Film Vs Digital compact test

[alex_hosking]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=290903">Leslie Cheung</a> It's difficult for me to be enthusiastic about photos taken with a pocket digi while my film compacts, SLRs and my DSLR get loads of use, the quality just doesn't appeal to me. I do take photos with them and my phone, but only if a good opportunity comes and I have no other option.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>It's certainly nice to have a better camera with you. But a good picture is a good picture no matter what camera was used, right? That's how I look at it... </p>

[johnw436]

<p>I'm a film die-hard if ever there was one, but let's be honest. Is anyone here seriously considering the purchase of a compact film camera anymore?</p>

<p>For $99 bucks I can go to WalMart and pick up any digital point and shoot off the shelf, regardless of brand, and it is going to take fantastic pictures. 4x6 prints from it will easily match the 4x6 mini-lab prints you get from your 35mm compact. Those minilabs are set up to give the equivalent of a 2MP output anyway, so you were never getting even a fraction of what your film was capable of to begin with.</p>

<p>Aside from a serious photographer who may have just been holding a compact camera when they took the picture, did anyone's mother ever get prints above 5x7? Let's be honest. That's who compacts were made for since the dawn of time. It's the camera the average person owns for happy snaps. Anyone who even knows that this website exists is not the average compact camera consumer.</p>

[alex_hosking]

<p>It may still be a good picture in some respects, like I already said if that once in a lifetime photo comes my way, I'm not going to not take a photo just because I think my camera's crap, but I'll be less likely to like it if it suffers from poor res and noise and blown out highlights. Would Dark Side of the Moon still have been a good album if it was recorded entirely on a Dictaphone?</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Would Dark Side of the Moon still have been a good album if it was recorded entirely on a Dictaphone?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

Street Fighting Man was recorded on a cheap cassette recorder. Charlie Watts played a toy drum kit. Would it have been any better if it was recorded on a Nagra with a real drum kit? I sure don't think so.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Would Dark Side of the Moon still have been a good album if it was recorded entirely on a Dictaphone?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I really don't know as I'm tone deaf and not a Pink Floyd fan. However, Godard's À bout de souffle was shot with amateur equipments w/ no sound sync, mostly handheld and zero portable lighting. It is still my favorite film of all time. When I watch a film, listen to an album, or see an oil painting...I don't ask what camera/recorder/paint brush was used. I see how its totality affects the way I feel and think. Photography speaking, I don't look at Robert Frank's Les Americains and wonder, if he only used a rolleiflex...</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>If it isn't obvious enough, I am not arguing that digital compacts are better than film. I'm just saying they don't matter much, the photographs themselves do...It's also my feeling about raw vs. jpeg as well. Shoot whatever you want, it's most likely good enough...this <a href="http://antoninkratochvil.com/">guy</a> shoots jpeg only, I hear...</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>this <a href="http://antoninkratochvil.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">guy</a> shoots jpeg only, I hear.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

And he's a great photographer. I seriously doubt he worries about "which is better" when he goes out to shoot every day.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Steve Smith, you are clearly <em><strong>not</strong></em> artificially hurting film's chances by not allowing 4x5 etc. The whole point is a compact camera; there may be other reasonable definitions by size and weight, but to me, the relevant standard is whether the camera is able to fit reasonably comfortably into my normal pants pockets. With film, that means 35mm (or smaller), although I suppose if you like pants with really big pockets, you might just squeeze in something like a Fuji GA645. So my Canonet (barely) fit, but my Konica Auto S2 did not. My Canon SX230 fits, but no DSLR does--and something like a micro four-thirds probably would, but only if fitted with a very compact lens.</p>

<p>Alex, for some purposes, sensor size (especially in connection with lens maximum aperture) really does matter. But unless you need to achieve shallow depth of field, the 1/2.3-inch backlit CMOS 12 MP sensor in the SX230 does a pretty good job. Put it this way: I've got down the hall an 11x14-inch print from an SX230 capture that I really think would look worse with any compact 35mm, for film performance reasons.</p>

 

[David_Cavan]

<p>Interesting debate. While you guys were at it today I went out and shot over 100 photos on my DSLR at the Irish Festival in Richmond Virginia. Had a great day, and I actually don't care whether film or digital, small or large would have done it better. What I had worked just fine.</p>

