35mm film vs 10.1mp DSLR?

[donaldamacmillan]

<p>Hi folks</p>

<p>I'm just wondering for the sake of my curiosity alone, no other reason. </p>

<p>I've got a Nikon FM3a manual film camera, i use quite a lot still, and i've got a Canon 40D. I just started wondering, which of these cameras that i am fortunate enough to own has the greatest potential - if used by someone who really knows how to get the best out of these models - to produce the better quality image? In terms of detail/resolution and perhaps faithful rendering of a scene/subject, etc? </p>

<p>I'm not trying to start any film vs digital debate in a negative or critical way because i love using both. I just wonder whether a good quality sensor can compete or actually out-perform a film in the faithful capture of an image when examined under close scrutiny. I'm not a professional photographer or particularly technically knowledgable about the chemistry of film processing/development or the workings of a DSLR, so please forgive me if this is a pain-in-the-backside kinda question! </p>

<p>Best wishes<br>

Donaldo</p>

 

[doug grosjean]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>There's too many variables to give a blanket statement above. </p>

<p>But in general, in my experience and opinion, digital at slow ISO settings is about as sharp as fine-grained 35mm when you hit 6-8 megapixels. When you get into higher mega-pixels, digital has an edge over 35mm.</p>

<p>Disclaimer: Above is based on shooting both, and comparing results. I haven't done lens tests on the two cameras above, but I do sometimes shoot film and digital side-by-side at the same event, and that's what I've seen when comparing prints afterward.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not trying to start any film vs digital debate</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You don't need to try. It will start all by itself! </p>

<p>Quite often these debates are really scanner vs. digital debates as most respondants offering images to show the difference will obviously have to scan the negatives.<br>

In the case of optically made prints it may be a totally different story.</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>I have no particular dog in this fight - I had a 25 year professional love affair with film (8x10, 4x5, 6x7, 6x6 and 35mm) and now use digital exclusively. </p>

<p>At this point, and considering your comment <em>"I'm not a professional photographer or particularly technically knowledgable about the chemistry of film processing/development or the workings of a DSLR..." </em>I see no real reason for you not to learn to get the best out of your 40D and gracefully retire the FM3. </p>

<p>Astonishing, beautiful and "faithfully rendered" images have been taken with 10Ds, 20Ds, 30Ds and 40Ds - if you spend a little time learning some basic post processing skills you will be more than happy with the results your 40D can deliver. Unlike film, the learning curve will cost you nothing apart from an initial software investment, you alone will have full control of your results and you won't have to drive to, and pay for, processing.</p>

<p>I'm not ignoring the fact that you can also produce wonderful results with film 35mm cameras, but once you become proficient with digital shooting, post processing and printing you won't look back - unless you have a particular passion for film and darkroom work, which you say you don't have.</p>

<p>At the risk of repeating myself, and answering your specific question, either camera can produce all the detail, resolution and color you require. The real issue is which media type (film or digital) makes more sense for you to invest your time to learn and master at this point? Without a particular passion for film and darkroom work, the answer is clearly digital.</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>I find it strange that in this digital era, people are obsessed with detail, resolution, etc. - especially those who had previously been using 35mm film exclusively.<br>

If the detail were really that important to them they would have been using medium or large format instead.<br>

But to answer the question (or give my opinion of it) I think that both film and digital technologies have reached the point at which the laws of physics are the limiting factors in both cases. I think for the same sensor/film size, the resolution is about the same. There is still some work to do with increasing the dynamic range of a digital sensor but as far as getting more pixels is concerned - I think only a larger sensor will do it.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>You've got both so so are the best one to answer that question based on the way you work.<br>

Take out both camera and take some photos like you would normally take. Have prints made and decide which prints you like the best.<br>

Do the samething under a variety of conditions and decide if sometimes it makes sense to use one over the other for certain subjects or certain conditions.<br>

One or mores persons felt that a 3mp Canon D30 was better than scanned 35mm film.<br>

Others felt that you need around 20mp to get to 35mm Velvia.</p>

 

[rossb]

<p> Just shoot them both for a while and see which format clicks for you. I like and use both formats myself.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>In most practical situations, I don't think anyone would ever know the difference. In some ways, it comes down to whether you like the look of grain or not, otherwise they are going to give similar results in most normal applications. I did a comparison between an Hasselblad H2 with iso 400 film (older version of portra 400vc) and a 1dsmkIII set to iso 400. There are pluses and minuses to both. The image below is a slice of my comparison image. The effective size of a print from which this is lifted, at 100dpi (screen size for me) would be 90 inches horizontal, just to give some perspective as to what you are seeing here. (filmed scanned on Imacon 848)</p><div></div>

[m_tt_donuts]

