A few questions to sort out some confusion

[sanjay_chugh1]

I am a little bit confused lately about photography.

About 15 years or so ago, I used my Dad's Pentax SLR. I wasn't much

interested in photography in general back then but was always curious

about learning what it was doing. But that didn't get too far. Now I

have a growing family and also a growing interest in photography. 3

years ago I bought the Elan7E with the 28-105 then later also got the

50mm f1.8 and also a flash etc. Well you get the idea. I never really

liked the P&S film cameras mostly because of the constraning

viewfinders, epecially being an eyeglass wearer. The Elan7's

viewfinder is just so much better, as are all SLR's which alone was

enough for me to make a decision into getting an SLR.

 

As I read some more to improve my technique and to understand the

basics and frequented web sites such as these, I distinctly got the

impression that a "good" lens, in other words the optics or the glass

is what makes the difference between the photos taken from P&S and an

SLR even in the 4X6 size. I think this is true with film cameras from

what I have observerd.

 

Where I am getting confused somewhat even after doing lots of reading

is with Digital. Just bear with me a little. I have seen the sample

pictures and everything and am very impressed, even from digital P&S

cameras. Are the lenses on these cameras though of the same caliber as

say my canon 50mm f1.8? Or is it that in the case of digital, the lens

isn't as important as it is with a film camera, what I mean is that

not to the same extent. Although there are digital SLRs so perhaps the

above statement isn't quite correct.

 

I guess if I can make myself clearer, is that I hear so many people

now saying that digital is more then good enough and they are selling

off their film SLRs like the elan etc. Now if you are getting or have

a DSLR, I certainly understand as you can still use the fine lenses.

But if all you are getting is a nice camera such as a G2/G3 with a

fixed lens, then what? Should the film SLR with the nice lenses be put

away or sold? Is the lens on the G2 as good as my 50mm f1.8 optically?

I haven't really come across a comparison between a digital P&S or a

digital Prosumer camera like the canon G2/G3 and a film SLR like the

Elan7 with a nice lens like the 50mm f1.8. How exactly do they stack

up against each other? I am not concerned about features like how many

fps I can shoot or the shutter lag etc, but more about the quality.

 

I myself after two weeks of trying out various digital models, finally

settled on a refurbished G2, because it was very cheap, and it is

quite impossible for me to buy a DSLR and will be for quite some time.

However, I don't feel the need to put aside my Elan7 or sell it,

because for some reason I think that I have better optics (lenses)

with my Elan7 and so it should be better then the G2. This may not be

the case when I just want to take snapshots or for vacation photos,

but there are times when I get adventurous and experiment (the main

reason for me to get a G2, so I can try out my shot, and if it is

good, retake it with my Elan7). In fact it was my curiosity and some

things that I have/had read and wanted to try out that also led me to

get a cable release and an off camera shoe cord for my elan7 just last

week. Am I somewhat misguided to think that I still need my Elan7? Off

course human nature what it is, a part of me is hanging on to the fact

that I spent about $2000 CAD on my Elan7 and accessories, and not that

long ago either, that I want to justify that expense. Digital wasn't

meant to get so good so quick when I bought the Elan7. Am I just not

understanding digital properly?

 

There have been sites that mention that both digital and film have a

role and off course they are different and do things differently etc

etc. But what role does a film SLR like the Elan7 have to play in the

life of an amateur with plenty yet to learn?

 

I realize off course that I have to answer a lot of these questions

for myself and evaluate my needs etc. But I wanted to hear from

others. Please, I am not trying to start another Digital vs Film war.

There is enough of that going around. I am interested in honest

opinions and observations especially your experiences. Especially from

those that have a film SLR and a prosumer digital like the G2/G3.

 

For myself personally, after trying out a few things, I can still see

myself using my film SLR for even some basic things such as my

daughter playing indoor soccer. In this instance, I cannot get a fast

enough shutter speed for hand held shots with the G2 even at ISO 400,

but I can with my Elan by popping in a ISO 800 film. I imagine when I

can afford a DSLR (not for another 2-3 years), then I will not require

my Elan7 for my uses. But until then I will be still be making ample

use of my Elan7, and will be using the G2 for casual shots and as a

learning tool (one of the best things about digital). Having both will

also alow me the luxury of making comparisons on my own and I think

both will complement my learning for a while.