[alex_hosking]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=290903">Leslie</a> You're misunderstanding me, I like 28 Days Later I even bought it on DVD, But that doesn't stop me thinking it would have been more enjoyable to watch if had been shot on better equipment. There's even comedy shows I've downloaded in the past, I have been able to enjoy better watching the DVD.<br /> There are albums I like but don't listen to because the mastering has ruined it in participation of the loudness war, I got half way through the first song on Californication before the constant distortion made me want to throw the disc out of the window. I also have this thing where I can spot fake coins from a few feet away.<br /> I'm sure the Stones were after a certain effect with the toy drum, but obviously would sound a lot better if had been record on a better recorder. But that's not a fair comparison since I couldn't get that song recorded on a better equipment to compare it too, but I could record TDSofM on to a dictaphone and play it back.<br /> Of course that guy is a great photographer Jess, it's easy to make photos look good on the internet even if you're using a phone camera. Being that some of those photos look like they took a lot of effort to set up, I don't know why someone would go to that much trouble only shoot Jpeg. <br /> Also do remember, I do own and use a digital compact, and my phone camera, and I've been looking to get a Fuji T200 recently.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>But that doesn't stop me thinking it would have been more enjoyable to watch if had been shot on better equipment.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>With this logic, why stop at film compacts and aps-c dslr? There's 1.3x dslr, then there's 24x36mm sensor or, so called FF. Then there's weak AA filter FF dslr. Then there's no AA filter dslr. Then, there's no mirror FF camera. Then there's 645, then 6x6, then 6x7, then 6x9, then 4x5 LF etc...</p>

<p>And that's only the camera! Now, let's move into lenses...Zeiss vs Leica vs. Japanese brands, Oh wait, that's East German vs. German Zeiss, before or after occupied? Japan Japan glass or Thailand Japan or Chinese Japan lenses?</p>

<p>How' about jpeg basic vs. fine, vs. 12 bit raw vs. 14 bit, Aperture vs. LR. Smart sharpening or unsharp masked? </p>

<p>Bored yet? How about noise reduction converters? <br>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p>

<p>Or, how about you just stop thinking about IQ and equipments...And just enjoy taking pics, feel the subject and seize the moment?</p>

<p>PS. I'm bored and out. Good luck to ya! BTW Antonin is a documentary (read no setups) photog in VII, a pretty damn good photo co-operative. </p>

<p> </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>This reminds me of the format wars that used to flare up in the days when there was only film. Endless evidence-free arguments that 120 could equal 5x4, or a Minox could beat a Leica - if only that magical grainless film was available - and of course it never was. Despite people using Technical pan exposed at 5 ISO and developed for 3 days in Supersoup Nanograin XXX at a 500:1 dilution.</p>

<p>There are people that will make a mission impossible out of the simplest task. A task like taking a picture for example. Film is in its death throes. Accept it! And why? Because millions of people that don't give a hoot about <em>how</em> they get a picture have taken to digital technology like ducks to water. Ducks that previously found the water too expensive, too complicated, too variable in quality and too elitist. Good luck to them!</p>

<p>Forget these pointless comparisons. Grab whatever camera you like and take some real pictures, not just technical shots designed to show whichever you think is the "one true medium" to its best advantage. But if your chosen medium is film, then perhaps you'd better get on and take those pictures while you still can. Instead of wasting your ever more expensive and limited choice of film fruitlessly trying to prove it's better than digital.</p>

[starvy]

I just wish that in a photographic site such long discussions would include lots of lovely photographic examples to compare both mediums!

[alex_hosking]

<p>I can't get a pocket sized FF digital camera or LF camera, and I'm trying to get he very best quality from something pocket sized.<br>

I think this thread has veered off at a tangent here. If you think I think just because I think a decent pocket film camera is still capable of taking better photos with technically better image quality than digis of a similar size it means that the the digis are worthless, not what I'm saying is that means the film ones aren't.<br />I don't think about equipment all the time and I enjoy taking pictures I got into Flickr Explore today, but there is a limit I won't go beyond, I genuinely find it hard to have enthusiasm for taking photos if I think the camera I'm using is sub standard, however if a good opportunity were to come my way then of course I'm going to take the photo anyway.<br /> For a lot of people the image quality of there work is something they take pride in, just like in any other hobby or profession. There are many aspects as to what makes a good photo the image quality is just one of them.</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>Me and my pal spent an enjoyable day at the wildlife park last year. I took my 1954 Kodak Retina Ib pocket camera loaded with Kodak Gold 200 and he had his new Fuji P&S digital (£150). I had my film processed and scanned at 5 Mb resolution.<br>