<p>My vote is easily digital, for many reasons. Taking the picture can be half the battle, the digital darkroom is the other half. With color film/slides what you shoot is what you get unless you scan it in as mentioned but at that point you're already behind in quality compared with digital. Then we get into the ISO and WB... if you have 100 ISO film in your film camera and go into a dark room and start shooting indoors it's not like digital where one can crank the ISO to 800 or 1600. Or have 800 ISO film and then go outdoors and start shooting landscapes in bright sunlight. Digital has less noise than film at high ISO anyway. Then WB can easily be set with digital, go from outdoors in sunlight, move to shade, go inside to flourescent light, and move to incandescent you're fine with digital. Film you need filters, or have to scan it in to correct it later. Digital it's easy to take 10 pictures of the same thing and pick the best whereas one is far less inclined with film... and digital you know you got the shot. You know if it's blurry, if someone wasn't looking, blinked, or aperture was too fast, or should recompose because a trashcan or telephone pole wires ended up in the picture.</p>

<p>With film what I liked was, after taking the shot I was pretty much done. With digital I can spend hours & hours editing photos afterward. When it comes to looking at photos, I don't think anything can compare to looking at slides. I have a special loupe that lets me insert a slide to view it and I can point it to the sun for some serious bright detail. To me there's so much depth and detail doing that, I can't say digital on screen is even close. But, according to your rules of giving it to someone who knows what they're doing I think they would do very well with both, but digital would have the edge since the picture is only half the battle, the digital darkroom is the other half and in that aspect is better with digital then scanning in film.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I'd say the advantage above 8 MP is to digital, especially when compared to comparable ISO film above ISO 200.</p>

<p>However, the scanning business is the weak point of film use today, and not just the grain, but the quality of the image resulting in general.</p>

<p>However, the one real advantage for me (having scanned in 10s of thousands of slides, mostly Kodachrome II or 25) is that if you keep your sensor clean, digital is so much freer of specks, etc. Even the best processing in film days from Kodak themselves often left bits of stuff attached to the slide, much less what happens after it is out in the real world for a while. It's like comparing digital sound to vinyl. Everyone forgets about all the "snap, crackle and pop" of imperfections in vinyl. We all had mental filters, and slide projection usually degraded the image enough not to notice the specks the way scanning hi-res does.</p>

<p>By the way, if you treasure the sharpness of film images, you'd better switch off the "automatic noise reduction" routines and manually spot the way print makers did in film days (although using Photoshop instead of a brush, of course).</p>

[andylynn]

<p>How can this possibly not be a film vs. digital thing? :)</p>

<p>Look, here's the thing. Image quality - forget about it. Both the Canon, and the Nikon (assuming halfway decent scanning) have more image quality than you're likely to use. Just use whichever camera you like more.</p>

[mark_ritz]

<p>film is an optical process, digital is an electrical process. They are incomparable.<br>

But if you must compare the final product: I've got one thing for you to think about, there's no replacement for displacement. 135 film is substantially bigger than APS-C sensors (your 40D is only 62.5% the size of a 35mm frame, Nikons are 2/3rds the size). 135 film is a tiny, tiny bit bigger than a "full frame" sensor (the D3's sensor is 0.1mm smaller than a standard 35mm). 645 is gigantic compared to APS-C (Nikon's APS-C sensor is 16% of the size of a 645 frame). 6x7, 6x9, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, ULF just make it worse to look at APS-C sensors (it's less than 3% of a 4x5 frame).<br>

That said, I don't use film for colour any more. Not for the quality reasons - optical prints from 645 or 4x5 are just stunning, and don't even get started on contact prints from a 4x5 - but the chemicals for C-41, E-6, and RA-4 are a hassle to use.</p>

[jim_service]

<p>A friend and I did this exact type of test years ago when the 5D (mk I) came out. I forget what lens he had on, I was using an N90s with the 35-70 f2.8, Provia F100. We got together and framed up exactly the same image and tried to get the sharpest image we possibly could. I scanned the resulting slides with a Minolta Dimage 5400 and resolved it right down to the grain. <br>

We compared those results and found that the two were very closely comparable, so much so that it was impossible to say which was better. Both images started to fall apart at the same amount of enlargment, though in slightly different ways.<br>

Since then, I've believed that a 12 Mpix full frame is the full equal of the (near) best a 35mm film camera can do. Anything above 12 (full frame) is a bonus.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I'm happy to use both but I would not choose one over the other based on resolution or details.<br>

This one is 10mp digital.</p>

<p><a title="DSC_5059 by photogsjm, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4103/5152143104_7b9e949ca9.jpg" alt="DSC_5059" width="500" height="335" /></a></p>

<p>and this one from 35mm film</p>

<p><a title="img166 by photogsjm, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4052/5152142796_f89976e6f7.jpg" alt="img166" width="500" height="317" /></a><br>

Even at small sizes they look a bit different. Click to view them a bit larger and you will see.</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>I gave up on 35mm film years before trying digital. I preferred medium format if I was going to print larger than 8"x12", and 12"x18" was definitely my 35mm film limit. I reluctantly bought an 8mp 20D for low res web photos, and really wanted to hate it. That didn't last long. What really blew my mind was how well large prints (up to 20"x30") from the 20D compared to my prints from my medium format film cameras. </p>

