| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/14/2005 09:33:47 AM · #1 |
An interesting article for those who want to know a couple details of the debate. //www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml
And it continues...
Message edited by kirbic - fix URL. |
|
|
|
09/14/2005 09:35:51 AM · #2 |
Made the link easier
Link |
|
|
|
09/14/2005 09:42:52 AM · #3 |
It's a nice little explanation... I agree with the reasoning (both on bees flying and film vs. digital). Of course there is much more to image quality than resolution, but limiting the discussion ot resolution, pretty much anyone very experienced with both will tell you that the best DSLRs clearly outresolve a 35mm film frame, and compete well with medium format.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2005 09:58:48 AM · #4 |
I was just thinking about this last night (film vs. digital) because I have a need to shoot many consecutive images in a short time frame. My thoughts ended here:
With film, I can rapid fire an entire roll (36 exp) without having to stop.
With digital, I can shoot 3-5 rapid fire (a little faster than film) but must pause to let the information write itself to the card. This to me is the drawback of digital.
So, for the project I am putting together right now, I will have to go to film (EXPENSIVE!). Unless someone has a better/cheaper idea?
d
|
|
|
|
09/14/2005 10:01:18 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
I was just thinking about this last night (film vs. digital) because I have a need to shoot many consecutive images in a short time frame. My thoughts ended here:
With film, I can rapid fire an entire roll (36 exp) without having to stop.
With digital, I can shoot 3-5 rapid fire (a little faster than film) but must pause to let the information write itself to the card. This to me is the drawback of digital.... |
I can rip 40 JPG's at 8.5 fps without a pause...
|
|
|
|
09/14/2005 10:17:12 AM · #6 |
yes, but I have a 300D. Film is cheaper than a Mark II. :)
|
|
|
|
09/14/2005 10:24:08 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
With film, I can rapid fire an entire roll (36 exp) without having to stop.
With digital, I can shoot 3-5 rapid fire ... but must pause to let the information write itself to the card. |
Ah yes, but how long does it take you to change that roll of film? And how long can you continue shooting before you ever have to change your memory card out? :-)
Originally posted by dahkota:
yes, but I have a 300D. Film is cheaper than a Mark II. :) |
There's always the 20D. You'll get 2/3rds as many pictures (as your 36-exp film) at pretty close to the same speed as film.
And as for film being cheaper.... it's a lot cheaper to throw away 50% of your rapid fire digital pictures than it is to throw away 50% of your film pictures (because you have to develop them before you can find out if they are worth keeping or not).
|
|
|
|
09/14/2005 10:30:06 AM · #8 |
I've been a digital convert for a long time - but a little while ago I took a photography class at a local community college. We were required to use film - slide film even. So I dug out my dad's old Minolta Model II - a camera so ancient it does not have any electronic or electric parts - no batteries! (No lightmeter!)
Anyway - it was a good experience. Taught me to think and rethink a shot before I pulled the trigger and I think that has made me a better photographer.
But, outside the class, well - I can never go back to film. It's all analog and messy! |
|
|
|
09/14/2005 10:36:54 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Ah yes, but how long does it take you to change that roll of film? And how long can you continue shooting before you ever have to change your memory card out? :-)
Originally posted by dahkota:
yes, but I have a 300D. Film is cheaper than a Mark II. :) |
There's always the 20D. You'll get 2/3rds as many pictures (as your 36-exp film) at pretty close to the same speed as film.
And as for film being cheaper.... it's a lot cheaper to throw away 50% of your rapid fire digital pictures than it is to throw away 50% of your film pictures (because you have to develop them before you can find out if they are worth keeping or not). |
Less than 2 minutes for a roll of film change. If I have to pause between every 5 shots with a memory card, I don't think I will get what I'm looking for or I will miss the shot I want. Again, a new camera is not an option. $1200 for the camera or $125 for the film and processing. 10X more that I can't afford right now.
I never thought about shooting it in jpeg. Might test that to see what my options are. I was really looking for something more along the lines of an attachment that had a larger buffer or something - similar to the autowind attachments for film cameras.
What I need to do is shoot about 30 images as quickly as possible, reset, shoot 30 more, reset, shoot 30 more. I will have the time to change film but not the time needed between bursts for the buffer to empty.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2005 10:37:23 AM · #10 |
I must admit, I am tempted now and then to go back to film. The reason is workflow.
