35mm Film or Digital
Posted by: Martin D on 04 January 2004
Hi Guys
I’ve been out of photography for about 15 years due to young family, time, moving house etc. and at the time sold my Nikon FM body 24mm 50mm and 105mm lenses which I regret BIG TIME. However, I’m in the market for another camera / system now but would appreciate anyone’s comment as I’ve seen some interesting film and camera threads already. Basically I was tempted into the digital age but am put off completely now and am considering things like:
Buy 2nd hand the sort of thing I had and loved at the time.
Similar to the above but maybe go a little up market - 2nd hand like Nikon F3 and a few lenses ( are the older “pro” items still easy to get fixed or serviced?)
New type quality kit like EOS 1 or 3 and a couple of their zooms – are they now as good as fixed primaries ?
Bearing in mind it would be nice if the said stuff didn’t plummet in value should I ever want to sell or change it (which I wouldn’t want to, but you know what I mean)
And finally film v digital. What got me thinking against digital was reading 2 things one, that a top quality film likes one of the slow Fuji’s (50 ASA?) was roughly equivalent to having a sensor with the resolution of 30 Mega Pixels plus and two, the fact that some prints can fade in only a few years.
Maybe I should go for one of those strange Leica range finder items but I’m very used to the SLR format.
Confused from the West Country
Martin
I’ve been out of photography for about 15 years due to young family, time, moving house etc. and at the time sold my Nikon FM body 24mm 50mm and 105mm lenses which I regret BIG TIME. However, I’m in the market for another camera / system now but would appreciate anyone’s comment as I’ve seen some interesting film and camera threads already. Basically I was tempted into the digital age but am put off completely now and am considering things like:
Buy 2nd hand the sort of thing I had and loved at the time.
Similar to the above but maybe go a little up market - 2nd hand like Nikon F3 and a few lenses ( are the older “pro” items still easy to get fixed or serviced?)
New type quality kit like EOS 1 or 3 and a couple of their zooms – are they now as good as fixed primaries ?
Bearing in mind it would be nice if the said stuff didn’t plummet in value should I ever want to sell or change it (which I wouldn’t want to, but you know what I mean)
And finally film v digital. What got me thinking against digital was reading 2 things one, that a top quality film likes one of the slow Fuji’s (50 ASA?) was roughly equivalent to having a sensor with the resolution of 30 Mega Pixels plus and two, the fact that some prints can fade in only a few years.
Maybe I should go for one of those strange Leica range finder items but I’m very used to the SLR format.
Confused from the West Country
Martin
Posted on: 04 January 2004 by Derek Wright
Martin
What type of pictures do you like to take.
What do you do with the pictures - ie how large do you print them - do you enlarge them or send them to the shop/lab.
How many do you take
How "at home" are you on the computer
Digital will give you the ability to experiment at low cost, photographic prints can be made easily on photographic paper that will last as long as prints from 35mm
With digital you can work directly on the image without without having to mess with chemicals.
You can get an Olympus E20 SLR (non removeable lens) for about £600 to £700 and then never buy another film.
I have been thru the SLR film process both for slides and prints, I have printed slides using Cibachrome and I am now into digital photography , taken more than 18000 images since July 2000, had images in several magazines, newspapers and web sites.
The ultimate quality of my printed prints is much higher than with 35mm because I print only the best 25% to 30% whereas with 35mm all negatives were initially printed and then some were disgarded.
Good luck
Derek
<< >>
What type of pictures do you like to take.
What do you do with the pictures - ie how large do you print them - do you enlarge them or send them to the shop/lab.
How many do you take
How "at home" are you on the computer
Digital will give you the ability to experiment at low cost, photographic prints can be made easily on photographic paper that will last as long as prints from 35mm
With digital you can work directly on the image without without having to mess with chemicals.
You can get an Olympus E20 SLR (non removeable lens) for about £600 to £700 and then never buy another film.
I have been thru the SLR film process both for slides and prints, I have printed slides using Cibachrome and I am now into digital photography , taken more than 18000 images since July 2000, had images in several magazines, newspapers and web sites.
The ultimate quality of my printed prints is much higher than with 35mm because I print only the best 25% to 30% whereas with 35mm all negatives were initially printed and then some were disgarded.
