35mm vs medium format vs digital cameras

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by The LoxFather, Aug 9, 2003.

  1. What are the advantages of each format?

    With MF, obviously enlargement potential is #1.

    With 35mm, availability of film everywhere you look.

    With digital, no need for film or processing....but lacking quality.

    How do you think they compare?
    The LoxFather, Aug 9, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Depends on one's budget ........ the Nikons, those costing over
    $10,000 are quite good.

    But there's better ......

    LEAF goes over $30K per camera!

    Dentists are quite interested in this topic too as we are gradually
    converting to digital format for radiographs, panographic x-rays, etc.


    Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
    Philadelphia PA

    no one has seen the tooth or
    teeth in question so take
    this advice within its proper
    context ~ this is the internet!
    Joel M. Eichen D.D.S., Aug 9, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. The LoxFather

    Rafe B. Guest

    Cameras in the 10D, D100 and Fuji S2 classs are
    now encroaching or even surpassing typcial 35mm
    film quality.

    Cameras in the 1Ds and 14n class are now
    encroaching on or even surpassing typical
    MF film quality.

    With exceptional optics, slow reversal film,
    tripod, and the latest film scanners, film still
    holds its own, but just barely.

    One problem rarely metioned with dSLRs is
    the issue of keeping the sensor clean.

    rafe b.
    Rafe B., Aug 9, 2003
  4. "The LoxFather"

    Why not do some reseach? No one really cares which
    option you choose as it will be a personal decision.
    Fletis Humplebacker, Aug 9, 2003
  5. The LoxFather

    HRosita Guest

    The LoxFather stated:
    And you know that because?

    Have you checked the Canon 1Ds,
    the Canon 10D, the Nikon D100? etc?.

    There are plenty of 35mm cameras that lack in quality.
    HRosita, Aug 9, 2003
  6. The LoxFather

    Dave Lee Guest

    Each format has its uses. Depends what you are photographing.
    Not necessarily. Many photo labs can't work with MF film (depending on
    where you live).
    I shoot digital and always have my film with me. I couldn't find my Fuji
    NPS at say, Yosemite National Park, but I have a chance to find a small
    compact flash card. Shooting Kodak Gold 100 will *not* yield comparable
    quality for my photography compared to Fuji NPS, but a store-bought
    compact flash card will yield identical quality as my existing cards.
    That is your severest misunderstanding. Again, depends on what format of
    digital you are shooting. The Canon EOS-1DS is a full-frame (meaning the
    sensor is the same size as a piece of film which means when you put your
    50mm lens on the camera, you get a 50mm lens, not a 75mm lens as on some
    less expensive DSLR's) digital SLR that outputs an 11 mega pixel file.
    This resolution will beat nearly any film from a standard 35mm or medium
    format camera. Large format will match it, but try running around a
    basketball court with a large format camera and you'll know what I mean!

    I shoot with my 3 year old 3 mega pixel Nikon Coolpix 990 camera and
    routinely make 4x6 prints at Costco from the files I select. The quality
    is far better than I would get from a piece of 35mm film, and matches what
    I got from my old (and sold a long time ago) Bronica ETRS and Mamiya RB67
    Pro medium format cameras. There is *no* film grain.
    Depends if you like the look of film or the look of digital. I have shot
    nearly all formats, and digital wins every time. Saves me huge money
    every time I shoot (sorry Kodak). I saved over $100 this last weekend
    shooting 439 images not having to buy the film or process it. The prints
    are made only when I choose to make them, and only the images I want to
    print. And they are the same price as prints made from film (at Costco 19
    cents plus tax).


    Dave Lee, Aug 9, 2003
  7. The LoxFather

    Ken Johnsen Guest

    Why did you cross post this?

    Ken Johnsen, Aug 9, 2003
  8. The LoxFather

    Ken Johnsen Guest

    Ken Johnsen, Aug 9, 2003
  9. The LoxFather

    Ken Johnsen Guest

    Ken Johnsen, Aug 9, 2003
  10. First tell me why you are repeating yourself so much???

    Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
    Philadelphia PA

    no one has seen the tooth or
    teeth in question so take
    this advice within its proper
    context ~ this is the internet!
    Joel M. Eichen D.D.S., Aug 9, 2003
  11. Which groups might be inappropriate in your estimation?



    Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
    Philadelphia PA

    no one has seen the tooth or
    teeth in question so take
    this advice within its proper
    context ~ this is the internet!
    Joel M. Eichen D.D.S., Aug 9, 2003
  12. RE: The title!

    Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
    Philadelphia PA

    no one has seen the tooth or
    teeth in question so take
    this advice within its proper
    context ~ this is the internet!
    Joel M. Eichen D.D.S., Aug 9, 2003
  13. You do realize that you hit a bunch of news groups that maybe this message
    wasn't intended for! That being said I have the following to offer.

    Actually I do not consider enlargements to be MF #1 potential. Its
    number one potential is the control you have over the formation of the

    35 mm will be virtually dead in a couple of years. I do hope that people
    do not cast off that statement out of hand. Being a resident of upstate
    NY and only a few miles from Kodaks massive factories I know first hand
    where 35 mm is going. The unfortunate thing is that friends and
    neighbors use to work there and no longer will. Kodak is projecting a
    %10 decrease ( or something close to that) in film sales year on year from
    now on. Everything I've seen indicates that they have yet to come to
    grips with digital, they may very well have issues surviving as a company.
    I could easly see them loosing twenty five percent of the film market next
    year to digital. Much of the professional market is moving very quickly
    to digital so the issue reside across all segments of their markets.

    Digital is interesting, I consider it to be at the same development point
    as the model T was in the devlopment of the automobile. The model T was
    a big improvement over previous vehicles but a great deal of refinement
    came afterwards. Film will be like the horse and buggy, nothing more
    than a toy for those that enjoy using them.

    I'm not sure why you think that digital lacks quality. It doesn't have
    the same features as film but then agains it doesn't have some of films
    problems. When you can get, in the near future, a digital camera with
    5MP of resolution in a $200 dollar camera the consumer market will have
    little need for film. I suspect that such cameras are not far off at
    all, pricing now seems to be more of a case of taking everything that the
    manufacture and retailer can get. Even today though a 3 to 4 mega pixel
    point and shoot has advantages over film. Sure you have to know and work
    within digitals limitations.

    From the professional end I think the massive switch to digital clearly
    demonstrates where film is going. In many cases professionals are
    dropping medium format equipment in favor of digital hardware. This in
    its self indicates that digital can compete nicely with repsect to
    quality. Yes some of the switch to digital is being guided by the
    pressures to do more faster, but professionals will always use whatever is
    required to please the customer. Digtial in many cases is the best
    solution when all things are considered.

    What is truely the most important consideration is where is digital going.
    There is tremendous upside potential with respect to digital that simply
    does not exist with film. That upside potential is very likely to be
    realized sooner as there are many players in the field as opposed to two
    in the film industry. Just look at all the recent releases form Nikon,
    Cannon, Pentax, HP, Epson, contax and a whole host of others, each
    developing or improving on image capture devices. That is productive
    competition for the consumer. Do expect things like huge increases in
    capture device resolution, speed or exposure range. You might see all of
    these at once in new chips. Read up on Foevon's new chip and Nikon's new LBCAST to
    see how differrently the approaches to image capture can be and how they
    solve differrent problems.

    It is absolutely silly not to be involved in digital in some form or
    manner today. The only true issue I can see is that things are changing
    quickly which means that your investments have a shorter life.

