Demographic Survey #2: SLR users - Film or Digital

[lightning]

humm... are you using computer? Well computer is digital! There are also analogue computer, there are die hard analogue computer users in the pass. But as it is now, how many are there?:think: :think:

Let us look at the same topic in 10 years time. :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

The market will drive you to digital, not me and not anyone else. The choice will be obvious!:devil:

 

[doug3fflux]

stop!!!

 

[lightning]

Don't worry I will stop, cos nature will take it's course!

 

[doug3fflux]

:sweatsm: .........

 

[Halfmoon]

stop trying to suck us to the digital side!!! :sticktong
;p

The calculation he done is correct.

Digital will be cheaper if you RAM UP shots...... very often, especially if you have tried shooting positive.

But still, I love the pictures from my Provia.... This is ONE thing that a Digi can NEVER match!!! Nothing beat the picture from looking it through a light box......

Digital only offer the convenience, which I am still not keep to jump into...... plus FF is too expensive for now, plus pic still lack those deep richness in color compared to film....

Eventually, digital will rule, and film will be a niche, I believe..... like vinyl and cassettes...... only hard core.... unless MP can be reproduce film quality... maybe a few years away only...... if this all happen, and price for a pro-sumer DSLR body (FF) is $1.8K, I will switch, but will still use film for memory sake....

 

[raptor84]

The calculation he done is correct.

Digital will be cheaper if you RAM UP shots...... very often, especially if you have tried shooting positive.
....
Eventually, digital will rule, and film will be a niche, I believe..... like vinyl and cassettes...... only hard core.... unless MP can be reproduce film quality... maybe a few years away only...... if this all happen, and price for a pro-sumer DSLR body (FF) is $1.8K, I will switch, but will still use film for memory sake....

Yea very accurate observations. Eventually 35mm film will become obsolete once they make sensors that can capture high enough MP per shot and bring th eprice down to uner 2k for a FF. I shoot mainly film now but i still keep my digital copact with me for other small occations.

 

[doug3fflux]

The calculation he done is correct.

Digital will be cheaper if you RAM UP shots...... very often, especially if you have tried shooting positive.

But still, I love the pictures from my Provia.... This is ONE thing that a Digi can NEVER match!!! Nothing beat the picture from looking it through a light box......

Digital only offer the convenience, which I am still not keep to jump into...... plus FF is too expensive for now, plus pic still lack those deep richness in color compared to film....

Eventually, digital will rule, and film will be a niche, I believe..... like vinyl and cassettes...... only hard core.... unless MP can be reproduce film quality... maybe a few years away only...... if this all happen, and price for a pro-sumer DSLR body (FF) is $1.8K, I will switch, but will still use film for memory sake....

this has been repeated to the death

 

[lsisaxon]

Yea very accurate observations. Eventually 35mm film will become obsolete once they make sensors that can capture high enough MP per shot and bring th eprice down to uner 2k for a FF. I shoot mainly film now but i still keep my digital copact with me for other small occations.

If you shoot above ASA800 most of the time, 6mp digital is already better than film. The graininess of high speed film is worse than the CCD noise.

 

[lsisaxon]

Only have film SLR... no Digital SLR, but a Dightal PnS....

Still prefer the full control of a SLR...... and a film lover basically.... ;p

On a DSLR, you get one more control which you do not get that easily on a film DSLR. ISO! Think of the times you really needed that shutter speed and that aperture combi and blamed yourself for not bringing a faster or slower film? With DSLR, it's just a push of a button and/or the twist of a knob.

Plus, if you do not do prints from film yourself, film virtually has no advantage because modern labs digitizes the film first anyway. A 6mp digital is already equivalent to the resolution of a 16base film scan (mini-lab) with less conversion noise.

 

[bonifas]

have only DSLR but consider to buy film camera to shoot B&W and Slides.. back to old time when i had nikon f90 (no more - sold) ... but my next film camera would be Canon...

 

[Snoweagle]

Only have film SLR... no Digital SLR, but a Dightal PnS....

Still prefer the full control of a SLR...... and a film lover basically.... ;p

Same thinking as u! I've a digital PnS too but after buying my film SLR, it's all the way SLR for me...i love the colour and quality of film but costings are very expensive in the long run.

 

[doug3fflux]

its not all about the quality...how about maintenence of gear, justification of use....

 

[Snoweagle]

its not all about the quality...how about maintenence of gear, justification of use....

There's nothing much to maintain with film, except storage of them.

 

[forward]

If you shoot above ASA800 most of the time, 6mp digital is already better than film. The graininess of high speed film is worse than the CCD noise.

