1D/1Ds/1D Mk II vs 35 mm: Is "135" dead?

[eugenijus_kostrubinas]

It is not a provocative stupid question from newbee.

<p>

Simply, at very specialised professional newsgroup, intended to color

prepress, I had some imprudence to leave a comment about Sony 828.

Matter was that collocutor stays 828 outperforms 35mm to death.<br>

I was tried 828 very hardly, so this porosition makes me hot and I

gonna fight for truth.

<p>

And now have one related question to society: Is a 35 mm really

outperformed by EOS 1 digicams? Can this thesis be a real truth?

<p>

One link for reading shown me by "opposig force":

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html.

<p>

Any comments, especially links to existing threads and web pages will

be strongly appreciated.

<p>

Your's, Eugis.

[bernard_korites]

Eugis:

 

I have a 5mp Sony 717, similar to the 828 but fewer pixels. I also shoot slides with a Nikon FM10 and a Nikon 8008 with a Nikkor 50mm f1.8 lens.

 

The digital pics are every bit as sharp and clear as a slide. I routinely print them up to 13x19 on an Epson 2200 ink jet and most of the time I couldn't ask for a better print. I am constantly amazed at the quality of the results and the sophistication of the technology.

 

The difference is, with a slide, you can view it through a loupe or a slide projector or slide viewer in which case you have active light coming through the slide. The thing seems to glow and takes on a 3 dimensional look.

 

With a digital camera, usually you look at the image on the screen of your computer or you print it out on paper. Since paper prints use reflected light, they lack the luminosity of a slide. A print from a digital camera will never equal a slide viewed through an active light source.

 

However, when I scan a slide on my Minolta Scan Dual IV and print it, the results are either about the same or not quite as good as a paper print directly from a digital camera.

 

I continue to shoot slides when outdoors because I don't care for the handling of the digital camera outdoors in the sunlight. It's difficult to compose a shot correctly and there are too many settings and options on the camera to worry about. The numbers and icons on the lcd are so small I find it difficult to change any settings when outdoors, especially if I need to change something in a hurry. I also don't like holding the digital camera out in front of me when composing (probably too many years of using traditional film cameras).

 

I find a simple manual film camera work best for me outdoors. But in the studio, I use my digital camera for putting pics on my web site and for general use.

 

Of course the down side to film is the cost of buying and processing it. But as far as quality of images goes, you can expect as good or better results from a digital camera.

 

By the way, are you from Lithuania?

[jackflesher]

My .02 having owned three generations of Canon 1 Digitals, Canon 1V 35mm, Contax and Mamiya Medium format, and various Large format cameras, AND a very good (Imacon) film scanner.

 

The 1D was slightly behind scanned 35mm film in terms of resolution and detail -- but it had virtually no visible noise (at ISO 200) and even scanned ISO 100 slide film shows significant grain by comparison. I called it a net tie for the grain/resolution tradeoff at that time.

 

Enter the 1Ds. Now detail was available in spades, and clearly outperformed scanned 35 film. In fact, detail was marginally BETTER than in my scanned 645 transparencies from my Contax 645 while it was also marginally LESS detailed than scans from my Mamiya 6x7 transparencies, though these differences were slight. The noise versus grain issue was still present, adding a slight edge to the digital capture. So I call the 1Ds essentially equal to MF flim capture.

 

Enter the 1DMKII. Detail improved significantly over the 1D, but is not quite up to the 1Ds standard, leaving the 1DMKII slightly behind MF film, IMO.

 

NONE of the above take into account the hassel of scanning, which IMO is significant, giving digital another significant advantage.

 

However, scanned LF film is incredible, and still not even close to being touched by conventional digital capture. Perhaps the new generation of 22MP digital MF backs will get closer, I don't know yet and given the cost of that option, I likely won't care for a while anyway. And given the cost differences, the hassel of scanning does not seem all that bad for the results it generates ;)

 

And let's not forget the soon-to-be-released 1DsMKII -- it could prove to up the MF by another notch.

 

Hope this helps,

Jack

[eugenijus_kostrubinas]

Bernard, yes I'm from Vilnius, a capital of Lithuania.

[daniel_smith6]

Take these wonderful pixel recorders & the attendant Pixelographers to Jackson Hole area & set the cameras up for a nice 8 hour star trail exposure over the Tetons. Overnigt temps around 20 below zero(real temps, not that wimpy centigrade stuff) & see how the photos look.

 

Both cameras have their place & will do things the others won't.

[bernard_korites]

Eugis-

I thought so. I'm of Lithuanian descent, from the Boston area. Both my parents came over on a boat about 1905. I would like to come visit "the homeland" some day. How is everything there now?

Bern

[citizensmith1664875108]

>>Overnigt temps around 20 below zero(real temps, not that wimpy centigrade stuff) & see how the photos look.

 

But -20 centigrade is colder than wimpy -20 fahrenheit. :)

[vinny_walsh]

No it's not dead. For some reason "quality" only relates to sharpness when this issue

comes up. Do you like what human skin looks like on film? What looks more natural to

you? Do you like the color of the sky on film? Can you charge batteries everywhere you go?