    David A. Frantz, Aug 9, 2003
  14. The LoxFather

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Yes. MF gives you ultrahigh resolution and image quality.
    And the widest selection of cameras and films available for any format,
    by a wide margin. A good compromise between tiny formats and digital
    with lesser image quality, and large formats with great image quality
    but high cost, high inconvenience, and limited choices in film and
    Well, I shoot digital only for images that will be used on my Web site
    (and never anywhere else), and only when I need them quickly and

    I shoot MF for images that must be of the highest quality I can afford,
    typically images that I prepare for a while in advance (tripod, careful
    metering, etc.). On rare occasions I use MF more casually.

    I shoot 35mm for everything else.
    Mxsmanic, Aug 9, 2003
  15. The LoxFather

    Mxsmanic Guest

    And ordinary photographs of the inside of the mouth.

    Although I've heard from my usual photo lab that they have a few
    dentists who still shoot zillions of slides per month.
    Mxsmanic, Aug 9, 2003
  16. The LoxFather

    Mxsmanic Guest

    In film photography, image quality is not a function of the camera body.
    Mxsmanic, Aug 9, 2003
  17. The LoxFather

    Mxsmanic Guest

    I expect only slight changes in 35mm film over the next few years.
    Objective examination of digital images proves it. Why would anyone
    still be shooting film otherwise?
    What massive switch? _Some_ professionals are switching or have
    switched, such as photojournalists, but not all.

    Additionally, professionals shoot pictures just to make money, so their
    priorities are different. A photojournalist doesn't need top image
    quality, he just needs speed.
    No, it indicates that the higher quality of MF was overkill for their
    applications. It's not that digital is as good as MF (it's not), it's
    just that their requirements were always very inferior to what MF
    provided, so when digital came along, it did well enough to meet those
    Digital is not a religion, and I see no reason why any photographer
    should worry about whether he is shooting film or digital. Instead, he
    should just worry about taking pictures. The ones who race to digital
    or cling to film are the gearheads who never produce any decent work,
    Mxsmanic, Aug 9, 2003
  18. The LoxFather

    Rafe B. Guest

    What's your point?

    The camera body serves the same purpose whether
    the camera is film or digital: to hold the lens relative
    to the imaging surface, and to do so accurately and
    without light leaks.

    Quite often one chooses a camera body based on
    the range and quality of available lenses. If it is a
    fixed-lens design (either film or digital) then there's
    no choice in the matter.

    rafe b.
    Rafe B., Aug 9, 2003
  19. Another enterprising market for would-be photographic entrepreneurs is
    to photograph dental cosmetic cases in your dentist's office .......
    perhaps as barter for your own dental needs ...... or for some serious

    Yes there are clip services for this but to convince patients we need
    our own work showcased!

    COMING NEXT MONTH: Similar career tips for rec.woodworking ~~ wooden
    teeth or something like that ~~ I am working on it.

    For now, pass me a beer! (_)

    If you agree or like the post, raise your own mug!


    Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
    Philadelphia PA

    no one has seen the tooth or
    teeth in question so take
    this advice within its proper
    context ~ this is the internet!
    Joel M. Eichen D.D.S., Aug 9, 2003
  20. More than that: MF optimizes image quality versus portability. You
    can obtain better image quality, i.e. by going to a larger format --
    4x5, 8x10, but you have to sacrifice portability to do it.
    Not only that, but 35mm is VERY portable, and economical both in the
    cost of the hardware as well as shots per unit area of film.
    No film and processing is digital's major advantage. Saving time is
    another. When you shoot professionally, time is your most expensive

    Yes, the images lack "quality," technically, when compared to film,
    even the full frame digitals, but if you're not going to make prints
    bigger than 8x10 or your stuff is going only on the web or into
    print, even a 3 or 4 megapixel camera is good enough. As long as you
    can get about 200 pixels per inch in the final photo, regardless of
    its size, the human eye will perceive it as "sharp," regardless of
    the viewing distance.
    A better way to think of cameras, and their related formats, is as
    tools. Pick the tool(s) that best satisfies your requirements.
    That's why professional photographers have so many different cameras
    of various formats: They have to have the right tool to fit most
    every situation.
    Stefan Patric, Aug 9, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.