Are you sure that 6mp digital cam is better than film?
Most people are not aware of the beauty of grain. I was taught
to appreciate grain and to use it for paid assignments.

Long too long ago SIA (our own Singapore Airline) were using high grain effect for their advertising posters. Commercial photographers often shot products using high grain film. In the 70s the highest film speed available is only ISO400 and these films had to be pushed in order to get the more grainy effect so desired.

Even amateur photographers used high grain film to get their award winning pictures.

----------------------------
Wonder if it is ignorance or just plain hear say
that grainy pictures are not acceptable and noise
from digital images are a No, No! :bsmilie:

 

[Snoweagle]

The quality of a 6MP DSLR can never beat the quality of film...i have an ASA800 film sitting inside my camera bag but only reserved for event shoots in low lighting where flash photography is prohibited.

If really want grainy, choose ASA1600.

 

[doug3fflux]

The quality of a 6MP DSLR can never beat the quality of film...i have an ASA800 film sitting inside my camera bag but only reserved for event shoots in low lighting where flash photography is prohibited.

If really want grainy, choose ASA1600.

I suggest it sit in ur fridge, not in ur bag.

There's nothing much to maintain with film, except storage of them.

Im referring to the usage of a dslr eg maintaining a dust free sensor is a trouble.

 

[Snoweagle]

I suggest it sit in ur fridge, not in ur bag.



Im referring to the usage of a dslr eg maintaining a dust free sensor is a trouble.

I don't put my films in a fridge as i use them rather quickly.

As for DSLRs, yes it's a chore to always try to prevent dust from getting to the sensor, dun have such probs with my film SLR!

 

[lsisaxon]

Are you sure that 6mp digital cam is better than film?
Most people are not aware of the beauty of grain. I was taught
to appreciate grain and to use it for paid assignments.

Long too long ago SIA (our own Singapore Airline) were using high grain effect for their advertising posters. Commercial photographers often shot products using high grain film. In the 70s the highest film speed available is only ISO400 and these films had to be pushed in order to get the more grainy effect so desired.

Even amateur photographers used high grain film to get their award winning pictures.

----------------------------
Wonder if it is ignorance or just plain hear say
that grainy pictures are not acceptable and noise
from digital images are a No, No! :bsmilie:

There are certain applications where less grain and high speed is important. Creative use of grain is certainly a useful technique for film. However, in applications like astrophotography, digital is useful because it is less grainy than film at the same speed and it does not suffer from reciprocity effect or at least not as much as film does.

I have used ASA400 film for astrophotos and I am quite certain that the grains are visible even on 4R prints and is almost equivalent to the noise from a 6mp APS DSLR at ASA800.

However, even with the statement I made, I do not advocate one or another as I feel that knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the media is more important in trying to achieve the effect you desire. I still shoot film when I have to and I find DSLR much more convenient and cheaper for adding counts to my shutter.

 

[Snoweagle]

By right for film, the higher the ASA, the larger the grain is.

 

[lsisaxon]

The quality of a 6MP DSLR can never beat the quality of film...i have an ASA800 film sitting inside my camera bag but only reserved for event shoots in low lighting where flash photography is prohibited.

If really want grainy, choose ASA1600.

In terms of:-

Resolution?
Depends on your lens. Some optics are not able to resolve to 6mp anyway. Otherwise film will win in terms of optical resolution but not colour resolution as it uses dithering. Colour resolution of digital is 1/4 the sensor resolution except Foveon sensors.

Dynamic/Tonal range?
Depends on the film you use and the process control. 8-bit theoretically gives about 8 stops, 6 stops useable, 2 stops lost in noise, most sensors are 12-bit so you can get do curve mapping. Negative Film is also about 6 stops (+2 to -4), 5 stops useable, 1 stop lost in grain noise. Slide film is about 5 stops (+0.5 to -4.5). B&W film is about 8 stops. So my stand is that they are somewhat comparable if you shoot colour. For B&W, film is still the leader.

Reciprocity effect?
Digital sensors are more linear. Film tends to lose its linearity for long exposures.

Turn around time?
Immediate preview for digital. If you bring a portable film processing tank and chemicals, it about 10 minutes for film.

Fun?
Depends. If you like darkroom work, film is more fun. But if you like taking more pictures, digital is more fun. For me, I like both. Film enlargers are cheaper. If given a choice, I would opt for a laser photo writer so that I can blow up my digital images without going to a lab, then again, a proper digital lab would have proper colour management.

I was an advocate of film until the advent of the Nikon D70. The convenience and quality just blew me away. Now I would say both are on par. What I thought wasn't possible with digital photography suddenly became possible. Film still has it's merits and I still have film bodies, but I find that too often, a DSLR now could do what I wanted for most of my shots.