I have a nice EOS 5e, which takes great photos. To access my pictures, all I have to do is take them to the minilab, and hey-presto, 1 hour later, I have 36 properly exposed, sharp and properly contrasted photos. A couple of hours later, the best pics are enlarged as required and framed or mounted in an album looking great.
With my 20D I have thousands of photos on my hard drive. Because it is ieasy to do, and because I want everything to look as good as it possibly can, it takes me hours to get a single shot to the stage where it can be printed. I therefore have thousands of unprinted images that don't look very good. The thought of going through pics from a recent break for printing is daunting! I haven't done it yet, nothing is printed, and I can show no-one my pics accessibly or in high res.
The reason for digital is price and the exercise of developing an extended skillset in post-processing, not convenience. However, I am still tempted to be lazy and go back to film on occasion.
On quality, I am not sure that the article has it right: film does retain fine detail in a more pleasing fashion than digital. Although I don't agree with much of his webiste, I think that Ken Rockwell has a point here.
//www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm#examples
|
|
|
|
09/14/2005 10:56:55 AM · #11 |
Sorry to say so, but Ken Rockwell is incredibly biased, and attempts to mask that bias by making ludicrous comparisons and accusing others of biased testing. Sure, you can shoot with 4x5 inch film, then compare to an (unspecified) digital cam that (even if it has a full-frame 35mm sensor) has a sensing area fifteen times smaller and get results that show that film is "better." Let's try comparing apples to apples, Ken. Sheesh.
Then he goes on to make blanket statements regarding dynamic range that are completely untrue. Every time he goes on one of these tirades, he damages further whatever credibility he had. I no longer put any faith in what he has to say.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2005 11:03:50 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
I have a need to shoot many consecutive images in a short time frame. ...I will have to go to film (EXPENSIVE!). Unless someone has a better/cheaper idea? |
Make sure you're using the fastest CF card available to minimize buffer pauses. A 300D won't take full advantage of the card, but every little bit helps. JPEG will, of course, work better than RAW for long periods of rapid shooting. Honestly, though, given the extra expense and grief of your film alternative, I'd just rent a 20D.
Message edited by author 2005-09-14 11:04:55. |
|
|
|
09/14/2005 11:10:30 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by dahkota:
I have a need to shoot many consecutive images in a short time frame. ...I will have to go to film (EXPENSIVE!). Unless someone has a better/cheaper idea? |
Make sure you're using the fastest CF card available to minimize buffer pauses. A 300D won't take full advantage of the card, but every little bit helps. JPEG will, of course, work better than RAW for long periods of rapid shooting. Honestly, though, given the extra expense and grief of your film alternative, I'd just rent a 20D. |
Shannon,
If I am using a 512 Sans Compact Flash card of the cheapest value (Found the cheapest I could) would I notice a significant difference if I upgraded to an Ultra II or Ultra III card when I get the 1gb? I do notice slowness not only in burst shot but also in preview mode. I thought I'd go buy a faster card but didn't know if the price difference was worth the speed on a 300d.
Thx! |
|
|
|
09/14/2005 11:10:37 AM · #14 |
I think on Ken Rockwell's site he is comparing 4x5 film to digital. Are the lenses comaparable on the seperate cameras? Knowing that 4x5 cameras are more 'professional' you have to look at the lenses used. Was there any post-processing? To get the most out of digital you have to post-process, right? The 4x5 is post-processed in the dark room. just somethings to keep in mind.
Make it a great day.
Drew
|
|
|
|
09/14/2005 11:12:08 AM · #15 |
| Hahaha, Nevermind. I just realized you linked the results of "Fastest CF card". I swear sometimes I am blind. |
|
|
|
09/14/2005 11:14:03 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Sorry to say so, but Ken Rockwell is incredibly biased, and attempts to mask that bias by making ludicrous comparisons and accusing others of biased testing. Sure, you can shoot with 4x5 inch film, then compare to an (unspecified) digital cam that (even if it has a full-frame 35mm sensor) has a sensing area fifteen times smaller and get results that show that film is "better." Let's try comparing apples to apples, Ken. Sheesh.
Then he goes on to make blanket statements regarding dynamic range that are completely untrue. Every time he goes on one of these tirades, he damages further whatever credibility he had. I no longer put any faith in what he has to say. |
I have looked at this article afresh and agree - should have read it more closely first time around, and realised that there is a lot of information missing about the digital comparator.