When we next met up we compared results on his large monitor. We could both see that the film photos had better tonality and reality than the digital ones (when taken in good light - and also the sunset photos) but the digital pulled ahead for the spotlit interior shots where the film camera showed muddy shadows and a strong orange cast.<br>

He laughed at my antiquated camera but the good quality results really suprised him.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>OP: "OK so we all seen Film Vs Digital test, we get it the digital wins,..."<br>

Wins what? I am sure it means something specific, right? </p>

<p>In 4 recent photography shows I was involved with, about half (or a few more) of all award winners were shot on film. I had two myself. I spent a lot of time browsing the shows, because I love seeing what people think are their best photographs. To my eye (and maybe the judge too) a lot of the digital pictures had a huge "WOW" factor at first impression. Big size, super saturated color, tons of detail. But also, many of them looked a bit artificial, which people told me is caused by over-sharpening, or some other sharpening problem. I'll take their word for it. For my eye, the photographs shot on film looked very different. And this difference was in my words "tone smoothness." Words are insufficient of course here, but they seemed more "realistic." A bit softer, slightly less detail. All of which make me wonder if more pixels, more detail is actually always advisable in some photographic genres.</p>

<p>Some of the film shots were on 4 x 5, but most were 35mm. Many of the winning photographs were not nearly as sharp or dynamic as many of the losing ones. But all of the winning ones had interesting subjects. I think what this means, is that classic criteria still hold true for good photographs: Interesting subjects + great printing "wins" over mediocre subjects with spectacular sharpness and detail and technical merit in the genre of fine art. If the genre was commercial fashion or magazine photography, the results would no doubt be different. So the term "wins" would be very relative to what kind of contest is being described.</p>

<p>It goes without saying to "shoot what you feel like and makes you happy. " That doesn't need to be reinforced. So, my comments here are simply that film may have a je ne sais quoi which is still useful, still viable, still pleasant to work with, and yes still competitive.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>But all of the winning ones had interesting subjects</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

Sounds like an uninteresting show. If the subjects were what resulted in choices, it wasn't about photography. I can go out and find a great model any day of the week, but some of the ones nobody would look at twice have turned out to be the subjects of my best photographs, usually because of the lighting.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p><em>I'm trying to get he very best quality from something pocket sized.</em></p>

<p>Then Alex, I submit that you are <em><strong>not</strong> </em>limited to "a small sensor high end digi compact". I'd submit that, at least with some thought given to what pants you wear, you can probably pocket a large-sensor compact like a Canon G1x (see <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canong1x/3">http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canong1x/3</a>, and remember that the lens retracts when it's turned off) or even a small interchangeable-lens larger-sensor compact like a Panasonic GX-1 (<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgx1/3">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgx1/3</a>) or GF-3 (<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgf3/3">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgf3/3</a>) with the collapsable Panasonic 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 Power OIS (<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic_x_14-42_3p5-5p6">http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic_x_14-42_3p5-5p6</a>). There are also of course a variety of large-sensor compacts with small-ish primes, but I've confined myself to cameras with zooms of reasonable range.</p>

 

[bebu_lamar]

<p>If you limit to Film compact and Digital compact I think the digital win. Not because they are digital but because they offer more controls. I can't think of a film compact camera that allows me to manually set shutter speed, aperture and focus manually. Many digital compacts do allow totally manual controls although difficult to do as they tend to hide all those controls deep in the menus.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>as any pinhole photographer can tell you gear is largely overrated. It's the stuff between your ears that gets you there and not what you hold in your hands. It's a frightfull cliche, I know but since it's obvious this fact is lost on many people it won't do harm to repeat it every now and then.</p>

[alex_hosking]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6489902">M Stephens</a> I mean in terms of actual sheer resolution when comparing a FF digi to drum scanned film, I should have just said that digital beats film in terms of resolution. I s'pose the rest of the rest of the things we can judge image quality by are more objective, which it probably why I shoot so much film still.<br /> <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=16706">Craig Gillette</a> The Sony Nex is small but not really tiny and it has an APS-C size sensor.<br /> <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5994753">BeBu Lamar</a> Yes it's shame there's not more film compacts with more manual controls, but this discussion was only about image quality anyway, not control.<br /> <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=509668">Dave Redmann</a> I'm not sure if they are as small as I'm thinking, but it's about time they started putting larger sensors in digi compacts instead of more pointless mega pixels.</p>