Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: a total rethink: SLR instead of digital?  (Read 10654 times)

Dan Sroka

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 597
    • http://www.danielsroka.com
a total rethink: SLR instead of digital?
« Reply #20 on: April 28, 2003, 12:31:02 pm »

You have a lot of ideas to chew on here, so I'll just toss in a few more. Be sure to think of how you will want to work with the photos when after they are taken.

Developing: Do you want to experiement with your own darkroom? Then I'd get a film SLR and use black and white film. Do you want someone else to handle all this? Then again, a film camera works great: drop the film off at a good processor and you are set. Do you enjoy working digitally? Then go for a digital. Me, I have been doing computer graphics for years, so a digial SLR feels very comfortable to me. If you don't like sitting in front of a computer screen, then it might not be for you.

Display: Again, the same questions. Film lends itself to slide projection, and getting prints made at the local photo place. Digital lends itself to viewing images on a laptop, and making your own prints. Which is more you?

The great thing about getting more serious about photography now, is that there are so many options. With every new digital camera than comes out, there are a bunch of people who are selling off their barely-used equipment to upgrade. Gives you a great chance to pick up some high-quality used equipment.

I don't agree with BJL's comment that a serious student should only get a manual focus camera. However, he's got a good point. You could probably get a 20-30 year old manual kit for a song. And these are awesome cameras to work with -- they have a very special feel about them. I still use my Dad's old Nikon FM once and a while, to reconnect to the tradition of photography. Heck, I also give my pinhole camera a workout when I really want to go old school.

Here's some of my answers to your questions:

>>Are SLR's in danger of becoming obsolete any time soon?
No.

>>The only real advantages of D over SLR are:
>>a) you get to view your pic immediately
>>2) you bypass the middle process of waiting for development
>>by uploading images onto computer immediately

#2 is a big one -- you get to do darkroom work without chemicals.

>>However, what I understand is digitals don't have the same
>>quality initial photo (proficiency of photographer accounted for)
>>compared to SLRs

Not true. All point an shoot camera shoot "very nice" photos, whereas if you are shooting with a more advanced set up, you'll need to think more, and work more.

>>2) things like lenses and filters are more limited, whereas with
>>SLr's you can go nuts buying things forever

Only if you buy a non-SLR digital camera. The DSLRs use the same equipment (for the most part).

Dan
Logged

Dale_Cotton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 588
    • http://daystarvisions.com
a total rethink: SLR instead of digital?
« Reply #21 on: April 29, 2003, 01:52:32 pm »

Quote
If I owned no camera equipment I would probably start by going the digital route.
Actually, I did start out digital, then switched to film; and if I had to start fresh today I'd probably - if reluctantly - still opt for film. In fact, I've gone back to using my made-in-1970 Nikon F2 over my made-in-2001 F80. I don't have the pressures a pro has to crank out product. I can afford to enjoy the sensual experience of operating an all-manual camera. I have the leisure to wait half an hour for my scanner to do its thing. I have this strange idea that what I'm doing is called art and that art is a leisure-time activity and that leisure is to be enjoyed.

A camera is a toy that we play with (however much we may try to couch our play in more dignified terms). If you're going to play with a toy it might as well be the toy you really enjoy playing with - whether high-tech digital or low-tech antique.

Not only have I gone back to an F2, I'm loading it with 800 or 1600 ISO neg film and using it handheld - gasp! - to shoot landscapes. The resulting image quality is magical.

There is a certain Zen to working this way, of becoming one both with one's camera and with the land, that happens to work for me. Another person would feel that same sense of appropriateness using an 8x10 view camera on a wooden tripod and yet another person, using a D30 with an IS zoom lens. Whatever works; whatever turns your crank. The amazing thing as that truly beautiful art can be created with just about any camera in the hands of a person who is attuned to it.
Logged

Erik M

  • Guest
a total rethink: SLR instead of digital?
« Reply #22 on: April 29, 2003, 05:22:31 pm »

>>I've had whole shoots that have been fruitless. That would never have happened with a DSLR. <<

Oh, yea. Blame the camera!  But seriously, in what aspect was the shoot fruitless? Were you trying to do something highly experimental?
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
a total rethink: SLR instead of digital?
« Reply #23 on: April 29, 2003, 06:20:56 pm »