Good luck
Derek
<< >>
Posted on: 04 January 2004 by Arye_Gur
I think digital cameras are great! Little, comfort and easy to use. It is also great that you can drive the pictures directly to the computer and save the pictures in files. It is also great to see a picture as you take it. On a 17" screen I see no problem with the grain of the digital pictures.
The problem with the digital cameras is when you are going to a trip – you have a limited memory. If you like to travel in the desert this can be a problem.
I use a Minolta with 5 lenses – a heavy bag to carry. .
Arye
The problem with the digital cameras is when you are going to a trip – you have a limited memory. If you like to travel in the desert this can be a problem.
I use a Minolta with 5 lenses – a heavy bag to carry. .
Arye
Posted on: 04 January 2004 by Richard P
Hi Martin
I'd dismissed digital until earlier this year when I researched the subject on the net. I found a few sites that appeared to be written by experts that basically said digital is at least the equal of film, up to medium format if you buy the best digital SLR (Canon 1Ds). The Canon 10D had been out a little while and was just affordable. Since I've had the camera, photography has become much of a hobby for me, because I can take the files and use my PC as a "digital darkroom", ensuring that the look just how I want them to look. I don't print them out - too fiddly and too expensive - just create a slideshow on my PC of the best ones.
If you want to go this way, you will need a decent PC and some extra software. The following sites may help your decision:
www.dpreview.com
www.fredmiranda.com
luminous-landscape.com
Richard
I'd dismissed digital until earlier this year when I researched the subject on the net. I found a few sites that appeared to be written by experts that basically said digital is at least the equal of film, up to medium format if you buy the best digital SLR (Canon 1Ds). The Canon 10D had been out a little while and was just affordable. Since I've had the camera, photography has become much of a hobby for me, because I can take the files and use my PC as a "digital darkroom", ensuring that the look just how I want them to look. I don't print them out - too fiddly and too expensive - just create a slideshow on my PC of the best ones.
If you want to go this way, you will need a decent PC and some extra software. The following sites may help your decision:
www.dpreview.com
www.fredmiranda.com
luminous-landscape.com
Richard
Posted on: 04 January 2004 by David Stewart
I'd also recommend you visit the DP Review web-site where you can find lots of info on the latest digital cameras and what I think are some pretty stunning examples of what they can do.
Except for the most demanding applications, I think digitals are excellent and certainly the way forward. For me the many advantages outweigh the disadvantages, because I don't need to produce exhibition size prints.
I've got 35mm and 6x6 cameras, which stay in the cupboard these days, the Canon Pro90is digital is the only one I regularly use now.
David
Except for the most demanding applications, I think digitals are excellent and certainly the way forward. For me the many advantages outweigh the disadvantages, because I don't need to produce exhibition size prints.
I've got 35mm and 6x6 cameras, which stay in the cupboard these days, the Canon Pro90is digital is the only one I regularly use now.
David
Posted on: 04 January 2004 by Top Cat
quote:
And finally film v digital. What got me thinking against digital was reading 2 things one, that a top quality film likes one of the slow Fuji’s (50 ASA?) was roughly equivalent to having a sensor with the resolution of 30 Mega Pixels plus and two, the fact that some prints can fade in only a few years.
I've both a Contax 35mm rangefinder and a Canon 10D 6.3MP dSLR. I was recently in Seattle and had both cameras with me, and shot the same shot - on the dSLR I used it's 100 setting and a 50/1.4 at f8; on the Contax it was Velvia 100 (which I was trying out for the first time), a 45/2 at f8. Having scanned in the Velvia at 2700-odd DPI, I get a bigger image to play with, BUT (and it's a big but) the dSLR's image is considerably less 'noisy' than the film grain of the 100-speed slide film. Putting it another way, though theoretically the slide film holds more image 'information', much of that is lost to film grain and unless you plan on shooting Tech Pan on a good tripod, I don't think the differences between the 6ish MP digital camera and the good camera/lens/film combination will amount to much IF you're going to scan in the film and print via (say) a Jessops.
