D700 vs F5 : is it another nail on coffin?

[arthuryeo]

<p>http://fwd.five.tv/videos/challenge-blow-up-part-3<br /> Is this the photography's version of the popular Top Gear TV show?</p>

[andylynn]

<p>They didn't say what fim they used, or how they scanned it or how they applied post to the two, and they didn't balance it so the colors and saturation came out the same. They just showed that the D700 is kickass and made a better image than whatever film and film process they used, and they didn't mention the expense of the D700 or that the film image would have been the same coming from a $70 F75. They also did a shot with almost no color in it and printed it at a size very few people use (and if they did they'd be using a better camera). Hardly a nail or a coffin.</p>

[heyyrobert]

<p>Although I am suprised a 12 MP camera can make an okay print like that size... (just going to show MPs don't matter) Doesn't work unless we know the film. Also, they should have shot with ISO 100 film in a studio because one of their complaints was grain.</p>

 

[photo5]

<p>Yawn.</p>

[SolaresLarrave]

That awful, hysterical video segment got mentioned again? It's a very flawed test... for all the reasons above: scan

resolution is never revealed, and neither is the type of film. As for the ability or expertise of the participants to "declare"

any winner based on what they see... well, that's an open and shut case to me: they just say what they were told.

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Completely bogus. They're just taking advantage of the hot-button "film vs. digital" issue to make a show. It's fluff and filler, nothing more. But Suzi Perry in the skintight Emma Peel suit? Yeh, I like that part. The rest is hogwash.</p>

<p>It's impossible to make optical prints directly from film negatives to that scale. Any use of the hybrid film-to-digital process in comparisons with a purely digital process invalidates any meaningful test. If I never see another bogus "comparison" that cripples film using a hybrid process, it'll be too soon.</p>

<p>Ignore the silly people. Use whatever equipment pleases you, inspires you, facilitates your quest and helps you to make the photographs you want to make.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>What stood out to me is that both are totally the wrong camera for the assignment. They should have at least used a medium format test. Who shoots images that big with a 35mm camera? I'm surprised it was as good as it was, but as mentioned, you really would need to know how to post process the image to get the best results from either Nikon camera.</p>

[heartyfisher]

<p>Yeah.. This again.. seen it a few time in various forums LOL. They did say it was ISO 400 film vs ISO 400 on the D700.. They should have gotten Velvia 50 and shot a sunset landscape! then we will see which is better! LOL.<br>

Of course thats a wrong test as well but ... as along as we get the results we want ! Right?</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>shows like these, and magazines, are what is driving digital photography. the rush to buy digital has little to do with quality and work flow advantages. these productions are sponsored by Nikon, Canon, Sony et al. what you saw was just pure crap.</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>Well, one thing came out of that comparison for me. Cheesy, hyperbolic, flashy, intellectually deficient shows, using flawed methodology and over-the-top examples, aren't just limited to the U.S. TV market.<br>

One conclusion was accurate, though. Digital has improved.<br>

Wow. Big news.</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>Yes, the "test" is flawed and invalid for a number of reasons, most of which have been mentioned by earlier posters. However, when the laughter after having disclosed another silly test dies down, the basic fact remains. Digital image quality, in terms of rendition of image detail and colour accuracy, is significantly better than with film of the same format.</p>

<p>Currently, I'm using a D3X. I was an F5 user for many years. I've used the same lenses on both. There is no way the F5 with any film can come even close to what the D3X can deliver.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>Bjorn, I have just offloaded my D3's and gone back to film. Okay, so I no longer shoot Nikon and only use prime lenses, but I could not get the quality from my D3's that I get with my film cameras. And I say that knowing that at normal print sizes, the D3 produces better quality images than a D3x. When I say quality, I am not just referring to resolution, or dynamic range, or any one specific element of a print/image, but to the whole image. To me, film images are worth more than the sum of their parts. Sure, digital images are nice and clean and noise free, but to me that is detremental to the final picture. If there is an image where I require the upmost detail, then I will shoot provia 100f or velvia 50 or kc 64. You would need to shoot medium format digital to come close to that. BTW, most of my scans are done with a drum scanenr or an Imacon. </p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>I compare D3X images to 6x9 or 4x5" captures in terms of fine detail rendered. D3X makes good lenses really shine and the not-so-good ones precisely that.</p>

<p>Since I regularly shoot D3 *and* D3X, I have to disagree with your assertion of D3 producing the better quality of them. It should be added, however, that D3 has unprecedented quality at 12 MPix. But D3X has 40% higher resolution and this shows too.</p>

<p>The important aspect is that you feel you have the tools of the trade you require, not what they are as such.</p>

 

[bms]