Quote
Quote
Digital is to film what CDs are to cassette tapes.
Jonathan,
OK, you're a gun owner but that is SOOOO biased and basically rubbish. That's like comparing a 1DS to a disposable camera.
Digital is to film as CD is to VINYL.
(Or in pro-recording, digital hard disc recording vs 2" tape)
At the top end of the audio scale there is still a full scale argument as to which sounds better.
I think tape and analogue are slightly edging it currently, however where digital wins out is on the question of convenience.
This applies to photography as well.
I'm not a DSLR owner, but the one argument that could win me over is the workflow one. I hate scanning!
I'm yet to see a debate on the aesthetic qualities of film vs digital. In music we equate it to warmth and character.
I've heard the odd person comment on the slightly cold look of digital images. I think the professionals that are most concerned with quality over convenience (probably mostly editorial or art photographers) are still using film.
Having said all that, I don't disagree with any of the previous advice to Cafe Writer. If I owned no camera equipment I would probably start by going the digital route.
Lastly, I thought the initial conclusions that Cafe Writer came to were very interesting and one of the strongest arguments for film over DSLR that I've seen.
How about this one: A 6 megapixel DSLR (10D, D100, S2 Pro, etc.) is to any kind of 35mm film what the 1Ds is to 645 medium format film.

So far, the best 35mm scans I have been able to make are only slightly better in color, clarity (grain/noise), and resolution than the images I got from my Koday DC4800 P&S (POS) digicam. And that's using a L series Canon lens (the 35-350 mm f3.5.5.6L) on an EOS Rebel TI body. By the time I size the image down to where the film grain particles aren't 5 pixels wide any more, and spend 20 minutes per frame cleaning up dust spots, I've got an image that isn't much better than what I could have done with a cheap digital in the first place.

Using film and then scanning  is like recording audio to tape, then digitizing the tape; you lose a significant amount of quality by adding the extra analog step. You are better off converting the light directly into bits without a bunch of intermediate analog steps. I know some people like the sound of cassettes over CD's, but I have never encountered a cassette deck that didn't have an audible level of hiss when playing at normal-to-loud volume levels, and CD's outperform cassettes in every measurable aspect of signal-to-noise ratio, total harmonic distortion, wow & flutter, etc.

The graininess of film cancels out most of its' alleged resolution advantages, and decent digital cameras (SLR or not) have more accurate color than film. I've worked with the Kodak DC4800, the Nikon Coolpix 5000, as well as other digicams, and I can usually get good color with a simple levels adjustment in Photoshop, and maybe tweaks to saturation and the like. With scanned film, I almost always have to do curves on each individual color channel to eliminate color casts in the shadows and suchlike. I  have tried several scanners from different manufacturers, so I'm skeptical that it is a scanner issue. And don't even get me started on the whole dust-on-the-negative thing...
Logged

chrisso

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
a total rethink: SLR instead of digital?
« Reply #24 on: April 30, 2003, 02:57:48 pm »

It's just the music cassette thing.........it's totally wrong.
I could agree if it was an equal analogy.
I work in the field of music. Tape is noisey, vinyl is inconvenient. Digital is now affordable. People are making pro quality records in their bedrooms.
So let's have an honest debate about the state of digital in the visual arts.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
a total rethink: SLR instead of digital?
« Reply #25 on: April 30, 2003, 07:18:38 pm »

Quote
>>Jonathan, I totally reject your analogy.
I have very successful photographer friends who use Leica, Hasselblad, Imacon and film. Whereas I take your point that transfering film to digital via a scanner degrades the quality, I don't think you could honestly look at one of their prints and say it equated to music on cassette!<<

Jonathan,

I have to agree with Chrisso. A drum scanned 35mm or MF tranny printed on a lightjet is in another world from a home scanned 35mm print or an optical MF print. Printed using the right techniques, a properly sized print from an MF slide exhibits virtually no visible grain. Also, a professional drum scan from an outfit specializing (like West Coast Imaging) in fine art landscape work does not return a file with inaccurate color.
OK, granted, but you are talking about equipment/processing costs that totally change the equation here. Drum scans can cost over $100 per frame, Lightjet prints are not exactly cheap, either, and if you want to buy the equipment to do them yourself, you need to take out another mortgage on the house. So that is meaninless in the context of someone who can't afford $2000 or so for a 6 MP DSLR setup.

I stand by my contention that film as an intermediate step in the photons-to-bits process will reduce quality. In case you haven't noticed, the founder of this site sold off his medium-format equipment after buying the 1Ds, because the 1Ds, using 35mm sized lenses & sensor, can record images that rival the best quality drum-scanned medium format film has to offer. If you put a digital sensor with the same pixel density, quality, and dynamic range as that found in the 1Ds, and put it in a Hasselblad or Leica, you can achieve image quality better than that possible by scanning a piece of film of the same size. Adding an analog step into the photons-to-bits cannot improve image quality, only degrade it.

Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that all film images are crap (like music on cassette tape), what I am saying is that if you take a Leica or Hasselblad film camera, and replaced the film with a equal-sized digital sensor of 1Ds quality, that same lens/camera would produce images of a higher quality than would be possible by using film as the recording media and scanning the film. And the magnitude of the quality difference between the photons-to-bits image vs. the photons-to-film-to-bits image would be substantial.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Guest
a total rethink: SLR instead of digital?
« Reply #26 on: May 01, 2003, 01:25:27 am »

Point taken, I did not mean to imply that all film images are crap (the work of Ansel Adams certainly is not crap). $49/frame for drum scans is still a little expensive for someone operating within the budgetary constraints specified at the beginning ot this thread, though.
Logged

Dan Sroka

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 597
    • http://www.danielsroka.com
a total rethink: SLR instead of digital?
« Reply #27 on: May 06, 2003, 01:20:58 pm »

Interesting point, B. When a point and shoot has a good lens (like Sony's use of Zeiss) and enough resolution, you can get some beautiful shots. I have a Sony F707 which I take on hikes and trips, and I am always impressed at how well some of the shots come out. Not always as good as I could do with my Nikon D100, but often very very close.

It all depends on what you want to shoot, your budget, etc. A good point and shoot digital can have some nifty advantages. If you are into candid street photography, a low-profile P&S can get you shots before anyone notices. If you hike a lot, a P&S is much easier to carry. If you shoot in dry dusty places, the sealed nature of a P&S keeps you from getting dust on the CCD. Etc, etc., etc.

I'm actually now looking for a good SMALL P&S to replace my 707, something I can palm, pocket, and keep with me at all times.

Dan
Logged

jwarthman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 99
a total rethink: SLR instead of digital?
« Reply #28 on: April 27, 2003, 01:26:40 pm »

cafewriter,
First, let me say that I have nothing against film or those who choose film over digital!

The G3 seems like a very good non-SLR digital, but you're right about its relatively limited "growth" potential. Similarly, a few years ago I was considering a move to digital, and the sales guy at the camera shop convinced me to wait for what turned out to be the Canon D30. I'm glad I did!

I think you should adjust your terms a bit. When you talk about "digital" you seem to be referring to the non-SLR cameras like the G3. When you talk about "SLRs" you seem to be referring to film bodies. It would be less confusing if you kept to terms like "film" or "film-based SLR" and "digital" or "digital SLR" (DSLR) instead.

Your "advantages of digital" are true, as far as they go. But it's clearly a list made by someone without the benefit of having done a good deal of digital work. I'm sure others will weigh-in, but I would add these other benefits of shooting digital:

* The low cost of shooting & immediate feedback both encourage experimentation - have become a better photographer as a result.

* The histogram and "exposure warning" help fine-tune exposures - I find this to be better than relying solely on the meter.

* I'm shooting more and sharing more than I ever did with film. It's much quicker and easier to put up a web page after a digital shoot. Yes, with film I could get it processed and scanned, but that's much more work, IMO!

You've been led to believe that 35mm film will produce results that are superior to (non-SLR) digital cameras. That's probably true for the most part - depending upon how large you intend to print. For example, I bet you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference between a 4 x 6" print made from 35mm negative and one made from a G3. If you were to make 16 x 20" prints from the same sources, the difference would be more evident. Whether you would prefer the print made from film isn't necessarily clear, though!

Okay, let me get to the bottom line. It sounds as though you're serious about doing photography, and (as evidenced with your PC experience) you're likely going to be adding accessories to your camera to allow you to more flexibility in your shooting. I personally think you would be best served with a digital SLR. This will give you tremendous flexibility, and the advantages (and disadvanteges :-) of a digital workflow. For most photographers, the future is digital. Period. If you're just now starting into photography, I strongly suggest that you take the digital path. Aside from your choice of camera, you'll need to set up a workflow that works for you. Maybe you'll use Photoshop (I suspect most photographers do), and you'll need to figure out things like how to get the best prints and how to archive your images. There are many, many good resources on the web to assist - including The Luminous Landscape! But IMO you should get started with the whole digital process, then gradually add to your camera gear. That way you're always moving, more or less, in the same direction. If you start with film, you're virtually guaranteeing that you'll need to make a dramatic change somewhere down the road.

There are several good DSLRs from which to choose. You could go for the Canon 10D, which is probably the *best value* today. It makes outstanding images, and can take the same lenses as Canon's other SLR cameras, both film and digital. If you don't want to spend ~$1,500 on the camera body, consider getting a used D30 or D60 for considerably less. These cameras, too, make excellent images. I know personally of a D30 that recently sold for ~$1,000 - including the versatile 28-135mm IS lens. Either way, your investment in lenses and other accessories will remain viable into the future, if you decide to upgrade to a different Canon DSLR down the road.