On the subject of printing large (which most people don't do - my biggest print to date is 24x20" from a 6x7 and that's big enough!), one of the more problematic areas is indeed grain at the higher enlargements. My wife is a professional photographer who regularly shoots on everything from SLRs up to 8x10 large format rail cameras. She reckons a 16x12 from the Canon and then a carefully selected digital print is subjectively a much finer print than the same thing would be via a conventional colour print in terms of grain, colour integrity and shadow detail. I have to say, the few 16x12 prints I've had made thus far from the Canon are arguably as impressive as those from my Mamiya 7 (which is a medium format camera and uses much a bigger film area).
Above that level of magnification, the Mamiya pulls away, but it's a considerable compliment to the Canon that the two are even comparable at that size.
On that basis, were it not for good old B&W, I'd probably move completely to digital, though I'm keen to see what the next couple of years brings - with some luck, a digital Contax G2 (I love that little camera - imperfect in lots of ways but the lenses, wow!)
quote:
Maybe I should go for one of those strange Leica range finder items but I’m very used to the SLR format.
Another option, for sure. You could also consider medium or large-format as prices are much less than they used to be - and film will be around for years yet...!!!
John
[This message was edited by Top Cat on SUNDAY 04 January 2004 at 18:33.]
Posted on: 04 January 2004 by Geoff P
Like ag I have a 3 megapixel digital camera which slips in the pocket and does an OK job for a few "I was there" sort of shots.
For serious photography I chose Canon SLR and have now got 4 of their excellent ultrasonic SLR lenses. A few years ago I went on a self arranged touring holiday in Alaska and for approxm. 80 GBP was able to purchase a second Canon SLR body so I could have both a 100-300mm and a 28-175mm lens in operation at the same time.
Boy was I glad I did that. Alaska swarms with wildlife and the ability to switch at a moments notice over a zoom range from 28mm to 300mm was used time and again.
Since then I have found the same set of kit fully used on further touring holidays (Glacier, Yellowstone & Mt ranier national Parks and a tour through Arizona, Utah & death Valley).
For sure I could not have afforded the cost of multiple Digital backs at even halfway decent resolution, the zoom ranges available would have been compromised, and I doubt I could have compensated fully for the flexibility to use film speeds up to 800ASA for the sort of lowlight potography that is possible during the Alaskan summer nights (you can do non-flash phtography with unusual visuals all night). This is something that really still remains the territory of film camera as shown by the attached taken at 3 am in the morning with at about 120mm zoom.
Geoff
For serious photography I chose Canon SLR and have now got 4 of their excellent ultrasonic SLR lenses. A few years ago I went on a self arranged touring holiday in Alaska and for approxm. 80 GBP was able to purchase a second Canon SLR body so I could have both a 100-300mm and a 28-175mm lens in operation at the same time.
Boy was I glad I did that. Alaska swarms with wildlife and the ability to switch at a moments notice over a zoom range from 28mm to 300mm was used time and again.
Since then I have found the same set of kit fully used on further touring holidays (Glacier, Yellowstone & Mt ranier national Parks and a tour through Arizona, Utah & death Valley).
For sure I could not have afforded the cost of multiple Digital backs at even halfway decent resolution, the zoom ranges available would have been compromised, and I doubt I could have compensated fully for the flexibility to use film speeds up to 800ASA for the sort of lowlight potography that is possible during the Alaskan summer nights (you can do non-flash phtography with unusual visuals all night). This is something that really still remains the territory of film camera as shown by the attached taken at 3 am in the morning with at about 120mm zoom.
Geoff
Posted on: 04 January 2004 by Geoff P
and here is another one taken around about the same time
Geoff
Geoff
Posted on: 04 January 2004 by Roland Huu
Martin
How about a digital SLR like Nikon D100? It's 'best of both world'. I've both 35mm and digital cameras. Both have their own advantages and it depends how and what you're doing with the output/captured media.
I like the idea that I can use the Nikkor lens for both 35mm SLR and digital SLR like D100. I've tested the D100 and still gave me the fun/freedom which I received from my 35mm.
I think only you can decide which suite your current needs and cost of the hobby today.
Good luck...
Roland
How about a digital SLR like Nikon D100? It's 'best of both world'. I've both 35mm and digital cameras. Both have their own advantages and it depends how and what you're doing with the output/captured media.
