Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Digital/Analogue Comparisons (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t429966-digital-analogue-comparisons.html)

Steve Hodgson 10-21-2006 04:02 PM

Digital/Analogue Comparisons
 
I was hunting around to see if there are any credible articles
reviewing the state of play of analogue vs. digital photography for
various levels of equipment. I didn't find anything and wondered if
anyone knows of such articles.

I was hoping to see how image qualities vary with the various types of
equipment from budget compacts, through DSLR and upwards.
--
Cheers,

Steve

The reply-to email address is a spam trap.
Email steve 'at' shodgson 'dot' org 'dot' uk


David J. Littleboy 10-21-2006 04:03 PM

Re: Digital/Analogue Comparisons
 

"Steve Hodgson" <hamrun@gmail.com> wrote:
>I was hunting around to see if there are any credible articles reviewing
>the state of play of analogue vs. digital photography for various levels of
>equipment. I didn't find anything and wondered if anyone knows of such
>articles.
>
> I was hoping to see how image qualities vary with the various types of
> equipment from budget compacts, through DSLR and upwards.


http://www.ales.litomisky.com/shooto...alshootout.htm

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



David J Taylor 10-21-2006 04:16 PM

Re: Digital/Analogue Comparisons
 
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Steve Hodgson" <hamrun@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I was hunting around to see if there are any credible articles
>> reviewing the state of play of analogue vs. digital photography for
>> various levels of equipment. I didn't find anything and wondered if
>> anyone knows of such articles.
>>
>> I was hoping to see how image qualities vary with the various types
>> of equipment from budget compacts, through DSLR and upwards.

>
> http://www.ales.litomisky.com/shooto...alshootout.htm
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan


That's an interesting comparison, David.

One area which isn't addressed there, though, is the non-SLR digital
camera. With typical film, you could not have got good results from the
miniature sensor size seen in many digital cameras today. OK, there was
Minox etc., but hardly mainstream.

The compacts of today offer enough quality for many people and allow
prints up to, say, 10 x 8 inches. Are they, perhaps, similar quality to
the "35 mm film camera" used in the article's comparison?

David



Paul Rubin 10-21-2006 04:25 PM

Re: Digital/Analogue Comparisons
 
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:
> http://www.ales.litomisky.com/shooto...alshootout.htm


Pretty interesting. I'd like to see a comparison between a 5D and
a 35mm camera using super fine grained black and white film sometime.

Marvin 10-21-2006 05:04 PM

Re: Digital/Analogue Comparisons
 
Steve Hodgson wrote:
> I was hunting around to see if there are any credible articles reviewing
> the state of play of analogue vs. digital photography for various levels
> of equipment. I didn't find anything and wondered if anyone knows of
> such articles.
>
> I was hoping to see how image qualities vary with the various types of
> equipment from budget compacts, through DSLR and upwards.


A lot has been written, but many of the differences are
subjective. So there are many opinions, and many arguments.

timeOday 10-21-2006 05:31 PM

Re: Digital/Analogue Comparisons
 
David J Taylor wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
>>"Steve Hodgson" <hamrun@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I was hunting around to see if there are any credible articles
>>>reviewing the state of play of analogue vs. digital photography for
>>>various levels of equipment. I didn't find anything and wondered if
>>>anyone knows of such articles.
>>>
>>>I was hoping to see how image qualities vary with the various types
>>>of equipment from budget compacts, through DSLR and upwards.

>>
>>http://www.ales.litomisky.com/shooto...alshootout.htm
>>
>>David J. Littleboy
>>Tokyo, Japan

>
>
> That's an interesting comparison, David.
>
> One area which isn't addressed there, though, is the non-SLR digital
> camera. With typical film, you could not have got good results from the
> miniature sensor size seen in many digital cameras today. OK, there was
> Minox etc., but hardly mainstream.
>
> The compacts of today offer enough quality for many people and allow
> prints up to, say, 10 x 8 inches. Are they, perhaps, similar quality to
> the "35 mm film camera" used in the article's comparison?
>
> David
>
>


Whoah, I can't believe the digital camera blew away 6x6 cm medium format.

And that's using an exotic drum scanner running $50-$100 *per frame*
<http://www.colorfolio.com/pricing/drum_scan_pricing.htm>
<http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/services/scan/wciscans.htm>

I share your curiosity about how a pocket digital would perform. My
guess is the compact would do quite well if ample light were available.
I think DSLRs' main advantage is in low light situations.