Of course you could go with a Canon film-based SLR, and the same applies: your lenses etc. will remain useful when you make the switch to a Canon DSLR. But if you take this route, you'll be investing in the whole film-based workflow which you'll have to "unlearn" later.

For me, the choice is clear. Spend a bit more now (or after you've saved a bit more), and go with a digital SLR.

I suspect others will have a different view, and as they say, your mileage may vary!

Hope This Helps!

-- Jim
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
a total rethink: SLR instead of digital?
« Reply #29 on: April 27, 2003, 10:25:41 pm »

I also agree with most of the advice so far. Dale's suggestion of shooting slides with a second hand camera and lens sounds like a good temporary measure if money is a problem. DSLRs can only go one way, ie. get better and more affordable. However, at some point I think you're going to want to digitise such slides, especially if you take too many good ones  :) if for no other reason than to preserve them.

I find that scanning slides or negatives at high resolution and bit depth can be very slow and time consuming, especially if you give individual attention to each frame. So it's not just the money for equipment that's involved, but your time. Quite often I ask myself, when scanning some of the many slides that I took years ago, would I not rather be out shooting pictures and experimenting with my D60?
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
a total rethink: SLR instead of digital?
« Reply #30 on: April 28, 2003, 09:55:09 am »

P. S. to my last post; I just noticed your (cafewriter's) comment about close-ups of flowers and birds. My experience with flowers is that precise manual focusing is needed here, since auto-focus often picks the wrong part of the flower, and that this is one thing that digicams are worst at --- but the G3 has an improved MF system, so have you or anyone else tested its manual close-up focusing performance? Bird photos on the other hand might favor AF, but suffer from the longish shutter lag of a digicam, even a good one like the G3.
Logged

chrisso

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
a total rethink: SLR instead of digital?
« Reply #31 on: April 29, 2003, 11:52:04 am »

Quote
Digital is to film what CDs are to cassette tapes.
Jonathan,
OK, you're a gun owner but that is SOOOO biased and basically rubbish. That's like comparing a 1DS to a disposable camera.
Digital is to film as CD is to VINYL.
(Or in pro-recording, digital hard disc recording vs 2" tape)
At the top end of the audio scale there is still a full scale argument as to which sounds better.
I think tape and analogue are slightly edging it currently, however where digital wins out is on the question of convenience.
This applies to photography as well.
I'm not a DSLR owner, but the one argument that could win me over is the workflow one. I hate scanning!
I'm yet to see a debate on the aesthetic qualities of film vs digital. In music we equate it to warmth and character.
I've heard the odd person comment on the slightly cold look of digital images. I think the professionals that are most concerned with quality over convenience (probably mostly editorial or art photographers) are still using film.
Having said all that, I don't disagree with any of the previous advice to Cafe Writer. If I owned no camera equipment I would probably start by going the digital route.
Lastly, I thought the initial conclusions that Cafe Writer came to were very interesting and one of the strongest arguments for film over DSLR that I've seen.
Logged

chrisso

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
a total rethink: SLR instead of digital?
« Reply #32 on: April 29, 2003, 05:01:55 pm »

Dale,
I'm with you all the way.
I do have regrets about not owning a digital camera though.
A friend of mine has just bought one. Since he's had it he's been bombarding all of his friends with email attachments of all his shots. 1. He's obviously doing a lot of shooting, 2. He's obviously happy enough with the results to want to share them with everybody.
My other regret is not having the instant feedback. I really think it would be a great learning tool.
I've had whole shoots that have been fruitless. That would never have happened with a DSLR.
Logged

cafewriter

  • Guest
a total rethink: SLR instead of digital?
« Reply #33 on: April 29, 2003, 07:50:00 pm »

Ok, here's the sitch: where I live there are no camera stores, so I haven't been able to research this much. (which is why I'm here).
 I've just hit San Diego, and want to take the opportunity to put this to bed, while I'm here. Any recommendations for someone who knows their stuff I can visit in San Diego downtown or great dealers?

(cw. who doesn't own a gun. Or even a camera to shoot with, at the moment). Also, I was blown awayn by the cost of set-up for an SLR. (good points, JW). Ok, models, choices, Im very happy to go second hand everything. Good point about the cost of the scanner offsetting other costs. Also, any recommendations for books, magazines, people, mentors, courses, and a guaranteed cure for wrinkles?
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
a total rethink: SLR instead of digital?
« Reply #34 on: April 30, 2003, 03:49:55 pm »

Quote
a properly sized print from an MF slide exhibits virtually no visible grain. [edited to add the author's screen name]
To be facetious for a moment, "a properly sized print from my old Instamatic exhibits virtually no visible grain". But it has to be a rather small print (as Instamatic prints were!)