I like the idea that I can use the Nikkor lens for both 35mm SLR and digital SLR like D100. I've tested the D100 and still gave me the fun/freedom which I received from my 35mm.
I think only you can decide which suite your current needs and cost of the hobby today.
Good luck...
Roland
Posted on: 04 January 2004 by Derek Wright
Tom
I am a scrappy amateur photographer doing the things for my pleasure and to help out the charity.
Part of the "Open Source" photographic movement - what you have not heard of it <g>
Derek
<< >>
I am a scrappy amateur photographer doing the things for my pleasure and to help out the charity.
Part of the "Open Source" photographic movement - what you have not heard of it <g>
Derek
<< >>
Posted on: 04 January 2004 by Top Cat
Example of film grain letting the side down:
TC '..'
"Sun went down in honey. Moon came up in wine. Stars were spinnin' dizzy, Lord, the band kept us so busy we forgot about the time."
TC '..'
"Sun went down in honey. Moon came up in wine. Stars were spinnin' dizzy, Lord, the band kept us so busy we forgot about the time."
Posted on: 04 January 2004 by Top Cat
(above to illustrate that even with the best cameras, 35mm film & scanning lets the side down as compared to digital)
The only thing to bear in mind is that there's no easy way for anyone to demonstrate the differences between the two over the internet. My advice would be to go to a decent camera shop and ask to see examples of film and decent digital camera prints and decide for yourself.
Jpeg compression on the web just gets in the way of demonstrating just how good raw digital can be. I was amazed but at the same time there is no reason for there not to be room for film as well as for digital in the marketplace. In my opinion, of course...
John
The only thing to bear in mind is that there's no easy way for anyone to demonstrate the differences between the two over the internet. My advice would be to go to a decent camera shop and ask to see examples of film and decent digital camera prints and decide for yourself.
Jpeg compression on the web just gets in the way of demonstrating just how good raw digital can be. I was amazed but at the same time there is no reason for there not to be room for film as well as for digital in the marketplace. In my opinion, of course...
John
Posted on: 04 January 2004 by Steve O
I've just bought a 4MP Olympus with 256MB of memory for £300.
This equates to 90 pictures at the top resolution, which I can print at upto A4 in size without pixellation showing in the print. It gives me pictures that I find as good as the prints I have from a previous 35mm Compact. Alternately I can have perfectly good 6x4 prints at the second highest resolution, which will allow 266 photo's.
Obviously SLR cameras allows you to be more creative, but for what I need it's just the ticket.
I think it boils down to how serious you are.
After all, some people are happy to listen to music on a boombox.
Steve.
This equates to 90 pictures at the top resolution, which I can print at upto A4 in size without pixellation showing in the print. It gives me pictures that I find as good as the prints I have from a previous 35mm Compact. Alternately I can have perfectly good 6x4 prints at the second highest resolution, which will allow 266 photo's.
Obviously SLR cameras allows you to be more creative, but for what I need it's just the ticket.
I think it boils down to how serious you are.
After all, some people are happy to listen to music on a boombox.
Steve.
Posted on: 04 January 2004 by Steve G
It's getting to be a tougher call these days! Like many I use a cheapish digital camera (Olympus C220) for snapshots but 35mm or medium format for more serious stuff.
If I didn't have the investment in film photographic kit then I'd now seriously consider digital for my main setup however I think at present buying 2nd hand 35mm kit would perhaps just slightly edge it for me (especially if it's a system where you can upgrade to a digital body later).
Regards
Steve
If I didn't have the investment in film photographic kit then I'd now seriously consider digital for my main setup however I think at present buying 2nd hand 35mm kit would perhaps just slightly edge it for me (especially if it's a system where you can upgrade to a digital body later).
Regards
Steve
Posted on: 04 January 2004 by AL4N
for ease of use--digital
for every other reason--35mm
for every other reason--35mm
Posted on: 04 January 2004 by BigH47
My daughter has just returned from down under with Digital (Olympus C220Z) and an APS (Fuji I think). Both sets of pics are very close. Digital is very easy to download to the PC, or as she was doing during her trip have them downloaded to CDR. What was very impressive was the panorama pics from the APS, they look stunning. We want to get some enlarged that will tell how good.
