edward_caliguri1 Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 You all have some salient points. I shoot with Nikon digital and film (D1x and F5's) as well as Leica. Obviously, one could write A LOT on this topic, but one issue I would adress is the "machine gun" approach, and "trying new things" comments. First, The burst rate isn't there with digital - even the D1H. Add to the fact that you might wish to shoot RAW or NEF, or TIFF files and it slows you down to a crawl. And sure - Bring the laptop along with you in the blind - it's just one more distraction. As far as I can see, for me, it's film all the way - unless the finished product is for the Web or immediate use. Just one guy's thoughts :-) Happy Holidays and Peace for the New Year --- Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isaac sibson Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 Maybe the burst rate isn't there with the D1H. But surely it is with the EOS 1D? At 8FPS, I can't think of many faster 35mm cameras. Only faster cameras that spring to mind are the Canon EOS 1V HS (10FPS), Canon EOS 1N RS (10FPS), Canon F1 HSMDC (9FPS), Canon New F1 HSMDC (14FPS) and the Nikon F3HP (13FPS). Of course, only the other two Canon EOS are Autofocus. And, of course, the F5 matches the 8FPS speed of the EOS 1D. Laptop...sure you could carry one with you. Or for less money than a decent laptop, you could buy a 2GB CF card. Even on a 1DS that will hold nearly 200 images, whilst with a 1D it's rather more than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 It's not a debate and it's not a religious war. Digtal has advantages and disadvantages, 35mm film has advantages and disadvantages, Medium Format has adventages and disadvantages. What's best for YOU depends on YOUR needs, the depth of YOUR wallet and the strength of YOUR back. And there's no law yet against shooting digital, 35mm film AND Medium Format if you so wish! I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chad_h Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 Besides frame rate, I am sort of worried about digital cameras and battery life. From what I understand a person can get way more pictures with a film camera than a digital camera. Often I will just sit waiting for the right opportunity to take the picture. This can sometimes be hours. I haven't done long backcoutry wildlife photography trips but I don't imagine a digital camera is practicle for that. On that the power topic has anyone tried the solar cell NiMH AA chargers?? I'm trying to see if that's a good extra to get for wildlife photography for when away from power 7 plus days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_kennedy Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 Good luck with solar. It is pretty poor for recharging batteries in a timely fashion. Note the word timely. All the rechargers I have seen seem to work on the "Let this sit in the sun for a day" model. Not very portable. And not very fast. Now, the larger your solar cells, the faster the system will be. But you quickly go from a pocket sized device to something that requires a small elephant to carry. You are probably better off just carrying a lot of batteries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliff_lesergent Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"> <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0"> <meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document"> <title>New Page 1</title> </head> <body> <p>Solar recharging may be more feasible than you think - here is a link to an interesting article on the topic:<br> <br> <a href="http://www.tow.com/photo/articles/solar_charger/">http://www.tow.com/photo/articles/solar_charger/</a></p> </body> </html> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george_gilbert Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 I don't think the battery life, or the image storage difficulty should be a problem. Most of the metal/lithium batteries will shoot several hundred images, and image storage in a portable hard drive is simple and convenient (beats carrying a lap-top). Some of the best nature/wildlife photographers in the business have announced their conversion to digital. Check Michael Reichmann at www.luminous-landscape.com or George Lepp at www.leppphoto.com To me, the biggest problem is the cost of the 10+ megapixle cameras and the cost of digital projectors. And I still like slides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ligia_dovale_kiamco Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 In my humble opinion, no digital SLR could be yet compared to a analog camera like the F-5 for birds in flight/fast action. I am just waiting for the manufacturers to come up with such a camera that could shoot 6 or 8 frames per second in Raw node. I would not care about the megapixels, weather it is 6 or 14, what we need is a fast digital SLR capable of taking sharp, action shots continuously that could be enlarged to at least 11" x 14". Ligia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg s Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 The biggest showstopper for me has been the reduced viewfinder size since my main wildlife lens is manual focus. It seems to me that with the reduced viewfinder size (for DSLR's with sensors less than full frame), the photographer is pretty much tied to AF lenses. So, I'll continue to use older, film based equipment for awhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karl_lehmann Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 <I>"I don't think the battery life, or the image storage difficulty should be a problem. Most of the metal/lithium batteries will shoot several hundred images, and image storage in a portable hard drive is simple and convenient"</I><P>Well I commonly shoot several hundred ROLLS on a long trip, so I think these are two big problems. I'm ready to switch to digital as soon as it becomes practical but it's got a long way to go before it's ready for use off the beaten track. Unfortunately neither batteries nor solar chargers can be expected to improve at anything close to Moore's Law rates. Solar will work if you've got a long-term base camp (which I rarely do) but we'll probably have to wait for small, portable fuel cells before digital will work on long trips. I foresee using both systems for a long time to come: film for the wilderness and most of the developing world, digital closer to home and for short trips.