D700 VS F5

[RaymondC]

<p>I know very little amateurs in my club that still shoot film. </p>

<p>Granted, I think they are taken by the pixel peeping. They are taken by internet discussions and wanting the latest and greatest and if pro's use digital then I should too kind of thing. Digital is just so easy, shoot 500 or delete all, or take 1000 and keep them all and keep 2 images for presentation. </p>

<p>I am not surpried if out club has got rid of the slide projectors, they put 2 for sale on their newsletter a while back and the 3yr I been there not one member used it, maybe 1 or 2 visitor speakers used it. </p>

<p>But film is just getting too expensive from my country. Film photog has always been expensive, Kodak Portra was maybe $8-9US for a roll in 2003, now maybe $14US, slides, $20US, Provia 400 perhaps $27US. Lab cost not bad, like the USA but mounting is extra. You have to be a hard case to import your film from the USA, I do that to printer ink and papers they are 2x here. Evenb back in 2003 a Nikon F100 was new at $2,000usd for us, or $1,300usd for a used one.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>As we can see in hig rez scans that 35mm can match, or exceed even an 18mp Canon 7D</p>

</blockquote>

<p>WHERE do we see this? Not in the countless thousands of film slides that I've taken over the years, and not in the hundreds of prints that I've had made from slides at professional labs. All I can report is what I've seen with my own eyes in my own experience. And in that experience, the D700 beats film.</p>

<p>I still spend four figures every year on film and processing and scanning, so please don't brand me as a film hater. I am as fair a judge on this topic as anyone. I have no axe to grind, digital or analog. I'm simply reporting what I have seen over and over and over again. If you don't agree, that's fine. If you have evidence to the contrary, that's wonderful. If you'd like to share it, I'll consider it.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Yes, I am looking at different samples including the ones linked above, in which you obviously confuse resolution with sharpness.</em></p>

<p>Look more closely. Map symbols such as capitals, and accents on characters, are better resolved (i.e. have a more true shape) on the 7D sample than on the Velvia sample. More importantly, the 7D has significantly more texture in relief details of the map. Many of the mountains in Velvia are just shaded blobs, where the 7D actually renders contours and texture.</p>

<p><em>I assure you that film (especially fine-grained film such as Velvia) looks much better in reality than in any scan ever made.</em></p>

<p>You can assure me all you want, but I trust my own eyes and microscope. Perhaps when I have some free time I will digiscope some slide samples through a microscope and post those.</p>

<p><em>What I do see is that Velvia resolved rivers in Ghana, Nigeria and the Congo correctly as blue lines, whereas the demosaicing algorithm of the 7D interpreted them as green. I think this speaks about the colour resolution of Bayer sensors.</em></p>

<p>Most of the colors which you assume are errors in the 7D sample are in fact correct as they appear that way in my copy of the map. Comparing my map to the 7D sample Nigeria's river lines are the only obvious error (on the map it's river lines are more blue-green, not just green, but still not the same shade of blue as on Velvia). Other RAW converters are able to handle Nigeria correctly, but I choose ACR for this test because out of the RAW converters I have it is able to extract the most fine detail.</p>

<p>Likewise with the grid line that passes through the Congo. It is that shade on my map. (Notice there are no visible contours in Ghana or Congo on the Velvia sample, but they are clearly visible on the 7D sample.)</p>

<p><em>The 7D image is higher in contrast and apparent sharpness and not as noisy as the scan, that's all. I think I prefer the Velvia crop over the 7D one.</em></p>

<p>To each his own, but I can't imagine any reason for you to say that other than it's film and you feel a need to defend film. Again I'll add a disclaimer that these are extreme magnifications, and Velvia does not look that fuzzy or hazy at normal print sizes. Velvia can make beautiful prints.</p>

<p><em>Daniel, what happened to the border lines running through Lake Chad in the 7D crop? Is it not the same map?</em></p>

<p>It's not the same copy of the map (same product number obviously) and there are no border lines running through Lake Chad on my copy of the map.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>so are we still on the resolution thing?</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Dan South - Scott Wilson hit on an important point earlier. Film's resolving power depends greatly on detail contrast. If you want 35mm Velvia to clearly out resolve a Nikon D700, a Canon 7D, or even a Nikon D3x, simply shoot a 1000:1 test target. If you want it to be somewhere between those bodies, shoot a 100:1 target. If you want the DSLRs to be clearly ahead, shoot a 1.6:1 test target. It's the last one that's representative of the contrast of <em>fine details</em> in most photographs made.</p>