My sons world tour pics with his Canon EOS 300 coped with different conditions better and although we have'nt enlarged any of his I would have thought they would be better for that as well having a larger picture area compared to the APS.I have no experience of the "SLR" digitals these are way out of my price range at the moment.
I guess we are back to you pays your money etc...
We had a thread a while back about the size of your Megapixels as opposed to the number of them, something else to consider.
Howard
My sons world tour pics with his Canon EOS 300 coped with different conditions better and although we have'nt enlarged any of his I would have thought they would be better for that as well having a larger picture area compared to the APS.I have no experience of the "SLR" digitals these are way out of my price range at the moment.
I guess we are back to you pays your money etc...
We had a thread a while back about the size of your Megapixels as opposed to the number of them, something else to consider.
Howard
Posted on: 04 January 2004 by ErikL
Top Cat,
How was your trip to Seattle? It appears that you at least had good weather.
Alex G,
Congrats on the new camera purchase. What made you decide on that particular model?
How was your trip to Seattle? It appears that you at least had good weather.
Alex G,
Congrats on the new camera purchase. What made you decide on that particular model?
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by Top Cat
quote:
How was your trip to Seattle? It appears that you at least had good weather.
Yeah, we couldn't have wished for better. Spent a week up at Victoria, whale-watching and basically chilling, then came down to Seattle on the Clipper (boy is that thing pricy for what it is!) and my wife shot a wedding using the 10D on a chartered boat whilst we buzzed around the lake in the middle (whose name I forget). I was 'assistant' with the Contax, shooting mainly B&W. However, you don't want to hear about that.
I enjoyed the trip - Fremont was a cool place, some good record stores up there (I went a bit mad, in light of cabin weight restrictions and all, but it was worth it in the end), EMP is an awe-inspiring place - but very blinkered in its coverage of what is admittedly a very wide genre (modern American music) - I mean, where was The Grateful Dead, Zappa, Elvis even? Conspicuous by their complete absence! But the Hendrix stuff is great.
The Space Needle is a must (speaking as a tourist) though we didn't get a chance to eat in the restaurant. Enjoyed the Cheesecake factory (went there as part of the wedding meal) and the Market (bought lots of chile sauces).
Great place, hilly too (being tourists sans car, we walked everywhere - not always a popular choice!).
John
TC '..'
"Sun went down in honey. Moon came up in wine. Stars were spinnin' dizzy, Lord, the band kept us so busy we forgot about the time."
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by count.d
quote:
Quite simply,
Prints = Nikon Analogue
Screen and Print (magazines, papers etc.) = Nikon Digital
PR has already given the complete answer.
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by Top Cat
I'm going to beg to differ, dear Count.
My thoughts:
B&W: film
Colour: digital
(based upon 10D, Contax (35mm) and Mamiya 7 (6x7))
John
TC '..'
"Sun went down in honey. Moon came up in wine. Stars were spinnin' dizzy, Lord, the band kept us so busy we forgot about the time."
My thoughts:
B&W: film
Colour: digital
(based upon 10D, Contax (35mm) and Mamiya 7 (6x7))
John
TC '..'
"Sun went down in honey. Moon came up in wine. Stars were spinnin' dizzy, Lord, the band kept us so busy we forgot about the time."
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by count.d
quote:
I have to say, the few 16x12 prints I've had made thus far from the Canon are arguably as impressive as those from my Mamiya 7 (which is a medium format camera and uses much a bigger film area).
Top Cat,
If you're finding that you're digital Canon is producing prints as impressive as your Mamiya 6x7 film, you've either got serious printing problems or I'm not sure how you judge a print.
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by Rockingdoc
I have only one thing to say about digital cameras; fvcking rechargeable batteries! I want a camera that will happily live in a drawer for six months then take an instant picture. Not wait for a few hours to charge up.
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by Top Cat
quote:
If you're finding that you're digital Canon is producing prints as impressive as your Mamiya 6x7 film, you've either got serious printing problems or I'm not sure how you judge a print.
No, not just me - my wife, a professional photographer with 15 years' commercial experience, whose speciality is archival.
