 Daniel |
film vs digital I'm sure this is an "old" question, asked many times before, but I'm new to BetterPhoto and haven't seen an answer yet. I've just started using a medium format camera - Pentax 67II (on loan) and have had some fine results. It is unquestionalby superior to the 35mm Minolta 7000i I have been using. I have never used a digital camera other than to do a comparison test, and I find the results are similar. My question is how does medium format compare in quality to the competitively priced digital cameras availible? Can I get the same quality in a 16x20 enlargement with a digital camera that I can get with the Pentax 67II?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Brendan Knell |
I personally would go with digital, but that's just my preference. But it really all comes down to how much you are willing to spend. If you are willing to spend around 8000$ for the cannon 1DS, which has almost 17MP, then I'm sure you could. Other than that I really don't know, but there are some people here that should know.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
There was an article in a recent Photography magazine where the author claimed that digital had "caught up with film". He compared an image from the $8000 Canon 1Ds MkII (16.7 MP) to an image on 35mm Kodak Gold film. Many photographers have criticized him for choosing a very high-end pro camera and an average consumer-grade film. Apples and oranges. Even the 1Ds MkII cannot compare to the detail that you can get on a medium format negative. The 6x7cm MF negative has almost 5 times the area of a 35mm negative (or the 1Ds MkII sensor). By "competitively priced" I bet you weren't thinking $8000 anyway. What kind of comparison test did you do to find the results similar?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Daniel, don't pay any attention to Brendan. He had been seduced by the Dark Side (digital). (He also knows I am kidding.) Chris? Did someone steal your avatar and reply in your place? A compliment for film? What is the world coming to? Seriously (for a change) I don't think digital has quite caught up with film in many areas - especially tonal range. However, I have read excellent reviews on both the 1Ds MarkII and the Nikon D2X stating that they do have a range approaching film (but not there yet). Under most shooting conditions, I don't think you would ever notice a difference up to a 16x20. Personally, I prefer film, especially MF film but I am an intransigent old coot. Each capture medium has its own benefits and drawbacks.
|
|
|
|
||
|
doug Nelson |
There's an interesting article on this at sphoto.com, showing examples. High end digital seems surpassed or equalled only by 4 x 5-inch film. He's very fair about pointing out areas in which digital could stand some improvement. I am more likely to explore medium format film, developing my own B&W and scanning on a quality flatbed than to invest thousands in digital equipment. For what I do, film, and scanning when I feel the image is worth sharing, seems the best bang for the buck. For someone starting out, who hasn't amassed thousands of negatives and sildes, digital might be best.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
To be fair, he was comparing prints from digital to prints from film scanned to digital, not optical prints from film. Would optically printed prints from film surpass prints from scanned film? I am curious to know.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael H. Cothran |
Daniel, The choice between medium format film cameras and digital cameras may also be a matter of which is more convenient and/or beneficial to use. I have both 6x7 film cameras and a 6 and 12 MP digital SLR. As far as flat-out viewing quality goes, the scanned 6x7 negatives rendor superior 24x36 prints from my Epson 7600 than will a file made from even a 12 or 16 MP camera. The difference, of course, is in the file size. A 12 MP digital camera yields a 35 MB file, compared to the approximate 200 MB file size of the scanned 6x7 film. While it's possible to interpolate the digital 35 MB file, it is impossible to add detail where there wasn't any to begin with. For raw image quality (no pun intended), the current crop of digital cameras (even 16 MP) cannot yet beat the quality of a good 6x7 negative, well-scanned. I see the proof come out of my 24" printer everyday. HOWEVER (and a big "HOWEVER" here) - I choose to shoot digitally everyday over the 6x7 film camera. Why? I've simply got more shooting power packed into a much smaller and lighter system, and a lot more electronics to better control exposure issues. Digital shooting is a lot less expensive than buying film, and paying for film processing, and the advantage of having "instant gratification," not to mention being able to instantly upload to my computer is something that has spoiled me beyond any point of return.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Debby A. Tabb |
"INSTANT GRATIFICATION" IT IS A FACT THAT HAS TURNED A LOT OF US OVER TO THE DIGITAL SIDE. I USED TO SAY I WOULD NEVER GO DIGITAL! BUT,I LIKE TO SHOOT- AND I WOULD GO THROUGH A LOT OF FILM( SOMETIMES IT WOULD COLLECT IN A BASKET IN MY ROOM UNTIL I WOULD TAKE IT ALL IN-BIG EXPENCE) I STILL SEE WHERE FILM HAS IT'S ARTISTIC ADVANTAGES . BUUUT, WITH DIGITAL- I CAN SHOOT FROM VERY ANGLE POSSIBLE AS MUCH AS I WANT AND AT THE END OF THE DAY -INSTEAD OF THROWING ROLLS IN A BASKET- I SIT DOWN AT THE COMPUTER AND LOAD AND TOSS WHAT I DO NOT LIKE.AND IT HAS IT'S OWN ARTISTIC ADVANTAGES IN PS. I TRULY THINK THIS IS A TO EACH HIS OWN SUBJECT AND NO ONE CAN WIEGH THIS OUT BUT THE PERSON MAKING THE PURCHASE. JUST MY LITTLE OLD OPINION
|
|
|
|
||
|
Daniel |
Many thanks for all your replies. I am very pleased with the results I am getting with the Pentax67 and am in a position to buy it a bargain price. So, I will probably go with it and consider digital sometime later. The comparison test, film vs digital, I did was between my old Minolta 7000i using a 70-210 lens, and a Nikon D70 using a 70-300. I only made 4x6 prints. To my untrained eye, I didn't see much difference between them.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||