<p>Karl Lehmann <a href="http://www.lostworldarts.com/new_page_3.htm">Lost World Arts</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george_gilbert Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 Karl: I really enjoyed browsing your web site. I understand your need for film in some of your remote destinations. And on shorter trips, digital will still be useful. This last fall, I was out of civilized contact for 6 days. I took a digital with 2 batteries and a 20 GB portable hard drive. Didn't exhaust either one. I'd also like to point out that one of George Lepp's reasons for going digital is the increasing inconvience of traveling with film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliff_lesergent Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 With respect to Ligia's comments, the EOS 1D is capable of 8 FPS for 21+ consecutive frames in RAW mode, and is capable of producing very sharp images (sharper than 35mm film of equivalent ISO, in my experience) at 11 x14 inches and larger. In response to Greg, the EOS 1Ds has a full-size, 100% field-of-view viewfinder. My EOS 1D has a 30% FOV cropped viewfinder, but I honestly don't notice this small decrease in FOV in practice. Regarding Edward's comment about digital shooters needing to bring a laptop along on a shoot - that's like saying film shooters need to bring along a Jobo E-6 processor, film drier, and a light table... oh, and Honda generator to power everything... ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliff_lesergent Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 Oops - just checked the owner's manual - the EOS 1D is good for 16 consecutive frames at 8 FPS in RAW mode, and 21 consecutive frames in Large/Fine JPEG mode. I never shoot in long bursts like this, but other users have commented that they sometimes achieve longer consecutive bursts than Canon specifies, without filling the buffer. It probably depends on the ISO setting and the subject matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_kennedy Posted December 24, 2002 Share Posted December 24, 2002 Cliff - Interesting, but they still talk about "several hours" when it comes to charge time. The use of space is pretty clever. I still wonder though if it would not be more practical weight and space wise to simply carry a bunch of batteries. A couple of bricks of AAs would probably be just as heavy and much smaller! A serious consideration in the backcounty. One thing I have heard of, is "foot powered" systems that are being designed for portable electronics. Basically imagine a pair of shoes that turn some of your kinetic energy into electricty. Still in the research stage, but probably not that far off. And it might prove to better when it comes to charging while hiking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay dougherty Posted December 25, 2002 Share Posted December 25, 2002 Couldn't agree less with original poster. It's not about speed; it's about timing. Even if it is about speed, the best digital cameras are plenty fast. Beyond that, though, the resolution of today's high-end digicams (11 mpix with 1DS) is way better than film and offers more options (cropping while retaining high res). If I were shooting film, I wouldn't be shooting. Yuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildpicture Posted December 25, 2002 Share Posted December 25, 2002 "the resolution of today's high-end digicams (11 mpix with 1DS) is way better than film" Can't agree with that. A 35mm Velvia slide can be scanned at around 4000dpi (maximum scandepth which still resolves information from the slide). This will yield a file of approx. 4000x6000 pixels, being 24.000.000 pixels, or 24Mpix. So film (when scanned perfectly) in my opinion is still way better than digital. But both are coming very close together in the near future I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliff_lesergent Posted December 25, 2002 Share Posted December 25, 2002 Hans, the amount of dpi's you can scan from a piece of film does not translate directly into "resolution". While it may seem counter-intuitive, the pixels of the CCD and CMOS sensors, though fewer in number than scanned film pixels, definitely do provide greater resolution. For instance, the new Canon EOS 1Ds has been found to have greater resolving power than any of the standard lens test charts. If you have a chance to borrow a 1D or 1Ds from Canon for a few days, I'm sure it will be an eye-opening experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 Hans - mathematical analysis is fine, but misses important details. All pixles are not equal and first generation pixels are not the same as second generation pixels. The ONLY way to compare scanned film vs digital is to shoot the same scene and directly compare the scanned and digital image files. I think you'll find that film does not have the advantage you might calculate it does. That especially applies of you are using a desktop film scanner at 4000dpi instead of a high end drum scanner to scan