If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital
Alan Justice writes ...
Are the changes statistically significant? Yes If you don't think so ask Kodak and Fuji how their film sales are doing. And the tipping point for film vs digital new camera sales came in 2003 when digital first surged ahead for the first time. By 2005, according to the PMA, digital cameras would out-sell film cameras by a 4-1 margin (20.5 million digital vs 4.6 million film bodies, down from 19.7 film cameras sold in 2000). I wonder how the digital/film selection differs depending on level of experience. And how does it differ for landscape vs wildlife shooters? If there were some way to determine the top 20 nature/wildlife photographers who made their reputations with 35 mm film (I feel confident in naming maybe 10 of them ... Shaw, Lanting, Mangelsen, Brandenburg, Wolfe etc) then I'd bet 80-90% of them have switched to digital and dropped 35mm. Take the top 20 landscape photographers (which will probably be one medium format guy - RG Ketchum - and the rest 4x5 or 8x10" view camera guys) and I'd bet a high percentage (maybe all) are still shooting film (Velvia for the most part) since the highest quality 39 Mpixel digital backs are still extremely expensive (say $30,000 or so, something a commercial studio will pay but not a landscape photographer) and while these are better than medium format they don't seem to quite match large format. It's not a matter of level of experience, it's a question of whether or not digital offers more advantages than what they are now using at a reasonable cost. For example, in deciding if I want to go digital for Canon, I might be happy with the 16.7 MPix 1Ds MII for scenics, but it only shoots 4 fps, so would not work well for wildlife Right, so get the 1Ds M II for scenics if you need to print that large and get the 1D Mark II for wildlife, which is what many of us like myself and Roger are using for birds and bears etc. 8 Mpixels is enough for wildlife, I feel. My 1V is 10 fps, and even with just a desk scanner (4k dpi) I get 24 MPix (with film) This was explained to you previously by Roger, about why you can't just say one is better than another because it has a higher pixel count. To use your 24 Mpixel value (it's actually more like 21 Mpix if you scan to the edge of unmounted film, less if scanning mounted slides), if you shot a crappy high speed film, say 400 iso pushed one stop to 800, it would be grainy and not as saturated as slower films. You scan it and you have 24 Mpix, you scan Velvia or Provia 100F and you also have 24 Mpix ... are they the same even though they have the same pixel count? No. You could make this more absurd by scanning the grainy, low saturated film with a drum scanner at up to 12,000 dpi and have around 182 Mpixels ... is this 7 or 8 times better than the Velvia scanned at 24 Mpixels or is it inferior for practical purposes? All you've done is scan grain and you still have poor colors. For the same reasons, pixels from the better digital cameras are better than scanned film pixels. Bill |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital
googlegroups2sucks wrote:
too _much_ focal length... interesting. i can't decide between nikon's 500mm and the 200-400mm zoom. which would you prefer for general wildlife photography? No question for me: the 500 mm f/4 lens is my preferred lens whenever I can lug it around. I have the canon 100-400, but prefer a 300 f/4 if I have to travel lighter (than the 500). With the 300, I can use 1.4 and 2x TCs. Roger |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital
Alan Justice writes ...
I had noticed in the 6/05 Outdoor Photographer that 18 of 20 photos in Top Landscape Tips from "veteran scenic masters" were film I found the article you mention (pg 66+ ?) and while there are 20 Tips from the "veteran scenic masters" there were only 13 photos, not 20 ... as I guessed, most of these were large format (four used 4x5" cameras) or medium format (two 6x7, two 6x4.5). This leaves five and of those three were film images shot with Nikons and two were digital images shot with Canons, so the percentages and brands match up pretty well with what I described for "Nature's Best" if you compare 35 mm to digital. Bill |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital
I'm pretty good at math, but, apparently, not at counting.
Your bottom line compares 35 mm film to digital 35-mm-like (what is it called, anyway, especially if the sensor is less than 35 mm across? I guess just "digital SLR".). But it is still the case that film has it over digital for landscapes. It just has more options with larger formats. (Compare best film to best digital, although I don't know about those large 39 MPix backs.) -- - Alan Justice "Bill Hilton" wrote in message ups.com... Alan Justice writes ... I had noticed in the 6/05 Outdoor Photographer that 18 of 20 photos in Top Landscape Tips from "veteran scenic masters" were film I found the article you mention (pg 66+ ?) and while there are 20 Tips from the "veteran scenic masters" there were only 13 photos, not 20 ... as I guessed, most of these were large format (four used 4x5" cameras) or medium format (two 6x7, two 6x4.5). This leaves five and of those three were film images shot with Nikons and two were digital images shot with Canons, so the percentages and brands match up pretty well with what I described for "Nature's Best" if you compare 35 mm to digital. Bill |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital
"Bill Hilton" wrote in message oups.com... snip For example, in deciding if I want to go digital for Canon, I might be happy with the 16.7 MPix 1Ds MII for scenics, but it only shoots 4 fps, so would not work well for wildlife Right, so get the 1Ds M II for scenics if you need to print that large and get the 1D Mark II for wildlife, which is what many of us like myself and Roger are using for birds and bears etc. 8 Mpixels is enough for wildlife, I feel. This was pretty much my conclusion. But I like my large wildlife shots to be as sharp as the landscapes, if not sharper. For certain human portraits, soft focus is desirable, but I like to see the snot in the bison's nose, or the feather detail on an eagle. Surely these would be better at 16 than 8 MPix. In your experience, how large would one have to print in order to see this difference? I'm currently only going to 13x19, but would like to plan for when I need larger. My 1V is 10 fps, and even with just a desk scanner (4k dpi) I get 24 MPix (with film) This was explained to you previously by Roger, about why you can't just say one is better than another because it has a higher pixel count. To use your 24 Mpixel value (it's actually more like 21 Mpix if you scan to the edge of unmounted film, less if scanning mounted slides), if you shot a crappy high speed film, say 400 iso pushed one stop to 800, it would be grainy and not as saturated as slower films. You scan it and you have 24 Mpix, you scan Velvia or Provia 100F and you also have 24 Mpix ... are they the same even though they have the same pixel count? No. You could make this more absurd by scanning the grainy, low saturated film with a drum scanner at up to 12,000 dpi and have around 182 Mpixels ... is this 7 or 8 times better than the Velvia scanned at 24 Mpixels or is it inferior for practical purposes? All you've done is scan grain and you still have poor colors. For the same reasons, pixels from the better digital cameras are better than scanned film pixels. I'm still trying to wrap my cerebral cortex around that one. I guess I just need to experience it. When scanning grainy film, the film is the weakest link (garbage in, garbage out). But with Velvia under ideal conditions, I assume a 4000 dpi scan is the weakest link. An R print (or other direct print or drum scan) would lose less in the translation, so it should be best, right? (At least for resolution.) Shooting the same scene under the same conditions (e.g., ISO 50 film and digital set to 50, same lens etc.), you're saying that an 8 MPix (or 16?) digital is better than film (resolution AND color?), using the best availible method of printing each? Bill - Alan Justice |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital
Alan Justice writes ...
