.cf038a790161c55a3eda89d1db6ac978.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To John: There is indeed a difference between chromes and prints, as it is between a print made in different papers. The contrast ratio has influence on this. Is not the same to look at a chrome on a good, temperature calibrated light table or with a tungsten bulb under the ceiling. The stronger the light the higher contrast. The whites on the print depend of the reflection power and color of the pape base and the light source as well. Do you remember that RC vs barita paper discussions from the past?</p>

<p>About pop: <em>usually</em> "pop" refer to shallow DoF areas (amongst others). If so, it only depends on the lens, focal lenght, sensor size and print size. I`d say is not a digital vs film issue. It`s more about photog skills who knows how to take the pic to give a 3-D illusion with the gear used.</p>

<p>To Tobey: different lenses have different bokeh characteristics, some Leica lenses, or Pentax, or Nikon have different out of focus rendition, flare, glare, contrast... some are more pleasant than others. Or, are you refering to that Leica issues like "<em>glow</em>", or that famous "<em>threedimensionality of Leica lenses</em>"... ?</p>

<p>Whan does or what James want to mean with "depth"? Color depth? Depth of field? Dynamic range? 3D illusion?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think the roundness and 3d effect from the D1/D1h come from the lack of megapixels. When I look through an album of A4 size prints the D1h images look somewhat different to the D80. The D1h does not record fine details like my D80 can. I think it is the lack of fine details such as fabric texture together with sharp features such as eyelashes that make the images look different.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Here's a question: When was the last time anyone , in this thread, has shot 35mm film ? I ask because if there IS any difference, if you haven't used film in years, you may have forgotten something about how it looks. I don't know if this is true, but we can all get used to something, after we do it long enough.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fortunately I do, and I understand that sup-tail but still such hard to explain difference. To see it you need not only to take pictures on film but develop and make prints using analog NOT digital photo printer or use you one manual-analog light emitted printer.<br>

You will see that film emulsion do have tickles, and that some silver crystals are focused exposed and aligned in 3d. You will also realize that there is film grain that is not colorized and uniform but unique.<br>

But I you really want to see difference try roll 120 6x6cm or lager formats on slides.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I for one have never shot with 35mm film but have used both the original poster's D200 model and a "later Nikon DSLR" I have read much subjective material here and elsewhere as to the qualities of 35mm film images as is opposed to digital sensor reproduction.</p>

<p>I'm still waiting for the original poster to either quantify with examples "picture depth" and it's inherent lack of said "picture depth"in his D200 images or at least explain with more descriptors the concept he is attempting to relate in this thread. I don't mean to be confrontational, just curious as to the meaning of "35mm image depth" and what it might mean to different people.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Its an interesting subject, this. I still shoot film but with mainly prime lenses which are better than the DX zooms I use in digital. My first digital was a Canon G7. The images from it look like the depth of field has been compressed somewhat, compared to the ones from my D300. I will say though, that I like the way the Canon renders the colours. This difference can be found in reviews of the higher end Canon and Nikons.<br>

Perhaps its because of a combination of the lens quality, DOF, sensor and in camera software. The rendition can never be the same as film, simply because the components of a digital image are little square pixels, whereas film emulsion is quite different, just like the difference between a chrome 25 slide image and a TRX print.<br>

I guess it boils down to taste and what one's eye sees.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think he refers to dynamic range of an image. To get full tone mapping, you have to shoot in raw and, for example, highlight darker areas with D-lighting. This maps a bigger DR (like 14 bits) onto the DR available from a typical monitor (8 bits). And, D200 has about 11.5 stops, D300, D700 and D3 about 12 stops, and D3X is close to 14 stops. Do, for more film like results in that respect, pick the D3X (or a Fuji S5), or take two shots from a tripode (with some 5 stops difference) and merge them later.</p>

<div>00TLwj-134489684.jpg.eb1bcae0870d0f8a9b13a80a8617ef73.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>i think i know what James refers to. i get images that seem to have more depth, almost three dimensional with my film cameras, and i don't get this with my digital cameras. i am not sure what causes this. is it the film vs digital, or is it the different lenses that i use.</p><div>00TLxy-134501684.jpg.7ad62bccda4a8590e3f15e77068e74e5.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...