Film Vs Digital compact test

<p>OK so we all seen Film Vs Digital test, we get it the digital wins, has anybody ever tested a small sensor high end digi compact vs a high end film compact tranny properly scanned?</p>

<p>Like a Powershot vs. a Minox? (This should be a fun discussion.)</p>

<p>Not directly, no, but I have shots done with an S90 (a very good compact digital) and others with a Rollei X70 Zoom ($5 at Goodwill, and I don't even know who made it) and, no question, the film shots win. The camera may be small and cheap but compared to the small sensor digital, the film frame is huge.</p>

<p>What are you going to do with them? I print <a href="http://johnacurso.com/lotus.html">these at 20x20</a> inches and they were taken with an iPhone and are incredibly detailed. It really depends on what you are trying to do whether something is adequate for your needs or not.</p>

<p>You are artificially hurting digital by restricting it to small-sensor compacts, given the many larger-sensor compact digital cameras out there. A Canon G1X is about the same size as my newest compact film camera. Of course, that Fuji compact 35mm was about $200 in 1994 or 1995 (a little over $300 in today's dollars), and the Canon is $800. But I'd save $15+/roll on film and processing; over the reasonable life of the camera, even a G1X is cheaper.</p>

<p>That said, not that many years ago I would have said that, in certain situations, a compact film camera (in my case, often a Canon Canonet G-III QL 17) would produce better results than an equally-compact digital. But I don't think that's true any more. My older son's circa 2008 Canon A1000 (or A1100 or whichever model he has) beats the 35mm in good light, and our new Canon SX230 HS (with a 12 MP backlit CMOS sensor) beats 35mm in <em>any</em> light. While the film might have a small resolution advantage under ideal conditions, if I'm using a compact camera, I'm shooting hand-held, which almost always negates that theoretical advantage, and if anything, the digitals' image stabilization means they win. Film's only remaining advantages are somewhat better ability to handle very bright highlights (with <em>negative</em> film, not with a tranny!) and the availability of disposable film cameras.</p>

 

Would be interesting, but can't be done on the Internet, as that would require that the film or print be scanned, turning it

into digital vs. digital.

<blockquote>

<p> we get it the digital wins</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That statement may start a World-War III. I didn't do that test but I did a "similar" test.<br>

Took a picture with top-the line Nikon DSLR then print it out on Polaroid paper (with a polaroid printer), the result was about the same as a picture taken by a GSN and scanned and printed at wolf cameras</p>

<p>The Sony NEXs can take a wide variety of film era lenses with proper adapters. The good film fixed lens cameras would need to have the prints compared under proper conditions to digital prints or scanned (as noted above) . But it's still a "Is camera (or lens) "A" better than "B" discussion. The results will very much depend on how the rules are defined.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Every camera of every type that I've used over 40 years, both film and digital, has had interesting characteristics and capabilities that I could make use of in some way. My primary camera now is in fact a compact P&S, but I've shot hundreds of pictures with a DSLR as well. I've done some interesting smartphone shots too. You can check out my Flickr photostream if you need proof. That being said, the comparison you ask about is more like asking how a Polaroid SX-70 compared to a Rollei 35S. It's one of apples versus oranges.</p>

<p>No, strictly from an "image quality" point of view, the pics from a compact P&S type camera are not in the same league as those of any small 35mm film camera when both are at their best. But of course, in real life, there is considerable overlap, because most pictures are not going to be taken with the object being absolutely perfect technique. No matter how small the camera, if it's 35mm film, it's still a big piece of real estate compared to the small sensor in the compact digital camera. A more useful and perhaps fair comparison might be between the same compact digicam and the output from a good-quality 110-format (Instamatic) camera.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>we all seen Film Vs Digital test, we get it the digital wins</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not aware of that. And it partly depends how you define compact.</p>

<p>At the moment I still not sure if there is a compact digital camera that I would consider comparable to a film compact because they keep leaving the viewfinder off, so you must plug on an awkward accessory.</p>

<p>Also my digital compact is smaller than my film compacts, so unless we compare with half frame, 110 and the like, it's hardly a fair contest.<br>

For the larger pocketable compacts, I expect a Leica M9 will out do most 35mm film cameras.</p>

<p>I do think the there are fairly compact digital cameras in the ball park for 35mm compact equivalence, but as I'm saying, the body design is different, so I compromise, and don't really think about exact comparisons.<br>

For example, the accessory viewfinders and LCD panels on some models can be rotated, giving options we didn't have on compact film cameras. I can't get exactly what I'd like, but I can do a lot with what I can get.</p>

 