Shooting the same scene under the same conditions (e.g., ISO 50 film and digital set to 50, same lens etc.), you're saying that an 8 MPix (or 16?) digital is better than film (resolution AND color?), using the best availible method of printing each? Not quite what I said, but close ... to be precise, I don't have a 16 Mpix body and haven't downloaded one of the test files but we do have 6, 8 and 11 Mpixel bodies (Canon 10D, 1D Mark II and 1Ds) ... when debating whether to switch to digital I took my wife's 10D and two EOS-3 film bodies to Alaska two winters ago and was able to photograph eagles at close range under similar circumstances, using Provia 100F in one film body and Velvia 100F in the other (I was testing films too) with a 1.4x converter on the 500 compared to the 10D without a converter (there's a built-in 1.6x f-o-v difference because of the smaller sensor, so this left me at 700 mm vs 800 mm fov). I also shot the 10D with a 1.4x vs film with a 2x. This was as close as I could get to real-life comparisons ... here are links to two of the 10D shots that I could duplicate almost exactly with the film cameras with the 1.4x or 2x since he sat on this post for 15 minutes eating a fish ... http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/ea...gital/head.jpg (500 mm w/ 1.4x) http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/ea...igital/cry.jpg (500 alone) So I printed those (and others) 12x18" and printed the film scans and felt the film scans looked a bit better at this size print, with more detail in the feathers and eye. In other words 35 mm film beat a 6 Mpixel Canon 10D at this print size, but I sure liked skipping the 1.4x converter with the digital and I would have liked looking at the images each night (I didn't take a computer on this trip, no room), and I liked increasing the ISO to freeze the wings as I needed a higher shutter speed, and I liked not having to pay $12 per roll for film and processing ... in other words, I was ready to switch to digital but not at 6 Mpix. I also found the 10D's autofocus slow and lacking compared to the EOS-3. A month or so later I made the plunge and got the 1Ds which has 11 Mpixels and there was no comparison, I could make 12x18" prints with these files that were much smoother and more detailed than I could with Provia 100F slides scanned at 4,000 dpi on a Nikon 8000. I pretty much quit using 35 mm film at that point, but still used two medium format systems (645 and 6x7 cm) with Velvia. Twice I took the 1Ds and the medium format systems on trips and shot the same things and felt the prints from medium format film were noticeably better than prints from the 1Ds (some people disagree with this but that's what I saw on my equipment). By this time I had an Epson 4000 printer which can print up to 16x24" and at 16x20" I feel MF has the advantage. In June 2004 we also got two 1D Mark II's for wildlife (the 11 Mpix body is a bit slow for birds-in-flight etc) and these are excellent cameras, with 1.3x f-o-v so you get almost a 'free' 1.4x converter. I didn't shoot them side-by-side against 35 mm film since I was no longer shooting 35 but when everything goes just right with the shot (ie perfect focus, no subject motion) we get better 16x20" prints from these than we ever got from scanned 35 mm. This is comparing digital shots taken generally at ISO 250-320 to film shots at ISO 100 (occasionally pushed to 200). So that's what I'm seeing ... I think a lot of others are seeing pretty much the same trend. I think you have an Epson 2200 or similar 13x19" printer and you can download test images from bodies like the 1D Mark II or 1Ds M II (16 Mpix) or, for grins since you don't do Nikon, 12 Mpix files from the D2x and print them to see how smooth they are. I think you'll be surprised. Bill |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital | Bill Hilton | Digital Photography | 1 | November 28th 05 07:44 PM |
FALL PANOS LOVE THE 20D !!! | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 52 | November 14th 05 10:10 PM |
What do you shoot with? Nikon, Olympus or....Sanyo?? | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | May 6th 05 11:24 AM |
digital vs 35mm - status now | Robert Feinman | 35mm Photo Equipment | 83 | December 3rd 04 09:31 AM |
Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it? | Nick Zentena | Large Format Photography Equipment | 14 | July 27th 04 03:31 AM |