35mm film vs 5DII - Low light performance

[mauro_franic]

<p>As Dave said, please share.</p>

<p>Dan, hopefully you will come back, there is no need to bend your position, just have the desire to participate.</p>

<p>- if you can use the thread to present you analysis of the results, everyone would appreciate it and happily engage.<br>

- if you can use the discussion to learn, please ask any questions about the shoot and I will try to to answer them to my best.<br>

- if your experience is different to these results, we are all eager and grateful for you to share your examples as well.</p>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>It really amuses me how the digital shooters insist on having 'the better system'. Not one single digital top notch DSLR with a full frame sensor is capable to deliver full 16bit per channel off the sensor. But film is. Film doesn't need a Bayer sensor and captures 100% of the light, whereas digital needs to process the 10% it captures to a full 100% internally.<br>

When I read statements like '6 MP are equal to or better than 35 mm film' I have to laugh about such a BS.</p>

<p>I've compared the resolution of 35 mm to full frame 35 mm digital <a href="http://tinyurl.com/6c2vxmf">here</a></p>

<p>And the limited color range of digital compared to film <a href="http://tinyurl.com/2wsbd76">here</a> (bilingual, scroll down for the English version)</p>

<p>Anything else - as long as you don't talk about MF digital like i.e. the brand new phase one systems - is hot air.<br>

BTW, I don't even have a digital camera at all. But I do understand that some professionals need fast results, so I don't mind if they use digital systems.<br>

Would I trade i.e. my Contax G2 systems with titanium bodies and the unmatched ZEISS lenses? Never! Or my 6x9 Fujis for a Hasselbald? Please, no!<br>

Just my 2 cents.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Mauro -- I am interested in your DSLR "CV".<br>

I.e., how experienced are you with the 5D2 or similar cameras and the post processing involved? Have you shot 10s of thousands of images and are VERY familiar with the post processing -- as expert in Raw Conversion/Photoshop as you are with film darkroom processing?</p>

<p>Bottom line though -- the proof is in the print, be it a 1000 px wide Web image presentation or an 18x12 inch print. </p>

[DickArnold]

So another thread that has deteriorated to film vs. digital debate. This is a very flawed comparison from which I don't think anyone could draw valid conclusions. I am no longer, in the strict sense of the term, a professional photographer. I have, however, aspired to be professional in my work. What I aspire to is a full knowledge and capability in all aspects of the photographic endeavor. I am still taking on-line classes to try and broaden that knowledge. Earlier in the ninetes I gained knowledge of the use of film, flash, studio lights, etc in my business and in the last eight years I have done my best to gain a professional's knowledge of digital including LR 3, CS-5 and digital printing. I had a film darkroom for a number of years as well as a studio. I also had Bronica 645 equipment to do weddings and I have a fondness for MF prints made from my transparencies made from pictures taken now a decade or more ago. I think arguing and becoming incensed over which is better film or digital is pointless. Each has its attributes and drawbacks. I just think of one or the other as part of the arsenal that I am capable to use to take pictures. There have been some good posts on this thread. Mauro I would not, under any circumstance submit two full res uploads for someone to analyze and compare on this thread as you requested. As was stated earlier, there are too many variables such as what was used to scan the MF image, the scanner resolution, the differences in eqipment i.e. a Bronica 645 vs. an XTi with a 100-400, the time year and time of day they were taken and how they were both processed digitally.. The images(Portland Head Light) look similar in my PN gallery but nothing could be gained by postng them full res size because of these unaccounted for variables not to mention my copyright. Differneces such as these, plus many unsupported assumptions, are what, in my miind, render such comparisons as these virtually useless. So Mauro I don't know what you hoped to accomplish and I wish you well but this thread has become rather circular. I did gain something from the more rational posts on this thread.

[mauro_franic]

Ken, i am very familiar with raw processing. For this particular post, as I stated, the dpp conversions were very

simple. Most settings in neutral, sharpness at 4, NR standard and NR off.

 

Now pls answer a question for me. In your experience shooting live concerts in low light, do you?

A) get better results with bw film than these.

B) get better results with color film than these.

C) get better results with the 5dii than these

D) some of the above.

E) none of the above

F) have no experience.

[mauro_franic]

Thank you Dick and I understand. I only asked bcs you offered the comparison.

 

What is your opinion of the shots I posted individually instead of relative to one another?.

[KenPapai]

<p><em>Now pls answer a question for me. In your experience shooting live concerts in low light, do you? A) get better results with bw film than these. B) get better results with color film than these. C) get better results with the 5dii than these D) some of the above. E) none of the above F) have no experience.</em></p>

<p>I've been shooting live rock concerts since 1975. 35mm film and DSLRs.<br>

I find a DSLR a much better tool for me. Much better. Esp. for printing large.</p>

[rossb]

<p>I think a brand new book smells good. Probably better then a negative actually. I have never smelled a 5D but I know a guy that owns one. I will ask him if it smells real good or if it's stinky. I know he does not like the pictures from his 5D because he wants to upgrade it as soon as possible. But then he owns 100 paris of tennis shoes so it's hard to figure out what the deal is. He was wearing Pink sneaks today. They were really cool.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Ken, great.</p>

<p>Could you please post a 20MP+ DSLR concert picture at ISO 3200 at 100% for comparison?</p>

<p>This should be better than the one I posted, hopefully, and illustrate a better example of DSLRs low light performance.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Ken, I saw your pictures. I love the San Fransisco harbor. Very neat looking.</p>

[DickArnold]

I have only one comment since you asked. I do a great number of swimming competition images in low light with ISO 3200/1600 under weird sodium vapor lights and a variety of lighting mixes including flash, daylight through windows with a 5D not a 5DII. The skin tones are never orange if the photo is corrected to the proper color temp or is properly set in the camera for JPEG. I shoot raw and have to do WB corrections in ACR because the mixtures of color temps. No I won't post a 20MB example. You are either underexposed on the 5DII picture or your white balance is way off or a combination of both. Based upon my experience in low light that picture is a poor example of what could be done. The color temp looks around 3000 in your 5Dii picture. Look at your own film pictures for comparison. Didn't you see the difference? The color temp in your film color pictures looks around 5500 where you used flash. Apparently you did not use flash which gives a color temp of 5500 or so and there is probably some subject moverment as well. It is not IMO an acceptable image.