I still like film for other reasons, and would still like a nice MF body for the occasional shot for enlargement purposes (though my wife would kill me if I were to have another whole camera system in my bag for the occasional shot).
|
|
|
|
09/14/2005 09:46:34 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
...I still like film for other reasons, and would still like a nice MF body for the occasional shot for enlargement purposes (though my wife would kill me if I were to have another whole camera system in my bag for the occasional shot). |
Well, the 5D will be pretty close to MF, and compatible with all those nice EF lenses ;-)
|
|
|
|
09/14/2005 09:55:32 PM · #18 |
| Ken Rockwell hides his utter ignorance with blanket statements and misinformation...Not what I'd call a reliable source... |
|
|
|
09/14/2005 10:14:35 PM · #19 |
I've read Ken Rockwell's site and I treat it as any other info on internet. It's just somebody's opinion and it could be completely wrong. I do consider what he says but do not believe it 100%.
Nick
|
|
|
|
09/14/2005 10:22:18 PM · #20 |
Would Dahkota's 300D be any faster if she reduced the captured image size? This assumes that a reduced pixel count would be acceptaBLE FOR THE APPLICATION.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 12:01:20 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Sorry to say so, but Ken Rockwell is incredibly biased, and attempts to mask that bias by making ludicrous comparisons and accusing others of biased testing. Sure, you can shoot with 4x5 inch film, then compare to an (unspecified) digital cam that (even if it has a full-frame 35mm sensor) has a sensing area fifteen times smaller and get results that show that film is "better." Let's try comparing apples to apples, Ken. Sheesh.
Then he goes on to make blanket statements regarding dynamic range that are completely untrue. Every time he goes on one of these tirades, he damages further whatever credibility he had. I no longer put any faith in what he has to say. |
I have looked at this article afresh and agree - should have read it more closely first time around, and realised that there is a lot of information missing about the digital comparator.
I still like film for other reasons, and would still like a nice MF body for the occasional shot for enlargement purposes (though my wife would kill me if I were to have another whole camera system in my bag for the occasional shot). |
...funny you should say this. I've been thinking of selling my pentax 67 gear... |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 12:53:29 AM · #22 |
I often wonder how many folks have ever seen a large transparency... especially a large format transparency like that from a 4x5, or even a 645.
Because if you have ever seen some good ones, then you know that film has got "something" going for it that digital ain't got.
Part of it is the transparency itself. They have depth... visible, palpable, depth. And although I have never seen a 6mp or higher image converted into even a 35mm transparency, I have to wonder if they have the same kind of depth.
I kinda doubt it.
Can anybody here that has seen slides from digital, AND is familiar with their film counterparts, make a comparison? I would certainly be interested in hearing how it looked.
Don't get me wrong, though. I used to use film and think transparencies are way cool, but unless I win the lottery tomorrow (or one day real soon) I'm a digital convert for life.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 01:00:40 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by joebok:
...
Anyway - it was a good experience. Taught me to think and rethink a shot before I pulled the trigger and I think that has made me a better photographer.
... |
When I started shooting RAW it had the same effect on me... JPGs I would fire off 300+ at an event...shooting RAW I shoot about 180 well thought out shots... I think it's the whole work flow thing.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 03:41:44 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Sorry to say so, but Ken Rockwell is incredibly biased, and attempts to mask that bias by making ludicrous comparisons and accusing others of biased testing. Sure, you can shoot with 4x5 inch film, then compare to an (unspecified) digital cam that (even if it has a full-frame 35mm sensor) has a sensing area fifteen times smaller and get results that show that film is "better." Let's try comparing apples to apples, Ken. Sheesh.
Then he goes on to make blanket statements regarding dynamic range that are completely untrue. Every time he goes on one of these tirades, he damages further whatever credibility he had. I no longer put any faith in what he has to say. |
Ken Rockwell lost any points he had with me a long time ago. What he has stated here is indeed biased and rigged in favor of the conclusion he set out to prove. I've shot film for years, 35mm and medium format and I will tell you flat out that what Ken Rockwell is trying to put forth in that artilce is bullshit. Otherwise I never would have sold all my film cameras.
Message edited by author 2005-09-15 03:48:05.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 03:46:57 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by mcmurma:
Part of it is the transparency itself. They have depth... visible, palpable, depth. And although I have never seen a 6mp or higher image converted into even a 35mm transparency, I have to wonder if they have the same kind of depth.
|
At 8Mp from a high end camera digital has the clear edge over 35mm slides.
At 11mp digital begins to eclipse medium format.
At 16Mp you put you medium format film cameras on eBay.
I did.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 12:07:15 PM EDT.
