Not to open the "digital vs film" debate, but.......

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mr.Will, Oct 20, 2003.

  1. Mr.Will

    Mr.Will Guest

    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
     
    Mr.Will, Oct 20, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mr.Will

    Todd Walker Guest

    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
    _________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Oct 20, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "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, Oct 21, 2003
    #3
  4. Mr.Will

    Flycaster Guest

    "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, Oct 21, 2003
    #4
  5. "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, Oct 21, 2003
    #5
  6. Mr.Will

    Flycaster Guest

    "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! =-----
     
    Flycaster, Oct 21, 2003
    #6
  7. Mr.Will

    HRosita Guest

    >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
     
    HRosita, Oct 21, 2003
    #7
  8. Mr.Will

    Crownfield Guest

    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
     
    Crownfield, Oct 21, 2003
    #8
  9. Mr.Will

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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.
     
    Ron Hunter, Oct 22, 2003
    #9
  10. Mr.Will

    Rafe B. Guest

    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
     
    Rafe B., Oct 22, 2003
    #10
  11. Mr.Will

    Mr.Will Guest

    I love my canon D60, I think my main concern would indeed be taking it out
    in extremes of weather etc. as I said before.
    Its certainly a great tool.

    Mr.Will

    "Rafe B." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
     
    Mr.Will, Oct 22, 2003
    #11
  12. Mr.Will

    Mr.Will Guest

    From: Todd Walker ()
    Subject: Re: Not to open the "digital vs film" debate, but.......


    View this article only
    Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
    Date: 2003-10-19 22:44:46 PST


    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.

    Thats interesting indeed - I often wonder if advances in materials have made
    things solid anyway, and they merely feel plastic in comparison to the tank
    parts of the A1/


    > 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.
    ------------------
    You must forgive me here, for I don't know what a "grip" is in this
    instance.
    My intention was not to compare the two in the literal sense, only to make
    the point that with my A1 I never really had to consider power or battery
    changes etc. whereas in terms of digital the battery is actually a big part
    of the field.
    Like I say, the problem is easily solved - but it *is* an issue here.

    > 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.

    ------
    Out of interest what are your high settings on the D10? The d60 goes up to
    1000 and for most of the shots I get that pixelly look in the background
    (shooting low light conditions) - for those I do prefer grain, but I will
    admit that just a burst of flash if allowed can bring down the need for the
    1000 ISO rating on my d60.

    Mr.Will
     
    Mr.Will, Oct 22, 2003
    #12
  13. Mr.Will

    FOR7b Guest

    >The 10D is much more solid than the D30 and D60 were.
    >
    >Thats interesting indeed - I often wonder if advances in materials have made
    >things solid anyway, and they merely feel plastic in comparison to the tank
    >parts of the A1/
    >


    I think that is often the case, at leat with the better designed products made
    out of plastic.The fact is modern plastics in a well designed camera is more
    than durable enough, even for "pro" use. Many traditionalists will scoff at
    that idea many of them are also nostalgic for past times


    ..>You must forgive me here, for I don't know what a "grip" is in this
    >instance.



    By grip he means an add on hand grip for vertically oriented shots that often
    hold batteries or alternative power choices.


    >My intention was not to compare the two in the literal sense, only to make
    >the point that with my A1 I never really had to consider power or battery
    >changes etc. whereas in terms of digital the battery is actually a big part
    >of the field.
    >Like I say, the problem is easily solved - but it *is* an issue here.


    Not a big deal really, just carry extra batteries or don't use the LCD display.

    >Out of interest what are your high settings on the D10? The d60 goes up to
    >1000 and for most of the shots I get that pixelly look in the background
    >(shooting low light conditions) - for those I do prefer grain, but I will
    >admit that just a burst of flash if allowed can bring down the need for the
    >1000 ISO rating on my d60.
    >
    >Mr.Will


    I wouldn't use the term pixelly as that is another thing altogether. Noise yes,
    pixelly no, unless you are taking extremely low resolution shots. For such
    instances where a noisy pshot was necessary you could always use a program like
    Neat Image to clean it up. Once you get the hang of it you can dramatically
    reduce or eliminate noise with little to no noticeable image degradation.


     
    FOR7b, Oct 22, 2003
    #13
  14. Mr.Will

    Flycaster Guest

    "Mr.Will" <> wrote in message
    news:R8mlb.1350$...
    > I love my canon D60, I think my main concern would indeed be taking it out
    > in extremes of weather etc. as I said before.
    > Its certainly a great tool.


