«

The last thing I want is to reopen the long debate that will never end, but
having used a Canon d60 (my second camera, having used a Canon A1 for many
many years) I have had some observations with regard to film v digital that
I'd like to share and invite comments on.

I like that digital is far quicker in terms of wiring photos straight to the
newsdesk or having images that can be instantly seen at the venue. While
most people are happy to trust you when you leave, showing them results on a
tft screen or even on the flat panel enables people to see the work done and
settle any small doubts they may have.
I also like things such as autofocus, ability to digitially edit photos and
ease of storage - reminds me of CDs vs vinyl in that respect.

The parts where I feel the old school still have the edge are in terms of
toughness - my Canon A1 and its lenses seemed indestructable. The d60 is
great but does feel very flimsy in comparison. I've yet to have anything go
wrong on either, so at the moment its merely how it feels.
My a1 battery lasted 12 years through the seasons before needing replacing!
Sometimes in cold conditions or in darker settings the d60 battery runs low
very quickly. Certainly I dont feel confident without going on a photoshoot
with five or six of these.
I also dont think theres the ability to "push" digital like you can with
film. Again just observations rather than conclusions at the moment, but it
does seem like digital imaging at 1600 or 2400 ISO isnt really an option
right now.

I will be clear, I havent any intentions of returning to film, and I dont
see that people can truly say film is "better" without having tried the
digital option. It is however very very different and in some instances isnt
as good.

--
Mr.Will

In article <64Kkb.11$>,
says...
> The parts where I feel the old school still have the edge are in terms of
> toughness - my Canon A1 and its lenses seemed indestructable. The d60 is
> great but does feel very flimsy in comparison. I've yet to have anything go
> wrong on either, so at the moment its merely how it feels.

The 10D is much more solid than the D30 and D60 were.

> My a1 battery lasted 12 years through the seasons before needing replacing!
> Sometimes in cold conditions or in darker settings the d60 battery runs low
> very quickly. Certainly I dont feel confident without going on a photoshoot
> with five or six of these.

Come on, surely you don't think you can compare battery usage in a 35mm
film camera with that of a digital do you? Apples and oranges. I have
the BG-ED3 grip for my 10D and I can take about 1000 pictures without
recharging.

> I also dont think theres the ability to "push" digital like you can with
> film. Again just observations rather than conclusions at the moment, but it
> does seem like digital imaging at 1600 or 2400 ISO isnt really an option
> right now.

Digital does high ISO much better than any film can -- unless you are a
fan of grain that is.

--
________________________________
Todd Walker
http://twalker.d2g.com
Canon 10D:
http://twalker.d2g.com/canon10d
My Digital Photography Weblog:
http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
_________________________________

"Mr.Will" <> wrote:

> I also dont think theres the ability to "push" digital like you can with
> film. Again just observations rather than conclusions at the moment, but
it
> does seem like digital imaging at 1600 or 2400 ISO isnt really an option
> right now.

For starters, it's not clear how far you can "push" film. Pushing results in
no additional shadow detail, so a lot of people will tell you that the
fastest real speed for film is ISO 1200 or so.

The dSLRs are _worlds_ better than film in the ISO 400 to 3200 range; it's
only ISO 100 slide films that can edge out digital in 35mm. At ISO 400 and
800, the 10D is clearly better than film. If you turn off in-camera
sharpening, correctly exposed ISO 1600 images print at A4 with no
noise/grain, something unthinkable with film at that speed. (Low light
images are often underexposed, so noise is a problem. See below for the
solution<g>.)

