35mm film vs 5DII - Low light performance

[ray .]

Quality of light is such a major factor (probably the biggest factor) in how an image looks, that I really am

a bit confused about the point of this thread.

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I really am a bit confused about the point of this thread.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />As usual, it has turned into a digital versus film debate which, as with most of these things, is actually a digital versus scanner debate.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote>

<p>Jamie, no need to defend digital since it does great. I apologize for the confusion, I was asking to post your own results with film (not a 1.5 megapixel downsized digital picture from someone else).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mauro, I'm wasting my time here. I could post my own results from film and then all the film fan boys would just criticise my methods and blame film's inferior performance on my own skill and working methods.</p>

<p>You people need to get real. Stop fantasising about the glory days of film. It's over. Digital is ahead and will keep pulling ahead at a rapid rate of knots. If you haven't realised that by now then you never will.</p>

<p>Like I said earlier, I love using film. For the past two weeks all I have done is shoot with my EOS 3, Bronica SQ-A, Nikon FM2 and a Fuji GA645. I prefer shooting film because it's great fun, it's romantic, I love developing my own negatives and I love the look of the grain. But saying 35mm film can compete with modern DSLRs in low light is just plain stupid.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>You people need to get real. Stop fantasising about the glory days of film. It's over.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It obviously is over for you but the rest of us are not you.</p>

<p>My personal view is that film and digital are about equal for the same image size. Nothing to do with technology but more to do with the laws of physics. For me, the advantage that film has is that it is easy to make it in large sizes whereas it is cost prohibitive to make large sensors.<br>

I will agree with you about digital's advantage in low light but I don't do that myself. Before digital turned up, everyone was happy with ISO 100 and 400. Now, everyone seems to want crystal clear images taken at ISOs in the thousands.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote>

<p>My personal view is that film and digital are about equal for the same image size. Nothing to do with technology but more to do with the laws of physics. For me, the advantage that film has is that it is easy to make it in large sizes whereas it is cost prohibitive to make large sensors.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>So by that statement I can assume you also believe that an APS film camera such as Canon's EOS IX7 can match the image quality of the Canon EOS 7D or Nikon D300s. After all, they're the same image size.</p>

<p>And I'm sure you also believe that 35mm film blows the Canon EOS 1D MkIV away because the 1D MkIV's sensor is considerably smaller than a frame of 35mm film, regardless of the fact that it can shoot at <a href=" 102,400</a>.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Sorry, incorrect link in my previous post. Should have been <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/patrickmayon/4286188954/sizes/o/in/photostream/">this.</a></p>

[huang_shao_hui]

<p>So Jamie, you're showing us a high ISO comparison of 1dMk IV vs 1dMk IV vs 1dMk IV vs 1dMk IV ? Does that make your 'test' any more valid than Mauro's test? At least in Mauro's test there are photo from 5DII and various films... :) Is this how you unqualified Mauro's test by showing what you can get with 1dMKIV only? This is real puzzling ...</p>

<p>Also, from your previous statement, is it restricted to what latest dslr can do on HIGH ISO only, or is it applicable to all situations? If it's the latter, then I'm afraid what ever you said 3 posts earlier can be applied to you, with the change of digital to film and vice versa from many other's perspective.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote>

<p>So Jamie, you're showing us a high ISO comparison of 1dMk IV vs 1dMk IV vs 1dMk IV vs 1dMk IV ? Does that make your 'test' any more valid than Mauro's test?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The link I provided about the MkIV was not a "test" like Mauro's. It is not even my image... it's just the first shot I came across on flickr. There are more examples of how DSLRs perform at high ISO <a href=" and <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/manro3/5467918369/sizes/o/in/photostream/">here</a> and <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/canonmonster/4276038886/sizes/o/in/photostream/">here</a> and <a href=" and <a href=" and <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsrice00/4695505137/sizes/o/in/photostream/">here</a> and <a href=" and just about everywhere you look on the web.</p>

<p>Low ISO? No problem. Here's a crappy shot of mine. First the full shot:<br>

<img src="http://www.lanticocean.co.uk/misc/image.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>And now a 100% crop:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.lanticocean.co.uk/misc/100.jpg" alt="" width="374" height="562" /></p>

<p>Even after these examples I am sure you film fanboys will still no doubt say 35mm film can compete. I even know what's coming next from you... pictures of coloured pencils and crayons taken at different exposures, talk of dynamic range blah blah blah...</p>

<p>Don't you realise you are all a laughing stock in photographic circles? You're still clinging on to this insane belief after all this time. Sure, 35mm film is better than digital. That's why emulsions are getting dropped all the time and film sales are through the floor compared to 10 years ago.</p>

<p> </p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Jamie,you keep posting links to downsized digital images from other people. First, they are not relevant so small, but second and most importantly DIGITAL HIGH ISO PERFORMANCE IS NOT IN QUESTION.</p>

<p>Your point is that you can't get good results with film correct?</p>

<p>Please answer a simple question, what scanner do you have and how do you scan your film.</p>

<p>Also if possible, please post your own shots where you determined that film's low light performance was not good.</p>