<p>You can see this even in the map test where Velvia can edge out a D2x, and stay pretty close to a 7D (apart from sharpness) on the black text. But the map contours, which consist of much lower contrast details? Forget it. Digital does much better.</p>

<p>There's also a lot more that can go wrong with film in terms of extracting the maximum amount of detail. Film flatness, developing, then film flatness again during printing or scanning, optical printing or scanning issues, etc.</p>

<p>And different subjects play to different strengths. A portrait has more coarse, low contrast details that a DSLR is exceptionally good at picking up, even older 8-10 MP models. A landscape has more fine details that elude all but the latest DSLRs, leading to foliage at a distance that can end up looking like blobs in print.</p>

<p>For these many reasons I can understand why opinions are often all over the place about which is better. But I will reiterate that, going by the D2x sample at Les Sarile's site (12 MP), the D700 should be able to out resolve all but the very best samples of Velvia in color. (By "sample" I mean a Velvia shot of a subject which plays to its strengths, where the film is perfectly handled throughout the process from shooting all the way through to printing.) Going by the 7D samples I've provided above, I would say anything 15 MP or higher can match or exceed even Velvia except perhaps when shooting very high contrast test charts.</p>

<p>And it must be mentioned that among color films, Velvia has a good 20% more resolution than the next best color film.</p>

<p>Again, I don't think resolution is a valid reason to choose one or the other any more. There are certainly valid reasons to want to shoot film. But the flip side is that digital technology has come very far and is capable of amazing image quality. So just choose the tool you enjoy, the tool that helps you get the job done whatever that job may be.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>so are we still on the resolution thing?</em></p>

<p>Resolution, dynamic range, and noise are well defined and fairly well tested. The other major aspect is tonality. I'm curious as to what would be an ideal test for tonality since some people claim film does better here, but that has not been my experience. Note that I define tonality as the ability to distinguish between colors and tones. Velvia may have a more pleasing palette than an unadjusted RAW file for some subject matter, but can it actually distinguish more tones within the same format? I think not, but there needs to be repeatable way to test this or else there's little point in arguing it.</p>

<p>What else is there, other than whether it's more fun to use Photoshop or a darkroom? (I like both actually.)</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>hang on Dan, are you now saying that my D3 will have a greater dynamic range than the 135 film that I shoot? as for resolving power....the human eye doesn't resolve everything the same, and does so in much the same fashion as film. digital doesn't discriminate...everything is rendered the same. this is mostly why digital images look "funny" compared to the nicer rendition of film. as for noise, well film doesn't have any.</p>

<p>i'd also like to investigate the technique in which you scan your film dan.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I certainly would not choose 35mm film for its resolution advantage over the better DSLRs such as the D700 and 7D. Even that there is an advantage in resoultion with the film it does not help much if the only way to see it is with a microscope. I still like to shoot film but I don't kid myself that that even my D80 will more often as not produce cleaner sharper results.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>Again the issue of film vs digital? I thought it's over because everyone makes his/her own choice anyway. We have compared a lot about prices, resolution, colors, availability, time consuming,... but it seems to me that everyone missed out the one obvious point that I care about; that is the film cameras dont have film in them and the digital cameras have their own fixed one-and-only imager (sensor) inside.<br>

1. Being seperate and independent from the films, the film cameras can be made to the highest quality and expected to last forever (or at least longer than the person who uses them and the availability of film itself). That is why we still hear someone talking about using the F2, FM, AE-1, New F1 but not the Kodak DSLRs. Why make the D700 or even D2X with highest quality built body if it is gonna be obsolete in a short time? There are many people saying they love the F2 or F3 more than the F5 but I havent heard anyone saying they love the D2X more than the D3X<br>

2. The camera manufacturers want us to upgrade our cameras very often to get more profit. is that why they have to sell lenses more expensive than the cameras themselves?<br>

3. I hope that some of us here already want to correct me that the (digital) cameras dont necessarily have a fixed sensor and indeed there was more flexibility before of using a digital back than now. Well this flexibility is good for us but not good for their profit</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Frank, I have run extensive tests of several films with examination under the microscope.</p>

<p>I can answer you question on film directly without having to research the web.</p>

<p>On a high contrast subjects the resolution contained in my strips was in the following ranges (depending on the contrast of the target and development):<br /> *** 35mm film:<br /> Ektar: 3,600-3800dpi<br /> Velvia: 4,000-4,400dpi<br /> TMAX: 6,000-6500dpi</p>