See http://www.halftone.co.uk/10d/ for an amazing example of rescuing a
hideously underexposed shot, creating, in effect, an ISO 12,800 image.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
news:bn37f9$ubp$...
>
> "Mr.Will" <> wrote:
>
> > I also dont think theres the ability to "push" digital like you can with
> > film. Again just observations rather than conclusions at the moment, but
> it
> > does seem like digital imaging at 1600 or 2400 ISO isnt really an option
> > right now.
>
> For starters, it's not clear how far you can "push" film. Pushing results
in
> no additional shadow detail, so a lot of people will tell you that the
> fastest real speed for film is ISO 1200 or so.
>
> The dSLRs are _worlds_ better than film in the ISO 400 to 3200 range; it's
> only ISO 100 slide films that can edge out digital in 35mm. At ISO 400 and
> 800, the 10D is clearly better than film. If you turn off in-camera
> sharpening, correctly exposed ISO 1600 images print at A4 with no
> noise/grain, something unthinkable with film at that speed. (Low light
> images are often underexposed, so noise is a problem. See below for the
> solution<g>.)
>
> See http://www.halftone.co.uk/10d/ for an amazing example of rescuing a
> hideously underexposed shot, creating, in effect, an ISO 12,800 image.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

Very interesting. I take it that you like Neat Image, and use it regularly?
I am just starting to look into a noise reduction program for our D60, but I
have read that NI is *slow*, and that getting good reults requires a bit of
a learning curve.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Flycaster" <> wrote:
>
> Very interesting. I take it that you like Neat Image, and use it
regularly?

Truth in advertising one: I didn't do that page.

Truth in advertising two: Well, it takes 30 minutes to clean up one 54 MP
scan, so I hardly use it at all, rather I use ISO 100 slide film that
doesn't need it for most of my work. I probably should work out a workflow,
leaving it crunching overnight, since it cleans up Reala quite nicely and
Reala has much nicer shadows.

> I am just starting to look into a noise reduction program for our D60, but
I
> have read that NI is *slow*, and that getting good results requires a bit
of
> a learning curve.

The tutorials are quite good, and the learning curve isn't all that bad. It
is slow, but there are lots of alternatives to Neat Image. (Why don't you
try it? It's a free download (I think).)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
news:bn3bno$vuu$...
[snip]
> The tutorials are quite good, and the learning curve isn't all that bad.
It
> is slow, but there are lots of alternatives to Neat Image. (Why don't you
> try it? It's a free download (I think).)

I will, thanks.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

>David J. Littleboy" wrote:

>For starters, it's not clear how far you can "push" film. Pushing results in
>no additional shadow detail, so a lot of people will tell you that the
>fastest real speed for film is ISO 1200 or so.

Also if you push film, the entire film has to be developed the same way.
with digital I can switch ISO at will between individual images.
Rosita

David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> "Mr.Will" <> wrote:
>
> > I also dont think theres the ability to "push" digital like you can with
> > film. Again just observations rather than conclusions at the moment, but
> it
> > does seem like digital imaging at 1600 or 2400 ISO isnt really an option
> > right now.
>
> For starters, it's not clear how far you can "push" film. Pushing results in
> no additional shadow detail, so a lot of people will tell you that the
> fastest real speed for film is ISO 1200 or so.

how about latensification?

>
> See http://www.halftone.co.uk/10d/ for an amazing example of rescuing a
> hideously underexposed shot, creating, in effect, an ISO 12,800 image.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

HRosita wrote:

>>David J. Littleboy" wrote:
>
>
>>For starters, it's not clear how far you can "push" film. Pushing results in
>>no additional shadow detail, so a lot of people will tell you that the
>>fastest real speed for film is ISO 1200 or so.
>
>
> Also if you push film, the entire film has to be developed the same way.
> with digital I can switch ISO at will between individual images.
> Rosita
>
>
That is a very good point in favor of digital cameras.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:40:50 -0500, Ron Hunter <>
wrote:

>HRosita wrote:
>
>>>David J. Littleboy" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>For starters, it's not clear how far you can "push" film. Pushing results in
>>>no additional shadow detail, so a lot of people will tell you that the
>>>fastest real speed for film is ISO 1200 or so.
>>
>>
>> Also if you push film, the entire film has to be developed the same way.
>> with digital I can switch ISO at will between individual images.
>> Rosita
>>
>>
>That is a very good point in favor of digital cameras.


Yep, that and a few other nifty features -- like white
balance controls.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com