the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis__skip__higgins Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 Bob's last comment is very much to the point! I recently had the chance to shoot the exact same image with a D100 and on my film Nikon through the same lens. The film shot was on Provia 100F scanned on the LS4000 and converted to TIF while the D100 shot was a high res JPG. At full frame (about 12% in PS 7 on my system) both appeared the same - at 300%, the digital JPG was significantly cleaner (less grain/noise) than the film scan. Say what you will but I know I am seriously planning to add digital cameras to my inventory and perhaps drop all but one of the film species soon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward_caliguri1 Posted December 26, 2002 Author Share Posted December 26, 2002 Hi! I couldn't agree less with george :-) I know - to each his own, that I always agree to. For me, well I use Nikon D1x's, F5's and another all MF brand. I don't carry a Jobo with me, nor a laptop UNLESS I shoot Digita. Then everyone wants to see the shots while I'm still looking for new moments to capture. At home, I need a dual monitor PC, backup drives, printers etc. Crashes happen now and then. Film is a lot less work for me, personally. I'm a scientist by trade; use a computer ever day (even p-shop for presentations). When I leave work behind, I don't want to scan, pull up, futz with and print 9which sometimes encourages waste because it's not in the dark, and you just 'press a button'). I love to shoot Velvia, Provia, have it E-6'd in about an hr if I need to, then toss 'em on a light table. If I know the craft well enough, I'm pretty sure of what I got (even with digital, if you miss a shot - it's still gone forever :-) ! Besides, I just saw LIKE NEW in the box F5's selling for $750 to $900 dollars, depending on the store. Also new D1's for $1000 as the technology becomes obsolete. And, for me, I like to have 'that piece of film' that was actually in the camera with me at that moment. I know-wierd but true! Just snowed here - ought to be a great day outside. Have fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricardo_jamin Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 I agree that every one to his/her own. So I'll present my opinion as digital embracer. I started to get serious with digital when I bought my Nikon D1 1.5 year ago. At that time I still keep my 35mm, then 3 months ago I bought D1x. I'm so impressed with the results I sold my all my 35mm bodies, I have no doubt in my mind that D1x is more than capable replacement for 35mm. Whats cool about digital is in the evening of a trip I can quickly scan the photo I took earlier and throw away the bad ones. When shooting 400-800 shots a day this can be a real time saver when you got back from the trip. Also digital can be more reliable. Just bring extra hard drive and backup all the photo so you always have two copies(it would be cool if there's image tank style storage with built in RAID). Its very unlikely for 2 HDD to get corrupted at the same time. You can't duplicate your unprocessed chrome while on your trip. Also with digital I dont have to worry about all the airport scanning damaging my photos. Even if digital bodies dropping price very quickly, it doesnt matter to me since it still cheaper IMO. I paid $3500 for my D1x, so far I took the equiv of 250 rolls of film with it. Assuming it cost $10 for film & processing that means I saved $2500 compared to shooting with film. So if the used market for D1x is more than $1000 I considered the D1x is cheap. I was at Bosque del Apache this past thanksgiving, shooting primarily with D1x(buffer upgraded) I never hit any buffer problem. And shooting at BdA pretty much you have to do "machine gun" approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_bundick Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 As the responses you received above indicate, you will be unlikely to find more than 2 people to agree on all points of advanatage or disadvantage of either film or digital. For some this may seem like a fund debate, but I would have to agree with Bob, in that ALL recording methods, 35mm, MF, LF, and digital have their place. Use what is best for you, and don't give any attention to what others use. . The resolution issue, well......., who knows? It seems everyone knows, but they all know something different, and their opinion is worth just what you pay for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canon man Posted December 27, 2002 Share Posted December 27, 2002 I have been holding on to film til I scream. What is getting me is the cost for good film, and then in turn to have slides processed. I do a lot of B/W and can process it myself, then load the can with new, but still that has put out just that much more time. I have seen some of the macro shots being done with digital and after jus t a week of seeing the results I can cruise therough the toprated photos and point out which ones were done with digital. After seeing some of these resolution arguments I think I may just start checking into Canon 1DS just to see. At his stage of my shooting I have converted from 19 years of hobby shooting since my 12th christmas, to wanting to shoot Pro wildlife and street photograghy so bad I can taste it. and have spent this year getting ready to do just that...go pro. One thing I cansee is the advantage of both. Personally I love farting around in my darkroom just for the peace it brings. But I would like to see nice sharp results immediaetl in order to make sure I did it right. If not, make note, and correct for the next shot. Adios, I'm off to Canon's website(myhomepage) to check out the 1DS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now