<p>Yes Dave I know I'm crippling the digital, that's the point. Some people seem to think sensor size doesn't matter the way film size does and you just need to have more pixels to get better quality and not a bigger sensor. With film you use the same format in the compacts as you do in the SLRs so if the lens is good enough with a compact should be able to get the same result if not better (because there's no mirror box) with a compact as you do with an SLR. Being that <a href="http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_ektar100_imagequality.htm">this</a> is how close Velvia 100 came to the Alpha 100 I'm not sure if you're right about the SX230 HS because the sensor is 18x smaller.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You are artificially hurting digital by restricting it to small-sensor compacts</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or you can artificially hurt film's chances by restricting it to 35mm and not using medium format or 5x4... or 10x8... or 20x24... etc, etc.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some people seem to think sensor size doesn't matter the way film size does and you just need to have more pixels to get better quality and not a bigger sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some people also think that daily lunch and dinner at MacDonalds is a healthy diet, if they take diet Coke instead of regular.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some people seem to think sensor size doesn't matter the way film size does and you just need to have more pixels to get better quality and not a bigger sensor. </p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />I think that both digital and film have got to a point where the resolution per square inch (or whatever measurement you want to use) is now about equal. Use a bigger sensor or piece of film and you will get more detail. It's not rocket surgery. </p>

<p>It's not so much of what one eats as much as how much one exercises after, Wouter. I eat well when I can but often times, when I'm out on the road, it's fast food stretch for a couple months 5 or 6 days a week due to <strong>(lack of) money and time. </strong>And I know I'm healthier than most.</p>

<p>Similarly, I have stop shooting film in favor of digital mostly due to mostly <strong>(lack of)</strong> <strong>money and time.</strong> Again...it's not so much what camera I uses but what I do with it after. I use many digital p&s with small sensors...and I'm perfectly okay with them. And I know I can shoot better than most.</p>

<p>I think most here are fussing over camera/sensor size a bit too much (and not the photographs they take/make)...Much like Americans are fussing over healthy diet a bit too much because they don't work or exercise nearly enough...</p>

<p>Alex:</p>

<p>I have not done side-by-side comparisons since I haven't shot film since moving to digital.</p>

<p>That said, the Panasonic LX3 was the first compact camera I had that was an adequate replacement for a compact film camera in terms of image quality, making large prints, and noise at higher ISO. It tended to start showing noise at 400, but even 800 wasn't unacceptable. Just like film. :)</p>

<p>My Fuji X100 compact beats the pants off my old film cameras for image quality. I consider it to be the digital replacement of my Nikon 35Ti, which was no slacker.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>Leslie, sure... the point was not exactly the nutritious value of MacDonalds (or lack thereof). Your reply happens to make the point actual though: nuanced, detailed and reaching a balanced opinion between variables, considering wants and needs - that's how one presents a statement. The quote I posted on the other hand offers no such thing. My reply was more ridiculing the simplicity of that statement, and nothing else.</p>

<p>And yes, photographers take photos, the technical details are not the end-all and be-all. But at the same time, we want the right tool for the job to maximise the possibility of realising our ideas.</p>

<p><strong><em>Some people also think that daily lunch and dinner at MacDonalds is a healthy diet, if they take diet Coke instead of regular.</em></strong><br>

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

How about a diet shake with fat-free milk and Ben & Jerry's?<em></em><strong><em><br /></em></strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>diet shake with fat-free milk</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sounds like a fuel-economic Ferrari. Not a bad idea.... but just wrong all the same :-)</p>

<p>Please stop doing this kind of comparison. The test as you do it bias for the digital because you digitize the transparency and judge the resulting file. <br>

If you take that 35mm transparency and project it with the standard Kodak slide projector and compare it with any project digital image and see how that look. <br>

So please stop doing this kind of comparison.</p>

<p>It's a good point, you lose something when you scan. Still, if I look at my scan results (and, granted, I have a good scanner) and look at the results from my best digital compact camera (the S90) there's no question, the film scans are almost always better in technical image quality. This holds true at higher ISOs - e.g., 800 film isn't great if you're looking for fine grain and detail, but neither is a small digital camera at 800.</p>

<p>Now if we include smaller digital cameras with larger sensors, like that X100, or a NEX or M4/3 camera, it's a different matter. You can have a 1.5 crop sensor and a very good lens, stabilization, etc. In quality (and in cost) those are closer to SLRs than they are to pocket film cameras.</p>

<p>The comparison ended for me a few years ago, when it became too difficult to find good local film processing and printing with a short enough turnaround to see my results same-day. I've now become satisfied with my own digital workflow with nice in-camera raw post processing and prints from my inkjet, that are technically very satisfying up to the 8 1/2 X 11 paper limitations of my printer. Granted, I needed to move up a bit in size to a Nikon compact DSLR (D5000) to do it, but I've found it totally satisfying.</p>

<p> Digital vs Film is so useless. Completely different formats. Just shoot what you want and be happy. </p>

<p>Ross is right. Both 35mm film compacts and their digital counterparts produce results better than is required for most amateur purposes. Choose whichever you prefer and take photos.</p>

From personal experience, it's a strong function of strap width.

 

Put a 1.25" strap of supple kid leather on *any* cam and I'm good to go, no matter what the sitch is...