 

Well, I hope I have explained myself properly and have asked good

questions. Please no flame war.

 

-- Sanjay

[jespdj]

Hello Sanjay,

<p>I also have an Elan 7 (or actually an EOS 30 but that's just the non-US name of the Elan 7E) and I had a PowerShot G3; I've sold it and ordered an EOS 10D.

<p>The G3 is great, I've made very nice photos with it that look very good when printed at A4 size (about 8.3 by 11.7 inches), but the lens is certainly not as sharp as the EF 50 f/1.8 prime lens. With my EOS 30 I mainly use the Canon EF 28-135 IS USM lens, which is one of Canon's best consumer zoom lenses. I'm using slide film (Fuji Provia 100F) that I scan with a Minolta Scan Dual III scanner. At the highest scan resolution, the scanned slides show more detail than the G3 in the highest resolution - and the 28-135 is not as sharp as the 50 f/1.8.

<p>So my conclusion is that the G3's lens is certainly not as good as the 50 f/1.8, but that doesn't mean the G3 is a bad camera.

[John Crowe]

Jesper's real world comparison's only reinforce that affordable digitals are still not able to compete with good film. Jesper mentions that the G3 lens is not as good as the 50mm f1.8, but that is not the source of the problem. For digital to begin to approximate 35mm film you need approximately 12 megapixels of information and I know that the G3's power is much more limiting than that.

 

What you suggest, using the G3 to verify your composition and exposure is an excellent idea and one that I have been considering for use in the field with my 4x5.

 

The G3 will be much easier for family gatherings and spreading the photos to your family accross the internet.

 

In a few more years when Canon produces an affordable high quality DSLR then you can use your Elan lenses on it. By the time you get a DSLR the G3 will not be worth very much and you will not mind giving it to your daughter as a good starter camera.

 

Have fun with both the Elan and the G3!

[nasos athens-greece]

Here's my answer

 

First of all, dont worry; film will NEVER die, no matter what the evolution of digital will be

Second, digital P&S cameras (G2, G3, Sony's 717 & 828 and smaller models) are not (for me) actuals cameras. They're more gudgets than serious equipment you can use to take good pictures with. OK, some of them are cozy, some of them are easy to carry around (instead of you hudge slr with lens), but appart from that what? Optics are obviously NOT the same. All these toys (as I call them) don't bring serious quality optics as a mid-range canon-sigma-tamron-tokina lens. Some people DARE to compare Sony's latest release (828) with Canon's 300D. And you know why? 'Cause they say 828 carries a large zoom lens, uses optics which carry the Zeiss brand name (although manufactured by Sony), the lens starts working at f2 or 2.8 and...finally 'cause it looks like an SLR. Those guys are unbelievable!!!!!

[patkane]

Second that, Nasos. The 300D is intrinsically more flexible than any point and shoot, even at the same price point.

[christopher_bibbs]

First let me give my personal equipment background. My wife and I have a P&S film camera which we've had for some years and I've used infrequently enough that I couldn't pick it out of a line up. We've also had two digital P&S: a Fuji which died 15 months after purchase and thousands of pictures and a Canon A40 which was very new to market at the time. I also have a Rebel G II which I've had for a few months now.

 

The digital P&S is clearly better than the film P&S. Perhaps it is easier to make a small good lens. Maybe they can spend more on a lens for a $400 digital than a $100 film camera. After using a P&S for years, digital was a dream come true.

 

The Rebel, however, produces *much* better pictures than either digital ever could. Never mind that a 2MP camera can't make huge enlargments, you can see the difference at 4x6. The contrast is so much better it is unbelievable. Add in the nicer look of portraits I can do with my 50mm f/1.8 and it is hard to argue that the glass in the P&S is anywhere near that of the SLR.