Is a camera you buy today going to have 2x the pixels in the "better" model 6 months from

now? How long will stored images last?

[marcin harla]

Eugenijus, I don't know what the guy who told you that Sony 828 kills 35mm film smokes, but it must be some good stuff. Although Sony 828 is a decent consumer camera, it is no match with a tiny, tiny chip to film.

<p>Now I do have a DRebel and the <b>quality is on par with film IMO</b>. I don't want to go into the whole debate what is better. Digital gives me better results simply because the prints I get are more consistent (read: my lab is better prepared to handle digital files). That said I personally believe 1DsII or even 1Ds outperforms 135 film in terms of quality. Some people even argue that 1Ds II is on par with medium format...

<p>...but Sony 828... *evil laugh* uahhhahaha, sorry but no way

 

<p>Film is not dead (at least not yet), I still shoot some film (when I need wide-angle, or when taking some b&w portraits).

[gary_woodard]

allllll aboard.

[ajweiss]

<I>Marcus Christian , nov 13, 2004; 08:52 p.m.

 

<p>>>Overnigt temps around 20 below zero(real temps, not that wimpy centigrade stuff)

& see how the photos look.

 

<p>But -20 centigrade is colder than wimpy -20 fahrenheit. :)</i>

 

<p>I'm sorry for perpetuating off-topic discussion, but physicist and teacher in me has to

point out that -20 F = - 28.9 C, and -20 C = -4 F.

[jonathan_laufersweiler]

Even the 1Ds cant touch what slow slide film and good prime lenses are capable of at

their best. On the other hand, if the basis for comparison is handheld shooting at

shutter speeds slower than 1/500 of a second, or if you're using a most zoom lenses,

you're not getting all that film has to offer anyway and hi-end digital will compare

quite favorably. <p>I shoot transperancy for maximium detail, print for maximum

tonal range (or B&W), and digital for difficult/mixed lighting. If none of the above are

priorities, I might go either way, depending on my mood.<p>In either case, I'd steer

clear of the 828. There're better options even if you want that style of camera (The

8080 for clean images, the A2 for handling, the Pro 1 #2 in both catagories)

[carl smith]

The biggest drawback I see now with digital personally is the cost. For me it would make life easier in a lot of ways because I can control color balance much more with digital and this means that I can have an easier time of color correcting since I have poor color vision. Noise above the ISO 100 range is better than film grain at the same ISO IMO with many of the modern SLRs, however low ISO slide film can compete well and even defeat the DSLRs in some ways. The digitals also still suffer from poor dynamic range, although this has been improving quite a bit.

 

The issue of skin quality when shot digitally is one I've seen at times; but usually it seems to be a combination of lighting, makeup and post processing blunders. Digital does render it differently but I don't know if I'd always call it wrong. For me it doesn't matter much because I don't shoot portraits often and what work I have done with a 1Ds doing some studio "people" photography has resulted in image I have liked very much.

 

I certainly am looking forward to getting a DSLR this winter, my life will be easier when I don't have to scan as much film anymore. Controlling white balance is a huge plus as well and to be honest image quality from many of the DSLRs does exceed film in some dimensions. The amount of frustration in the workflow is also much lower IMO. I much prefer converting raw files over dealing with scanning film.

[erol_a.]

I always wonder when people say digital outperforms medium format, "what are their

standards?" I shoot with EOS IDmkII, Mamiya RZ67II, and Leica M6 cameras. Mid-grade

shots are scanned on a Nikon 8000; the best go to a drum scanner. In terms of

enlargeability before the image structure and detail begins to fall apart, my mkII

outperforms 35mm and is on par with my old Contax 645. I have yet to make a print so

large that digital has shown a true edge over well scanned 67.

 

But, the catch - is detail and enlargeability all there is to image quality? What about

texture, tonality, character of color? To me, this is where digital suffers - I just love the

look of film. I love the texture of Tri-X grain, the softness of NPH, and I'll forever mourn

Kodachrome's days of reliable processing. The bottom line for me is that digital has a

character, but like TMax films or Portra VC, it's just not a character I find pleasing. The

tonal gradation and richness of the images shot on my RZ just aren't equalled by my

digital, despite the fact that the digital files maintain detail beautifully to large size. I use

digital at work, and have made many images I enjoy and am happy with the quality of, but

given the opportunities of time and budget, I'll still reach for film.

[erol_a.]

and relative to 35mm film - if I were headed off for four months in a remote location,

that's what I'd be taking. For many, it makes sense for 35mm to be dead, but to call the

format itself dead, or even obsolete, is premature.

[tom_musselman]

Hi Eugis. Sometimes a photographer decides between using film or digital based artistic concerns, or on how the image looks. Sometimes the difference in look is not important and the decision is based on business concerns, such as how long it takes to supply the client with images, or what the client wants, transparencies or digital files. For the rest of us, the hobbyists and enthusiasts, the decision is based on what we want to use for our hobby, and that is a very, very personal decision.