They used to use 5x4 and 10x8, but are finding the current generation of digital backs (such as the 22MP Leaf that they've just bought) produces archival images as good as the 5x4 Arca Swiss cameras that they typically used.
My comment about the 6x7 is borne out by using both on a sturdy tripod with an Arca Swiss B1 ballhead, cable release (and mirror lockup on the 10D), and the results at or around about 10x8. Above that, the 6x7 pulls away in detail but relating it all back in terms of typical viewing distances, there's no practical difference. Sure, if you look critically at the negative or positive with a good loupe like my Schneider Kreuzenach, you'll see more detail in the medium format shot, but by the time you scan it for a typical print (given that all but the highest quality drum scans introduce flaws which degrade the image considerably), the difference is a lot less than you'd think. And I don't have any facilities to print colour any more, and all the best pro labs around here print digitally these days (scanning if required - at extra £££)
I'm speaking as someone who a year ago would have taken the same view as you, until I tried it for myself. The colour accuracy and enlargability of digital far supercedes that from colour film, though of course the ultimate resolution has a bit to go.
The Michael Reichmann site, The Luminous Landscape, is a good place to look for well thought out field tests between the current crop of digital slrs and medium format backs, versus film. You'll find that his findings largely agree with what I'm saying here.
I really wish it weren't so, as I've invested lots of hard-earned into the Mamiya, but the reality is that unless I want huuuuge prints and am prepared to go down the drum-scan/lambda print route (at huuuuge expense), the 10D is for the most part comparable.
Sure, I personally like the Mamiya more, as it's hyper sharp, super optics are a delight, and it's a lot of fun to use & print B&W from, but the 10D has changed photography for me.
Now, if someone could give me an affordable 25MP+ back for the Mamiya then I'd be very happy, but I don't see that coming...
John
TC '..'
"Sun went down in honey. Moon came up in wine. Stars were spinnin' dizzy, Lord, the band kept us so busy we forgot about the time."
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by count.d
quote:
They used to use 5x4 and 10x8, but are finding the current generation of digital backs (such as the 22MP Leaf that they've just bought) produces archival images as good as the 5x4 Arca Swiss cameras that they typically used.
With all due respect, I wasn't bringing 5x4 leaf digital backs into a forum discussion when the original question was about amateur 35mm use. While we're on the subject, it's still better to shoot on 10x8 film and have it scanned by a £70,000 scanner.
quote:
No, not just me - my wife, a professional photographer with 15 years' commercial experience, whose speciality is archival.
I have over 19 years advertising experience, more if you add my amateur years. What does that prove? Nothing. I've worked with "professional" photographers who have had over 30 years experience and they were still crap.
quote:
I'm speaking as someone who a year ago would have taken the same view as you, until I tried it for myself
I have tried it myself. I've tried everything myself. It's my job. All I do all day is photograph, retouch, print, photograph, send, email, invoice, accounts, chase payments, buy equipment, photograph. I'm retouching images now.
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by Top Cat
Fair enough; we beg to differ. Depends a lot on your aims and goals, I guess.
My wife is very good at what she does - that's why she's still doing it, whilst those she went to college with ended up shooting weddings or working in call centres. I only wish I had her job
John
TC '..'
"Sun went down in honey. Moon came up in wine. Stars were spinnin' dizzy, Lord, the band kept us so busy we forgot about the time."
My wife is very good at what she does - that's why she's still doing it, whilst those she went to college with ended up shooting weddings or working in call centres. I only wish I had her job
John
TC '..'
"Sun went down in honey. Moon came up in wine. Stars were spinnin' dizzy, Lord, the band kept us so busy we forgot about the time."
Posted on: 05 January 2004 by Bruce Woodhouse
Since we have so many good photographers on the forum I'll make a blatant plug for this. Yes, it is a relative but I'm not on comission! Way beyond my technical expertise and mightily impressive. Favourably reviewed in the pro magazines too I believe. One thing I know they talk about in detail are inks/papers etc for printing from digital and analogue media. Seems to me the digital/analogue argument must include consideration of the whole process including the capabilities of printers vs photographic papers and issues such as permanence etc.
Bruce
Bruce