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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. http://www.ales.litomisky.com/shooto...alshootout.htm David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Digital/Analogue Comparisons
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"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. 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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Digital/Analogue Comparisons
"David J. Littleboy" 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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Digital/Analogue Comparisons
David J Taylor wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote: "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. 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Digital/Analogue Comparisons
"Paul Rubin" wrote: "David J. Littleboy" 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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Digital/Analogue Comparisons
"David J. Littleboy" 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? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Digital/Analogue Comparisons
On 2006-10-21 17:03:46 +0100, "David J. Littleboy" said:
"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. 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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Digital/Analogue Comparisons
"Paul Rubin" wrote: "David J. Littleboy" 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 smallerg). David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ilford Comparisons | Cheesehead | In The Darkroom | 3 | April 18th 06 10:57 AM |
Back to Scanners and Comparisons. | Gregory Blank | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 180 | December 17th 05 07:17 AM |
Comparisons | Jem Raid | Digital Photography | 0 | November 2nd 05 10:51 AM |
Photo Printer Comparisons | BIGEYE | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 1 | May 7th 04 05:09 AM |
lens performance comparisons | Mike - EMAIL IGNORED | Other Photographic Equipment | 2 | January 10th 04 07:52 PM |