[bernard_korites]

Marcin-

 

Why don't you take your head out of your a$$hole for a sec and show me where in my post I said "Sony 828 kills 35mm film?" I thought the drift of my response was that digital is on a par with film when viewed on paper but film wins when viewed through an active light source. Perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills before posting any more vitriolic responses.

[steve_unsworth1]

Bernard, I think if you read Marcin's post again you'l lsee that he was refering to the original question asked by Eugenijus.

[marcin harla]

Bernard,

<p>here is the sentence from the original post: <i>Simply, at very specialised professional newsgroup, intended to color prepress, I had some imprudence to leave a comment about Sony 828. <b>Matter was that collocutor stays 828 outperforms 35mm to death.</b></i>

<p>

I was refering to that. No need to be so offensive, jeez...

[jackflesher]

>> Even the 1Ds cant touch what slow slide film and good prime lenses are capable of at their best <<

 

Statements like these come from individuals who obviously have never even seen a properly processed 1Ds original file up close... They simply BLOW AWAY any 35mm film offering, period.

[jackflesher]

... But, I don't think film -- even "135" is dead... I still enjoy the look of gritty street photography done with high-speed B&W emulsions.

 

And IMO properly scanned MF film can still hold its own against the best DLSR's. And if you don't shoot that much, and already own the equipment, it may be a better way to go from an economic standpoint for the present...

 

Speaking of cost, Carl mentioned cost... Yes, the entry cost of the highest-quality digital SLR's is high, but depending on how much you shoot, the film and processing cost savings can rather quickly recover those initial entry costs. Furthermore, the recent additions of cameras like the 20D bring high-quality digital into the realm of affordability comparable to any high-end film camera of just a few years ago.

 

So is 35 dead? No, not yet. But given the leaps in digital quality made over the last few years, if that trend continues 135's days are certainly numbered...

 

 

Cheers,

Jack

[carl smith]

I agree Jack, my results from the 1Ds after processing were just incredible. Great tonality, great texture and detail. I would actually prefer shooting it over 35mm film in many cases, and even over medium format. In a lot of ways we're seeing digital surpass film if you consider what the subframe cameras are capable of in spite of the smaller sensor size.

 

Film has a different look to it than digital, but I don't think it is fair to say one is better than the other.

 

And Jack you're right, digital has a high upfront cost but I've read about and know some pros who feel its been well worth it. Every now and again you hear about the guy who swapped his gear for a Canon 1Ds (for example) and that by removing the cost of film and processing materials it's paid for itself multiple times over. The upfront cost is offset by the fact the camera doesn't need to be fed film.

 

I don't think I'd be able to say the same, I don't shoot enough.

[jonathan_laufersweiler]

>>> Even the 1Ds cant touch what slow slide film and good prime lenses are capable

>of at their best <<

>

 

>Statements like these come from individuals who obviously have never even seen a

>properly processed 1Ds original file up close... They simply BLOW AWAY any 35mm

>film offering, period.

 

Ok, I'l bite back here. I've done repro/copy work professionally for years, using 64t in

135 and 4x5, the 1Ds, the Kodak14n->ProSLRn, and lately a PhaseOne FX on a view

camera. All of these tools have their strengths and weaknesses. The grainless

quality of the digital gear is unmatchable with any film this side of NASA. OTOH, do a

multple pass, exposure-bracketed film scan of a 35mm 64T slide, and you will have

far more subtleties in the shadows, and more detail overall. When I say "at its best,"

I'm referring to a level of performance that simply cannot be achieved under normal

everyday conditions. Under controlled conditions, even Gold 100 resolves more

detail with a 50 f/1.8 than the 1Ds can, but only in the center. The Phase One Spanks

4x5 on an enlarger. 4x5 drum scanned tops that for detail, but cant be custom

ballanced for your lights as easily.

 

If you're shooting handheld for exposures longer than a milisecond, camera shake

will obliterate the difference in resolving power, but leave the grain intact. Under

those conditions, a good digital will look as good or better.

 

There's no perfect tool. They all have different strengths and limitations. Making

sweeping generalizations and insulting people you don't know demonstrate true

ignorance.

[eugenijus_kostrubinas]

Thank you a lot, friends.

<p>

Now I can see, that not only my experience with advanced dSLR EOS'es shows a really good results vs 135 film. In meaning of quality, of course.<br>

I am still doubting about some specific character of digital shots. But upcoming cameras and advanced technologies will be launched soon, and may be blooming, noise, dust, sensor reflections and wide angle prolbems at digital part will gone near at hand.<br>

Until this nearest future comes, we (I) can use our time to obtain a good experience with "digital darkroom".<p>

Good luck for us on this way,<br>

Eugis.

[eugenijus_kostrubinas]

For Bernrd:<p>

There is my private e-mail: eugenijus AT THE liutas DOT lt.

If you want to continue conversation about Lithuania - do not doubt and

write to me directly.

I'll go this, private, way 'cause photo.net society can hunt for us if

we go offtpopic, LOL<p>

 

Your's<br>

Eugis