Quality comparison

Joined: 16 Mar 2007 Posts: 16 Location: Essex, England

Hi Gang

Can somebody please clue me up on the general quality comparison between 35mm slrs and dslrs?
Do 35mm prints blow up as well as say a 10mp slr?

thanks

Joined: 18 Nov 2006 Posts: 288

simonfb11 wrote:

Hi Gang

Can somebody please clue me up on the general quality comparison between 35mm slrs and dslrs?
Do 35mm prints blow up as well as say a 10mp slr?

thanks

Pretty close. This is an issue of some passion with some folks. I can only give you my own opinion and that is that a DSLR is a better choice than 35mm film. It is not necessarily a better choice when compared to medium format film. Others, of course, will disagree so you might as well answer the question for yourself.

Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:53 pm

I belong to the PPA (Professional Photographers of America) and they recently took an informal poll of all the pros in one specific audience of one specific meeting and 95% of us were shooting 100% digital.

A comparison is a little 'apples and oranges'. Many people try to compare the MP in digital and try to figure out how many MP do you need to equal or beat 35mm film. It is a little "apples and oranges" here because the two mediums are different. So they will have a different look regardless of MPs or film speed. Film is made up of 'random' grains of silver where digital sensors have 'pixel' sites that are all the same size and arranged in neat columns and rows.

The main draw to dslr is that not only do the high end cameras deliver great quality images, but the convienance of digital blows away film in every way. Not having to buy film, pay for processing, etc. is a great thing about digital. Also the instant feedback and auto recorded settings on every shot.

Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:53 pm

I would say that most DSLR's in the consumer / prosumer i.e. 8-12 MP range would equal 35mm film.

There are may factors either way - slides, negatives, ISO 50, ISO 400? etc., and on the digital side, the post processing knowledge, etc.

If you are concerned with the enlargement size above 16x20 inches or so, I would look at the 16.7 MP Canon DSLR, or medium format.

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:33 am

The point is: You cannot make a notion, that DSLR or film-based SLR are better.

Because: The sensor in the DSLR is fixed and it interacts strongly with the properties of the lens.

The film in a film-SLR can be changed against another one. So the quality of a SLR is highly dependent on the lenses AND on the film of choice.

So, you are free, to pop a Kodak TRI-X into your SLR and the net resolution will be much lower, than a 10 MP DSLR can produce.

But if you go for a Kodak TechPan and the highest res lenses, the same 10 MP DSLR will not produce a comparable result.

At the end of the day, there are diffferences, which may decide whether the film-SLR or the DSLR is a better choice for a given appplication:
– DSLR allows for a fast, efficient workflow
– pure digital images might come cheaper, than film, but for the initial investment in post-processing equipment (computer, software, storage etc.), which can be written off fairly fast, if you have a large enough throughput. If you only use your DSLR (or any digital camera) occassionally, this investment would be so high, that film is cheaper.

– any film has initially a much longer archival storage live than digital storage media. To retain longevity of dgital images you need to establish a constant process of copying the files to new storage media every couple of years

- film is based on a chemical process, the image forming grains (b/w film) or colour clouds (colour film, some chromogenic b/w films) are placed fairly randomely in the emulsion. This is a very different thing from digital sensors, with their fixed pixel matrix. This matrix becomes quite visible, when an image is enlarged above a certain limit. Film in contrast looses sharpness and grain becomes visible above that limit, but you will not get the obvious pixelation.

- most sensors (excluding the Foveon) produce colour images through interpolation and heavy (Bayer) filtering. This can either lead to visible artefacts or to a soft image (depending on the manufacturer's choice for in-camera processing or the RAW-convertor). Both can be remedied to a certain degree in post-processing.

- somehow people tend to overlook the time-consumption of the digital workflow. If you shoot a couple of hundred pics per week, you will spend many hours on the computer screen, to produce top-quality output.

So, I have no answer to your question - and I think, there is none. It all depends on what and why you are taking photographs. I myself do use digital and film, depending on the goal of the shoot.

regards
René

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:51 am

simonfb11 wrote:

Hi Gang

Can somebody please clue me up on the general quality comparison between 35mm slrs and dslrs?
Do 35mm prints blow up as well as say a 10mp slr?

35mm prints will have more grain. But some films have very different qualities, and that's an advantage of film. With a sensor you've got one look (plus whatever you can post-process in with photoshop). With films, you've got a variety of looks straight from the camera (including some that are impossible to get with any digital SLR processing - like infrared with halation as per kodak HIE highspeed IR film, the heavy saturation of some slide films like Velvia & that weird japanese fuji film that you can only buy from japan ... uhh... fortia.).

If you go to medium or large format, you've got weird film effects, plus a huge detailed negative with way more resolution than a digital sensor.

Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:58 am

That this is an issue of some passion is truly an understatement worthy of the British. The main thrust (read: $$) of research and development by the manufacturers who supply the image industry is digital. Film technology occupies the same spot as steam-engined railroad locomotives: they still work, they had their fine points, but their day in the sun is over, and they are now are for sentimental hobbyists.
This might sound harsh, but it is what it is...

Personally, I don't miss swamping photos in the dark one iota,
and think that the challenge/capability of digital photography to be much more rewarding.

Best wishes,

Joined: 14 Nov 2005 Posts: 174 Location: Baltimore, MD

Im a person who has never shot a film camera. not even a disposable. so what I say could be wrong.

When it comes to 35mm cameras why would'nt you want to go digital? With film switching ISO is changing a roll of film. What if you only wanted a few shots with a certain ISO setting. Seems like a waste of film. With digital it is the turn of a button.

I have always herd that you cant get the same kind of contrast and saturation with a digital like you can with film. Pretty much any DSLR today allows you to increase this. So every picture you take will have the enhanced saturation and colors. Which again makes me wonder why anyone would want to stay with 35mm film.

Processing isnt cheap either. 10 bucks a roll at good labs for singles. Over time, that really adds up. If you do it yourself chemicals are not cheap by any means.

I think the people who stay with 35mm film are the ones either afraid of the learnign curve of digital (which isnt bad) or don't know better.

Just a though though.

Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 199 Location: Worcester, England

My experience of this is that - well it depends....

If you stick to all chemical, use a top class film with top class processing and printing you will probably find that the result is slightly better than an average 10mp digital printed on a mediocre printer assuming we are comparing A3 size.
If you use a top class 10mp (such as the Nikon D200) with good glass and print with a good printer on archival paper with pigmented inks you should beat the 35mm hands down every time.

If you are thinking of using 35mm and scanning then printing digitally then pretty much any DSLR and most compacts costing more than £100 will beat it into a 'cocked hat'.

I have even tried to get comparable results to my D200 from a medium format, and I had to spend a fortune to equal the quality and a kings ransom to better it.

To see for your self go to my Flikr site and choose a picture from either the D200 or the D80 ( select one that does not look as thought it has been cropped much and download the full version then either print it yourself or send it off for commercial printing, try :-
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1065/534720440_589677cfbb.jpg
and see the detail in Palma Cathedral.