Here are some shots you can compare between the 5d used in the above
test and the Canon D700 IS (picked at random, not my camera). The 5D
clearly captures more detail, but I think the D700 would still blow away
35mm film in the test above.

<http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page26.asp>
<http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsd700is/page5.asp>

David J. Littleboy 10-21-2006 05:48 PM

Re: Digital/Analogue Comparisons
 

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:
>> http://www.ales.litomisky.com/shooto...alshootout.htm

>
> Pretty interesting. I'd like to see a comparison between a 5D and
> a 35mm camera using super fine grained black and white film sometime.


At least for scanning, "super fine grained black and white film" doesn't do
a lot better than the better color negative films (Fuji's latest ISO 160
films are rather amazing in terms of the tightness (and
non-objectionableness) of the grain pattern, even when scanned). I've shot
some Tech Pan and TMX100 in 645 and 6x7, and TMX100 in 6x7 is a tad better
than the 5D.

If you read the tech sheets and shoot bar charts, the "super fine grained
black and white films" seem pretty cool, but when you shoot real images and
put the images under a microscope or in a scanner, the enthusiasm cools. Or
at least that's what happened here.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



Paul Rubin 10-21-2006 05:59 PM

Re: Digital/Analogue Comparisons
 
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:
> If you read the tech sheets and shoot bar charts, the "super fine grained
> black and white films" seem pretty cool, but when you shoot real images and
> put the images under a microscope or in a scanner, the enthusiasm cools. Or
> at least that's what happened here.


Well, they must make and use those films for a reason. Think of all
the microfilm and microfiche at the library, for example. Can a 5D
do anything like that, or do we still need scanners?

Steve Hodgson 10-21-2006 08:17 PM

Re: Digital/Analogue Comparisons
 
On 2006-10-21 17:03:46 +0100, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> said:

>
> "Steve Hodgson" <hamrun@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I was hunting around to see if there are any credible articles
>> reviewing the state of play of analogue vs. digital photography for
>> various levels of equipment. I didn't find anything and wondered if
>> anyone knows of such articles.
>>
>> I was hoping to see how image qualities vary with the various types of
>> equipment from budget compacts, through DSLR and upwards.

>
> http://www.ales.litomisky.com/shooto...alshootout.htm


Thanks for that link - fascinating stuff. I was really impressed at the
differences in the cropped images.

On my first pass through the pictures I still favoured the output from
two film cameras but in the end decided this was the warmth added by
the Velvio film. I reckon that is they were shot on something cooler I
would have been less biased.
--
Cheers,

Steve

The reply-to email address is a spam trap.
Email steve 'at' shodgson 'dot' org 'dot' uk


David J. Littleboy 10-22-2006 09:39 AM

Re: Digital/Analogue Comparisons
 

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:
>> If you read the tech sheets and shoot bar charts, the "super fine grained
>> black and white films" seem pretty cool, but when you shoot real images
>> and
>> put the images under a microscope or in a scanner, the enthusiasm cools.
>> Or
>> at least that's what happened here.

>
> Well, they must make and use those films for a reason.


Most of the high-res and/or ultra-fine grained films have been discontinued.
Tech Pan, Ektar, Konica Impressa 50, Panatomic X. All gone.

> Think of all the microfilm and microfiche at the library, for example.


Microfilm is high contast; some, with careful development can persuaded to
be somewhat useful for pictorial photography (Tech Pan, Gigabit), but it's
very slow, has odd spectral response, and requires that you develop it
yourself. (I'd be interested in trying Gigabit film in my Mamiya 7, but I
don't think it is made in 120. Sigh.)

>Can a 5D
> do anything like that, or do we still need scanners?


Well, there's this minor problem that there aren't any affordable 35mm
scanners in production that can really do better than the 5D, whatever the
properties of the film. Bart claims the Minolta 5400 more than edges out the
4000 ppi Nikons, but it's out of production. Roger claims drum scanning at
high res squeezes more out of the film, but those services are pricey.

TMX100, Fuji Pro160S, Provia 100F in 6x7 or 6x9 will edge out the 5D, and
almost any film in 4x5 will trounce it (as long as you don't stop down to
f/45 or smaller<g>).

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.