 

There is an argument for digital though thanks to a bit of averaging that takes place. With film, most people take one picture of everything and hope it turns out. With digital, we tend to take two or three of everything important and then start shooting things we assume will be throw-aways. The result is more good pictures. That's not because of a better camera, that's because it makes us better photographers.

[jeremy_smith]

Well, this will probably go in the giant archives of needless digital vs. film jabbering, but here goes:

 

Except for a couple of P&S film cameras, I've basically used two cameras my whole photo-taking life: a Canon Rebel (the original...yikes) and an EOS 10D purchased about 7 months ago. Now, guess which one's looking at a trip to E-bay? The 10D. Am I dissatisfied with the image quality? Do I have some kind of super-human eye that can detect the shortcomings in resolution of 6.1 megapixels? Are creditors beating down my door to collect the $1500 I spent on it? No, no, & no. The reason I'm going to sell it is that I'm lazy (or enlightened??). I spend a mind-numbing amount of time in front of a computer screen (please excuse the bitter irony) now that I have the digital that I never did before. With film, once I finished a roll, my work was mostly done. Nothing much left to do but wait for the film to be processed and prints made, evaluate the results & enjoy. Maybe make some reprints or enlargements. With the digital it's quite possible to chew up hours wading through the minutia of options provided by photoshop. Should I crop this fraction of an inch or that? Should I clone out this power pole or import a background from a separate photo? Exactly what relationship between hue, saturation and lightness for the green channel did I have in mind for this photo anyway? Of course these same options are available to you if you choose to scan prints from a film camera into photoshop, but the temptation (for me, at least) is immeasureably greater with digital since everything gets filtered through the software anyhow. Why not spend "a little extra time" on this one? And that one too? Why settle for 4 x 6 when I can have 4 x 5&7/64ths instead?

 

I take pictures for two reasons: memories & artistic expression. My favorites of course combine both. What I've come to realize over the course of my experience with digital is that I'm willing to commit neither to mere jpeg files. I'm willing to commit pictures of the cat to digital. Pictures from a co-worker's barbeque, likewise. But my wife and I went on our honeymoon a couple of months ago and that old, slow, noisy Rebel, with all its warped plastic and grit under the dials was my primary camera. The magnesium cinder block called the 10D, with all the buttons and menu options most sane people would ever need, was the back-up. Bottom line: I don't want to be sitting around with my wife 30 years from now trying to re-live memories by staring at a computer screen. Print 'em out? Use all that expensive ink and photo paper to produce delicate prints with (relative to what's on the screen) poor resolution & contrast? To me, that's defeating the whole purpose of digital.

 

Now I'm going to stop myself before I get into some discussion of technology & its grip on the human race. There. Done. Keep the Elan. Good night & thanks for reading. --JS.

[harman_bajwa]

Hi Sanjay,

 

Long question - long response :) So here goes:

 

I have both a film SLR (ELAN 7E) and a digital (Powershot S50 - ya go ahead, you can call me a Canon camper, but I'm a happy one). I am just a beginner in SLR world. However, I have had extensive experience in Graphics (processing) and multi media.

 

There are different reasons why one would need a digital or film. However, it is a fact that at this point, the digital is yet to mature to the level of (near) analog world of film. Currently for film SLRs, the film characteristics are well known and hence the SLR shutter, speed, light color/intensity can be adjusted to suit the particular film type and its behaviour. However, an argument can be made that the same can be done with the JPEGS from digital on a computer.

 

I have printed 5 megapixel (from my powershot S50) prints with sharp focus on 8x10 size. The fact is that they cannot stand close scrutniy. Colors tend to be mixed up at minute levels, there seems to be problems with shots taken in low or tungsten lights (white balancing can counter that to some extent). Another problem is that it is not easy to get shallow depth of field always. Lens attachments are rare and you only use what you have. In the SLR film world you can mix and match freely with so many options available. The current 12 MP range digital SLRs are prohibitively expensive and there are problems with Depth of Field since the sensor sixe tends to be smaller than 35 MM film format - resulting in higher depth of field at the same focal length vis-a-vis 35mm film SLRs.