<p>Not a day goes by without a Film vs Digital debate.... it is getting old. I am writing this as I am scanning a 6x7 RAP100 slide, after I sent a good part of last night developing..... but I would never take a film camera to an event and take 500 35mm images. For, it is just different applications (mind you, amateur).... if you like film, shoot film and vice versa... what is the point?</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>To put another nail in 35mm film's coffin would require an exhumation.</p>

<p> </p>

[akira]

<p>If they hadn't use D700, I would have thought it was an encore of a show that had been produced seven or so years ago.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Is it really possible to put a nail in a coffin that was buried years ago?</p>

[frank.schifano]

<blockquote>

<p>Not a day goes by without a Film vs Digital debate.... it is getting old.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Getting old? It is old, dead, and buried. Do not discount film just yet though. I'm seeing more and more younger folks, kids really, getting turned on to film after having diddled around with the digital monster. Honestly, I am mildly surprised at this turn of events.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>I saw this a while ago when it first came out. If this type of shot were done on film it would normally be done on medium format equipment and not on 400 speed film. The same shot with a 6X7 camera and Portra 160VC or Ektar 100 would have much less grain. The interesting thing for me is that the same shot could have been taken, with the same lens, with a Nikkormat from the 1960s. An F5 wasn't really needed. For those of us who have been taking pictures since at least the Kodachrome II days, the improvement in print films in general and in 400 and 800 speed print film in particular has been fantastic. Try making an 8X10 or an 11X14 from 35mm Portra 400VC or Portra 800. The quality is really excellent. I have started to shoot Ektar 100 in 6X7 and you need a very expensive digital camera of any kind to match the quality of that combination. What the digital camera brings is a lot of flexibilty, the ability to shoot very quickly and in the FX format a lot of lens choices. For people who need these things digtal cameras are a very good choice. For someone whose speed needs are not as great and whose volume isn't so high there is still a lot of quality you can get out of film.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=79334">Bjorn Rorslett</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> </a> , Apr 27, 2009; 07:28 a.m.<br>

I compare D3X images to 6x9 or 4x5" captures in terms of fine detail rendered.</p>

<p>LOL, Bjorn you frorgot to post he comparison. Please post the D3x next to 6x9 or 4x5 with the details of the shot. Please post a comparison against 35mm if you have one. </p>

<p>Even 35mm film can capture more detail, dr, and fine texture than any DSLR I tested (my comparisons ar posted on photo.net).</p>

<p>If you, personally, get better results with digital, then digital should be your choice though.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Folks, it's the most boring discussion I've seen on Photo.net in a long time, and really it's not a Nikon-specific one either. There will always be people who hold on to 35mm film, let them. Just like people who still drive old air-cooled VWs.</p>

[emraphoto]

<p>35mm was and always has been a format of convenience. if you are looking for "mind blowing" sharp then of course you're not looking at 35mm right?</p>

<p> </p>

[sven keil]

<p>Although some you already have disagreed, I do not find this test so far-fetched. They tested film at ISO400. The resolution of film is limited by grain. Thus, it is impossible to retrieve more detail from film by scanning - from a certain resolution on.<br>

The test is fair. You might, for example, load Velvia 50 for the resolution, but you get drawbacks in speed an skin color. Similarly, you might get more details from D3x than from D3, but unless you sample the D3x image down (assuming uncorrelated noise), the D3 gives better results at higher ISO values.<br>

I think you can do such a test only to maximise one criteria, for example resolution. But I would have to finish my Velvia roll if I want to shoot at night in a discoteque, and an ILFORD/TMAX 3200 does not match the resolution from a D700 at the same ISO value. So, digital wins in terms of flexibility when it comes to selecting ISOs.<br>

Another issue is dynamic range, film shows very nice dynamic range compression. But digital is getting closer, earlier with S5, now with Sony 's and Nikon´s 24MP flagships.<br>

Summarising, it depends on what you want to compare - at least for me resolution is not the main criterion.</p>

[suzyq]

<p>Apples and Oranges.</p>

[tri-x1]

<p>I agree with Bjorn. Film cannot compete with digital in 35mm--at least at 12 mp and film has a hard time even competing with as D70 if prints are no larger than 11x14. A D300 will outperform an F5. Costwise, a D700 is no more than a F5 was in dollars at the time it was new.<br>

As far as younger people switching from digital to film. Some may experiment out of curiosity but thinking it's a trend is just wishful thinking--don't base your retirement on Kodak or Fuji stock.<br>

Last weekend we ran up in the mountains. I shot about 250 images--that's about 7 36 exposure rolls in film.. Withing a few hours of returning home I had everything edited and now I can use the film over again!.<br>

Frankly I don't know why any show would do a film v. digital comparison now. It's a moot point. The battle is over--at least at the 35mm level.</p>