[KenPapai]

<p>Mauro -- I am not arguing with you at all or calling into deep question your skills. I think this thread is useful and your take on things is valuable and positive. Go for it man! Keep up the good work and the photo coverage of rock music.</p>

<p>Personally, with any camera, ISOs above 800 start bothering me. ;-)</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Dick, I understand you question now. The light on the singer was red and white. The color of the picture matches the mood of the performance - it is deliberate.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>No prob Ken. I am hardened to take edgy discussions s a price to post any test.</p>

[josh_rienecke]

<p>"You are either underexposed on the 5DII picture or your white balance is way off or a combination of both"</p>

<p>Dick how do you know the white balance is way off? If you were not at the show and don't know the colored can spotlight setup of the club you cannot possibly criticize Mauro's color processing, lights change frantically from one second to another in the majority of rock concerts. </p>

<p> Not sure how you can say it is underexposed either, from his flash usage looks like it was a very dimly lit venue with no hot white spots in the front (judging from the pics only) and just dim colored lights and maybe some bright white backlighting.</p>

[DickArnold]

Inasmuch as this thread is titled 35mm film vs. 5DII-low light performance, the film pictures were not taken in low light as flash was used producing obviously adequate exposure at a color temp of around 5500k. The 5D picture was taken using apparently weaker strobes with a color cast that approximates incandescent light or somewhere around 3000k. The skin color in the flash pictures looks near normal while the skin color in the 5D appears an abnormal orange. If you look at the blocked up shadows on the performers arm in the 5D picture compared to the film pictures where you can see into those shadows I do think that that picture is underexposed in comparison with the film pictures. Underexposure produces increased noise at ISO 3200. Regardless of whether Mauro used proper processing or not, what the hell kind of comparison is this. It is, at best, misleading. The only picture, in my mind that was shot in low light was probably the 5DII picture. I have not seen any shutter speeds of which the only one relavent is the non-flash speed. The flash obviously overwhelmed the flashing lights and color cast that influenced the 5d image as you could not see any color cast in the flash pictures.. The only reason I commented on this was that Mauro asked me to. We are comparing apples to oranges (pun intended). Portra was great film when I did weddings.

[mauro_franic]

<p>Ok.</p>

[david_love2]

<p>Mauro: thanks so much for your posts, as well as to all who responded. I have missed your comparisons lately and was pleased to see you posting again. You have provided a lot of valuable info about the new portra. I have a D700 and it is an unbelievable capture machine....but it is my Mamiya 645 and F100 that give me the most pleasure and satisfaction. Please continue with any and all comparisons with film. It is greatly appreciated.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Thank you very much David for appreciating it. </p>

<p>Michael Reichmann from the Luminous Landscape just issued a challenge to film versus his new 80 megapixel digital back. </p>

<p>We are emailing eachother and I am trying to convince him to expand the challenge to 6x7 (instead of 8x10 as he posted). There is a lot of PR risk for him to have a comparison of MF film vs an 80MP back as the results may contradict his previous articles but if he accepts I will let you know.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>That would be interesting Mauro. He already contradicted himself though. He first stated the old 1Ds beat 6x7. Then later he said that 645 was just a bit better than the 1Ds2. That kind of doesn't work. But despite some of his "warts," I think he's an OK guy.</p>

<p>I think it will come down to print size. I found a P45 at 39mp can pretty much match 4x5 up to 24x30. So it is possible that 80mp could match 8x10 at 24x30. Yes, the film will maintain more detail, but the acutance of the digital file will hold the edge sharpness better in the lower contrast areas. <br>

But this much I do know.....my scans of 35mm film hold way more detail than a Canon D30 ;-)</p>

 

[mauro_franic]

<p>Ha.... it seems you track his articles.</p>

<p>I thought it would be a great opportunity to shoot side by side and compare results. I agree acutance is higher (for better or for worse) and detail will give the edge to film.</p>

<p>Also true it comes to print sizes. My scans of 6x7 have more detail than my Epson can print at 24x32; so definitely at least 30x40 would be needed to judge diferences on paper.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Here is the link.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/phase_one_iq180_field_report.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/phase_one_iq180_field_report.shtml</a></p>

<p>BTW, he even says the challenge is with film drum scanned. Ouch.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Let us know.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I look forward to seeing the results of Reichmann's challenge. I like his site, BTW. But his 1Ds vs Pentax 67 comparison showed that he was partly deluded - the Canon actually did very well, but he was talking about things which were not evident and didn't notice things which were obvious.</p>

<p>80Mpx sounds like a lot, but is 'only' double the resolution of a D3X. It's approximately the same difference between 645 and 8-perf 135.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Michael responded it he tested it already. I responded back that I would really love to have the opportunity to participate in his challenge (where a drum scanned Mamiya 7II will be comfortable against an 80 megapixel bayer sensor).</p>

<p>Radio silence from his side now. Hope he keeps his challenge open.</p>