<p>I don't buy the whole film has it's own look and digital has a different look. I think it has more to do with the photographer and their processing/printing choices. I've been studying photographs for decades, and the "look" of film is all over the place. Sometimes it looks great. Much of the time I think "That ought to be reprinted." This summer I delivered a dozen large prints for an art museum exhibition. They were all C-prints made from files from a 20D and 5D. As the curator was checking them in she said "I think there's been a misunderstanding. I thought you were all digital now?" She thought the prints were from medium format film. I ran into that misconception again among the photo enthusiasts and a few pros who came to the opening. I heard "It's good to see that someone is still shooting film" at least three times. </p>

[jim_douglas1]

<p>The one thing with digital is that the pictures all go on a memory card.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't buy the whole film has it's own look and digital has a different look.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It doesn't have <em>a</em> look, it has many looks depending on film choice, exposure, processing, printing method, etc.</p>

[joel_covey]

<p> "There is still some work to do with increasing the dynamic range of a digital sensor but as far as getting more pixels is concerned - I think only a larger sensor will do it."<br>

To go OT a bit I keep seeing some version of the "film has a greater dynamic range than digital" claim in postings. Since from what I've read in the scientific literature and from my own experiments the DR of a digital sensor in a moderately low noise camera is now 11 to 12 stops. So if there is a better film out there where can I buy a couple rolls?</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>Joel, I am in total agreement. I have never had as much consistent control over shadows and highlights or as much detail as shooting digitally - both MF digital and DSLRs (1Ds MkII and III and 5D MkIIs). The somewhat flawed dynamic range argument seems to be the last hold out in justifying film use.</p>

<p>There is a big difference in the film world obviously in the dynamic range between transparencies, color negatives and also black and white negs (processing with low contrast dev and using different paper grades) and theoretically in some situations it may indeed beat digital. However, in the real world a good RAW capture lets me render an image like Velvia, Provia, 64T II or as a black and white image without compromises. When a single type of film lets me do that after a shoot, I'll buy more than a couple of rolls!</p>

<p> </p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<blockquote>

<p>I keep seeing some version of the "film has a greater dynamic range than digital" claim in postings. Since from what I've read in the scientific literature and from my own experiments the DR of a digital sensor in a moderately low noise camera is now 11 to 12 stops.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What is your reference for this statement? Black and white and color negative film can handle highlights in overexposure areas considerably better than digital can.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Corvettes have a top speed of 180 mph. Jeeps chimmy at 60, but handle boulders and parking lot dividers with ease.</p>

<p>Snowmobiles can top 60 mph, and go 50 miles on 60 pounds of gasoline. A dog team struggle to go 15 mph but travel 200 miles on 30 pounds of meat. Dogs swim better than snowmobiles too (but snowmobilers keep trying). Do you have some idea what a smelly mess 30 dogs (a reasonable team for an outfitter) can make?</p>

<p>Film (negative) handles overexposure better than digital. Digital handles shadows and color better than film, not to mention low light levels and long exposures (no reciprocity failure). Reversal film (slides) chokes on both over and under exposure, but looks pretty on a light table.</p>

<p>It's logital to test something to the point of failure, but it's a mistake to ignore the areas in which it excels.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>10 mp digital.</p><div></div>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Film on the left Digital on the right. I prefer the film shot here. I don't the waxy look of the skin in the digital shot.</p><div></div>

[joel_covey]

<p>I agree that a digital sensor is linear and it has not-- and never will have--anything like the shoulder in a D&H curve. So with digital when you blow highlights they are gone forever.<br>

But when I'm talking dynamic range I mean working within the linear part of the D&H curve. That has a useful dynamic range of 7 stops (zones 2 thru 8) with any film I know about.<br>

A typical high end DSLR can collect over 40,000 photo electrons (p-) per pixel before saturation and has a noise floor (camera noise) around 10 p-. To make the calculations simple in my theoretical landscape photo the pixels of the bright white clouds in the sunny sky have 40000 p-. Then the dominate photon shot noise is 200 p- (sq root of the # of p-). That gives a signal to noise of 200.<br>

The pixels of cave with the rattlesnake near the bottom have only 100 p- (12 stops down from the clouds). There the camera and shot noise are equal, (10 p-) and since the two noises are incoherent and just as likely to cancel as add the total noise is 14 p-. So with a S/N of 7 our theoredical photographer will see the rattlesnake and set up his tripod well away from the cave.<br>

Toss in the latest advances of wavelet noise reduction and the digital dynamic range is even greater. So you can see why the newest DSLR now have in camera ISO settings of 25000.<br>

As an available light candid photographer I've willing sacrificed high recovery for low light performance. While I still have a few rolls of film in the frig and own a Nikon F3 I haven't shot a frame of film in years.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I made some test with my D80 a while ago. The towel test like Adams describes in the negative. I found quite alot or recoverable detail in the d80 RAW files much more than I expected. My intention was not to recover the shadows to middle gray as then they become too noisy and shadows are not middle gray anyhow they are nearly black. You can count from the shutter speeds how many stops I covered.</p><div></div>