 

Finally, in film, the film is not made by the camera manufacturer - and the film is what captures and can be changed if not liked. Digital sensors are made by the camera manufacturer and the only choice would seem to be to change your camera for a different model/manufacturer.

 

I think the digital is yet to mature. In fact, I frequently let my wife use the S50 for family/general photos all the time, while I sneak away with my precious ELAN 7E and shoot away subjects and nature in their prime glory.

 

- Harman

[sanjay_chugh1]

Thanks for the responses so far.

It seems though this might become another film vs digital thread, and that is not my intent.

One of the problems that I am having is where I have read some film SLR owners abandoning their SLR for say a G3/G5. Now if they had bought a digital SLR, I could be OK with that. However, my understanding has always been that one of the main reasons for buying an SLR is the option of being able to plug in better optics in the front. I have found a few instances on forums here and there (don't ask me to find them again) where I see this happening. But then I can't help myself asking why they bought a film SLR in the first place. Or is it that the quality of a lens is not as important in digital? I don't think this should be true. However I guess, as it was mentioned that the lens on a digital P&S might be better then a film P&S and so which is adequate for a lot of people who in the past had purchased a film SLR.

 

The above is my basic question in my original post. The rest are just some of my own opinions and preferences.

 

It it difficult to deny that digital is a lot of fun and in some respects liberating and a wonderful tool for learning. It's just that for me, having bought a used G2, I am not ready to give up my Elan7. Perhaps when I am able to afford a D10 or its successor, I might make the switch (although, I wouldn't get rid of the Elan still), but I don't consider a G2 or a G3/G5 a replacement for the Elan7.

 

I also am not a huge fan of what is being referred to as the "Digital Workflow", but given time, I may come to accept it or might not have any choice but to accept it down the road. I am not very interested in learning photoshop etc. If I am not mistaken, if I do a proper exposure (I am playing with a gray card lately), then really the print at the lab should be acceptable. That way I don't have to spend time trying to decide in photoshop what it should look like or trying to remember what the scene looked like etc. I spend enough time in front of a computer as it is and would rather spend the time with my family, saved from not working in photoshop with hundreds of pictures. I cannot fathom taking 10000 pictures in 6 months as so many people seem to be doing.

[jeremy_smith]

Hi again,

 

Just so there's no confusion, the 10D is an SLR and uses the same lenses as other EOS cameras, including my old Rebel. You probably already knew this, but judging by your response, I just couldn't tell. If you put a nice fast pro lens (which I can't afford) on the 10D, I feel pretty confident that you will get results that will look as good ON THE SCREEN as you could by scanning the negative of professional film exposed by the same lens (I'm talking about color vs. color here; B&W on the digital is rarely very impressive). The 10D is really that good, and, yes, digital has gotten that good that fast. The quality of glass on nice SLR lenses is undoubtedly better than that on a P&S, be it film or digital. That said, though, you can shoot pro film on your Elan, but unless you have a top of the line scanner and the skills to use it to its fullest, the superiority of your EOS lens to that of a G3 will not show through on your computer. It may even look inferior. And of course I don't have to tell you that the opposite is true if you want to look at your photos on paper. The 10D, which could easily pass as professional equipment for, say, photojournalism, really becomes quite average when you try to print out the results on your home printer. You could get better results, resolution wise, with any decent film rated at, I'd say, 800 speed or less.

 

I think it really just comes down to the medium on which you most enjoy looking at photos, and whether storage space is an issue for you, and those should be easy enough decisions. I imagine that digital will one day be just as good on paper as film is, but unless film and photographic paper just stops evolving from today forward, digital will never really be better than film--there are some real, physical limits there. There's just a finite number of molecules that can be packed onto a negative or onto a sheet of glossy printer paper. And well before that limit is reached, the ability of the naked human eye to resolve the differences between the two will be long surpassed. You'll have to get out the microscope. I really think this issue has been beaten to death--at least by me;) Take it easy: you're not a dinosaur, and neither is your Elan.