<p>In comparison and to address the OP question:<br /> *** DSLR per DPreview<br /> Nikon D700: 2,200dpi</p>

<p>Also the Coolscan 9000 resolves effectively:<br>

Horizontally: 3,900dpi<br>

Vertically: 3,600dpi</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Note that film's resolution at lower contrast is only 50-70% of its high contrast resolution.</p>

[lukerossknecht]

<p>I dunno guys, this horse <em>looks</em> dead, but there's only one way to be sure. . . </p>

[frank_gary]

<p>Thanks. I figure even if there is no agreement on the digital film resolution issue now there must be some resoultion of digital where there is no question and we end up discussing other aspects such as color shift or something. </p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>My first DSLR, the Konica Minolta 5D was, as far as image quality was concerned (at 6.1MP) roughly similar to what I got from my 600si and the Minolta Dimage Scan Dual III scanner at the time. And my Coolscan V ED is roughly similar in quality to later cameras in the 10 MP range. I dont' think it's image quality that makes the difference, it's more of a workflow issue.</p>

<p>If you enjoy sitting at the computer and using photoshop (as I do) digital will be what you shoot. If you enjoy the darkroom experience, then go with the F5 (never had one, but used one once and it was a great machine). Either way you will get great images. I do like coming home from a shoot, clicking the cards into the reader and seeing my pictures come up in Aperture like magic, filling my 24" color monitor!</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2071900">Dan South</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Mar 23, 2010; 01:21 a.m.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>As we can see in hig rez scans that 35mm can match, or exceed even an 18mp Canon 7D</p>

</blockquote>

<p>WHERE do we see this? Not in the countless thousands of film slides that I've taken over the years, and not in the hundreds of prints that I've had made from slides at professional labs. All I can report is what I've seen with my own eyes in my own experience. And in that experience, the D700 beats film.</p>

 

<p>I still spend four figures every year on film and processing and scanning, so please don't brand me as a film hater. I am as fair a judge on this topic as anyone. I have no axe to grind, digital or analog. I'm simply reporting what I have seen over and over and over again. If you don't agree, that's fine. If you have evidence to the contrary, that's wonderful. If you'd like to share it, I'll consider it.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You've taken thousands of 35mm slides and compared them to the same shots on a 7D? Please post some.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Like many said, resolution should not be your deciding factor unless it is limiting for the size of print you intend to produce.</p>

<p>Also if the D700's resolution is enough for you, then 35mm film will be have plenty to meet your needs as well.</p>

<p>The look of different films is very different. The look of film in general and digital are very very different. The workflows are very different also. You will have to pick which one you like better by examining the prints and which one you enjoy using more.</p>

[leo_papandreou1]

<p>135 Velvia looks bad on a monitor compared to digital (0-1), but better projected than digital does on a monitor (1-1), and better on a monitor than digital does projected (2-1). If you'd rather compare apples with apples, drum scanned Velvia prints about the same as an Alpha 900, for prints well past the practical enlargement size of either medium (3-2). Digital is cheaper than drum scans (3-3), and better at high ISO (3-4). OTOH it's no fun (4-4). Gentlemen, nerds, it appears we have a tie. Turn off your computers and go outside.</p>

[timothy_gray]

<p>Leo has offered the best advice by far:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Turn off your computers and go outside"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's been two days now since the last response by the OP, in which he pretty much thanked everyone for their advice/opinions and mentioned he'd come to a decision. He's getting the F5.</p>

<p>Let's all move on to the next topic, shall we?</p>

[mirceaciuca]

<p>I use F100 and D300.<br>

I test the autofocus in low light, in diferent situation, etc.<br>

I just love my F100. Kicks ass on D300.<br>

Lens tested: 85/1.8 AF-D, 105/2 DC AF-D, 200/4 micro AF ED IF, 50/1.4 AF-D, 20/2.8 AF-D, etc.</p>

<p>Nikon Coolscan 9000 (or 5000) or Epson 500,600 (or 750). If you need big prints, take Nikon. If you want to print A4 take fladbed scanner.<br>

Why not a F100? Is cheeper, easy, almost like F5. A little minus...from me : it dosent have MLU. I use tripod :)</p>

[ArthurRichardson]

<p>I tried to shove a roll of Velvia in my D700, but the results were so so.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Same here Arthur. I put a roll of Fuji Pro 160S in....but the dynamic range and latitude was reduced.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Josh tells us that we should provide an explanation when we close a thread. For this thread, an explanation is not necessary.</p>