    While I wouldn't take it out in driving rain, or down through a class IV
    rapid unprotected, I've found the D60 to be pretty tough - I've shot with it
    in Death Valley at 120 degrees, and at the top of Mt. Bachelor, 0 degrees
    and snowing. No problems, though the battery life suffers in extreme cold.

    Frankly, I wouldn't hesitate to take it anywhere I'd take any non-sealed SLR
    (digital or not).




    -----= 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, Oct 22, 2003
    #14
  15. Mr.Will

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <xgmlb.1352$>,
    says...
    > Out of interest what are your high settings on the D10? The d60 goes up to
    > 1000 and for most of the shots I get that pixelly look in the background
    > (shooting low light conditions) - for those I do prefer grain, but I will
    > admit that just a burst of flash if allowed can bring down the need for the
    > 1000 ISO rating on my d60.
    >


    The highest ISO on the 10D is 3200. The high ISO noise in the 10D is
    less than the D60 as well. I don't even start to see noise in my 10D
    images until 800. Here is an interesting example:

    http://www.toddwalker.net/canon10d/index.htm

    Scroll to the bottom of this page and look at my example of an ISO 3200
    shot, before and after manipulation with Neat Image and Fred Miranda's
    Intellisharpen action. True these are only web sized images but
    impressive for ISO 3200 nonetheless.

    --
    ________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://twalker.d2g.com
    Canon 10D:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/canon10d
    My Digital Photography Weblog:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
    _________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Oct 22, 2003
    #15
  16. Mr.Will

    Crownfield Guest

    Rafe B. wrote:
    >
    > 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.


    first picture under mercury vapor lights proves that!!


    > rafe b.
    > http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Crownfield, Oct 22, 2003
    #16
  17. Mr.Will

    MarkH Guest

    "Mr.Will" <> wrote in
    news:xgmlb.1352$:

    > From: Todd Walker ()
    > Subject: Re: Not to open the "digital vs film" debate, but.......
    >
    >> The 10D is much more solid than the D30 and D60 were.

    >
    > Thats interesting indeed - I often wonder if advances in materials
    > have made things solid anyway, and they merely feel plastic in
    > comparison to the tank parts of the A1/


    With the 10D it is not plastic, the body is magnesium alloy.



    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
    "There are 10 types of people, those that
    understand binary and those that don't"
     
    MarkH, Oct 22, 2003
    #17
  18. Mr.Will

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Mr.Will wrote:

    > From: Todd Walker ()
    > Subject: Re: Not to open the "digital vs film" debate, but.......
    >
    >
    > View this article only
    > Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
    > Date: 2003-10-19 22:44:46 PST
    >
    >
    > 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.
    >
    > Thats interesting indeed - I often wonder if advances in materials have made
    > things solid anyway, and they merely feel plastic in comparison to the tank
    > parts of the A1/
    >
    >

    Much of what gives that 'take parts' feeling is just the weight. Most
    digital cameras are lighter than their film counterparts. In the case
    of the 10D, I suspect you would feel quite comfortable. With the extra
    battery pack, it is quite a handful.

    >
    >>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.
    > ------------------
    > You must forgive me here, for I don't know what a "grip" is in this
    > instance.
    > My intention was not to compare the two in the literal sense, only to make
    > the point that with my A1 I never really had to consider power or battery
    > changes etc. whereas in terms of digital the battery is actually a big part
    > of the field.
    > Like I say, the problem is easily solved - but it *is* an issue here.
    >


    Yeah, but then I don't have to change film after every 36 shots, which
    takes MUCH longer than changing batteries on my digital.

    >
    >>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.
    >
    > ------
    > Out of interest what are your high settings on the D10? The d60 goes up to
    > 1000 and for most of the shots I get that pixelly look in the background
    > (shooting low light conditions) - for those I do prefer grain, but I will
    > admit that just a burst of flash if allowed can bring down the need for the
    > 1000 ISO rating on my d60.
    >


    The 10D does beautiful shots with minimal noise at up to 1600 ISO. Look
    at the example pictures in some of the online review sites.

    > Mr.Will
    >
    >
     
    Ron Hunter, Oct 22, 2003
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Splibbilla
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    506
    Splibbilla
    Jul 13, 2005
  2. Phil

    EDUCATION DEBATE

    Phil, Oct 9, 2003, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    458
  3. Dragon

    OT: Debate

    Dragon, Oct 1, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    604
  4. Mike
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    15,273
  5. Waylon Kenning
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    523
    Dave - Dave.net.nz
    Nov 24, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page