<p>It is almost always the case (with the exception of Daniel and a few others) that people have formed their opinions with film using substandard equipment, or worse, by just listening to other people who were doing the same.<br /> Look forward to the samples.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Jamie, you are the only one who has a belief about film - until you replace it with experience. We have experience and share it for open debate.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Here's a simple and economical test anyone can do. Take a roll of Portra 400, shoot it at ISO 1600, develop it for $2 at Target with no prints. Scan it at home. Post the results.</p>

<p>About as quick as it gets for a test.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Jamie,you keep posting links to downsized digital images from other people. First, they are not relevant so small,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In among my links are a couple of full size files.</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

<p>but second and most importantly DIGITAL HIGH ISO PERFORMANCE IS NOT IN QUESTION. Your point is that you can't get good results with film correct?</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>Wrong, I get great results with film. If I didn't I would have quit photography 2 decades ago. It's just that as far as image quality goes, my digital gear surpasses 35mm film every single time.</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

<p>Please answer a simple question, what scanner do you have and how do you scan your film.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>I have a Canon FS4000US scanner and use Vuescan.</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

<p>Also if possible, please post your own shots where you determined that film's low light performance was not good.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>Sorry, I don't keep below par shots... they go straight in the bin. Besides, when the light level is too low I don't even bother using film as it's a waste of time.</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

<p>It is almost always the case (with the exception of Daniel and a few others) that people have formed their opinions with film using substandard equipment, or worse, by just listening to other people who were doing the same.<br /> Look forward to the samples.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>My full flickr account is <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jackthehat/">here</a>. My full res shots are never uploaded but there are plenty of film shots in my flickr gallery. I don't use substandard equipment.</p>

<p>I'm not going to waste hours of my time digging through my archive to try and find shots for you to shoot to pieces. I know the truth, the vast majority of professional photographers know the truth and so do most people on photo.net. It's just the small handful of die-hard film fanboys that will fight to the death for something they know was outdated years ago.</p>

 

[mauro_franic]

<p>"I have a Canon FS4000US scanner and use Vuescan.", "I don't use substandard equipment."</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>"when the light level is too low I don't even bother using film"<br>

That is why you have no experience with it.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>I love your self portrait though.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Mauro,</p>

<p>Tell me why the FS4000US is substandard. It's not exactly a drum scanner but it is still one of the very best 35mm film scanners.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"when the light level is too low I don't even bother using film"<br /> That is why you have no experience with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How on earth do you think I know film is no good in low light? From years of experience of course! Sure, if it's a landscape and the camera is tripod mounted film is beautiful. But for handheld shots in dark conditions it doesn't even begin to compare with digital.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I love your self portrait though.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you. That's very kind of you to say so. :-)</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>No need to go in circles. If you have a chance give it a shot and run a quick test with Portra 400 at EI 1600. I think having the results in your hand may change your perspective.</p>

<p>While it is true that you can't match with film the results you can obtain with a DSLR, that is your experience. This is not the same for other people.</p>

[tony_leinster]

<p>Sorry Mauro but you keep asking other people to post shots to back their point of view. OK, fair play, why don't you post shots using identical ISO, lens, lighting etc. Just so we can see you prove your point. Apart from your very flawed first examples I have seen nothing to validate your claims here. In fact as an unbiased member I think of the 100% crops I prefer those of the 5DII notwithstanding a slight softness which may be due to DOF (@f1.8) or camera shake. Or even better stop this thread now as it has become the same old pointless nonsense that film vs digital usually becomes, I'm sure that's not what you want really!</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Sure, 35mm film is better than digital. That's why emulsions are getting dropped all the time and film sales are through the floor compared to 10 years ago.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Convenience is the driving force here, not quality.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p><em>Convenience is the driving force here, not quality.</em></p>

<p>I pretty much agree with that -- esp. considering the very high quality of Ektar 100 35mm.</p>

<p>35mm film is most certainly dead but is kept "alive" by those few of us (maybe 1% now) still shooting a few rolls of film. Just like vinyl records -- that tech. is dead too, but there will always be 0.1% of the market that will keep it "alive."</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>And valves (tubes). I build valve based audio recording equipment with that 'dead' technology.</p>

<p>http://www.freewebs.com/stevesmithphoto/valve.html</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I pretty much agree with that -- esp. considering the very high quality of Ektar 100 35mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The same Ektar 100 which originally was only going to be sold in 35mm, then due to demand, was released in 120 and is now available in 5x4 and 10x8. </p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote>

<p>35mm film is most certainly dead but is kept "alive" by those few of us (maybe 1% now) still shooting a few rolls of film. Just like vinyl records -- that tech. is dead too, but there will always be 0.1% of the market that will keep it "alive."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>35mm is being kept alive by the movie industry, most of whom still prefer to shoot productions on film. When the moviemakers go fully digital we'll really see if 35mm can survive. I hope it does.</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>Movie production does use a fair amount of film but the vast majority of it is in copies for distribution.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>"we have seen nothing to validate your claims here".</p>

<p>Tony, thank you for participating. Please specify which claim you don't feel you can validate and I will try to provide clarification.</p>

[paulie_smith1]

<p>Now try something like an 8 hour star trail exposure with film and digital.<br>

Add in winter cold such as 17 below zero like we had last night.<br>

Manual film cameras still work just fine in the cold and with long exposures.</p>