To be a bit more serious, if you want to fairly compare imaging technology options, you need to specify various print or projection sizes in relation to viewing distances, and then argue which looks better under these conditions, rather than making claims about one option achieving "perfection" under unspecified viewing conditions.

For my aging eyes, "perfection" now comes with only about 2000 camera pixels per viewing distance, and several lens makers have stated a comparable but slightly stricter design goal. Also, 10" is as close as I can comfortably go, and is also a common reference close viewing distance. So my starting point for digital to film comparisons might be a 6MP (2000x3000 pixel) image, printed for viewing from as close as 10 inches, which for my eyes requires 200 pixels per inch, giving a 10"x15" print; that "10x15 from 10" reproduces the angular field of view of a 24mm wide angle lens in 35mm format, and is as big (in angular size) as I personally am likely to want to view my prints. I am sure that a sufficiently big film format can match or exceed that, my main resolution question in film/digital comparisons is how big, and I do not know.


On the other hand, some of this is about setting a personal standard to use when comparing equipment options; for one thing, better eyes resolve 3000pixels/viewing distance or more. People who care a lot about what a wide variety of viewers think obviously need a stricter standard than a self-centered hobbyist like me.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
a total rethink: SLR instead of digital?
« Reply #35 on: May 05, 2003, 06:30:28 pm »

Dear cafe, (may I use your first name?),

    I have one quirky comment on that "a used D30 costs no more than a new G3" discussion: if you, like me,  expect to take a lot of photos over the moderately wide angle to moderate telephoto range, and want to avoid frequent lens changes on a DSLR (noting their problems of getting dust on the sensor) you might possibly prefer a G3 over a D30 for now, and not for the few extra pixels and nominally faster zoom lens.

The G3's lens covers the 35mm equivalent of about 34-140mm, f/2-f/3, and gets down to 28mm equiv. when you add Canon's .8X supplementary lens (about US$200: this and all other prices from the B&H web site), or down to about 24mm equiv. with a third party .7X sup.

The best all round lens option for the D30 is probably the new Canon 17-40 f/4 (35mm equiv. of  27-64mm); apparently very good quality, but  limited at the tele. end, with no option of adding a sup. for more wide angle, and costing about US$800 [about Au$2000 with GST?].

Other options get a bit wider (e.g. the Sigma 15-30 f/3.5-f/4.5, equiv. to 24-48mm, US$550; or the Canon 16-35 f/2.8, US$1360) but they all have a very narrow zoom range, so you might be in for a lot of lens changing.


It is thoughts like this that might make me get something like a G3 for now, and wait on a DSLR until someone offers a standard zoom lens of more convenient range, say the equivalent of a 24-70mm or 28-105mm. There is a rumour of a forthcoming Nikon DX in this class, and the forthcoming first Olympus 4/3" system camera will have a 28-108mm equiv. lens option, which might also be usable with an Olympus .8x sup. lens to get to about 23mm equiv. But if we always waited on rumoured future products, we would never buy any digital camera!


Regards,

B.
Logged

BruceK

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 87
a total rethink: SLR instead of digital?
« Reply #36 on: April 30, 2003, 07:27:33 pm »

CW:

I've been following this thread with great interest and have one question for you: How much are you intending to spend for your equipment?

I ask because you may be assuming that you can't afford a DSLR (and I'm guessing that's what you would really like). I just checked KEH's web site and they have a used D30 for $849 (US).

A G3 will probably set you back around $600.  A film SLR body (assuming you want auto focus) may be $250 (a SWAG). Between the two you've just about equalled the cost of the D30. Yes, you still need a lens for the D30 but then you'll need one for your film-based SLR as well.

Just a few more things for you to chew on.  :-)

    Bruce
Logged

etmpasadena

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 86
a total rethink: SLR instead of digital?
« Reply #37 on: April 30, 2003, 09:58:59 pm »

Drum scans can cost over $100 per frame,


Jonathan,

A 200MB Tango drum scan from one of the USA's premiere fine art landscape printing and scanning outfits, West Coast Imaging, costs only 49.95. A 14x19 inch 8bit image is only 84megs, so you could get by with a 100mb scan that costs only 39.95! NancyScans in NYC has similar prices.  

Anyway, I do own a DSLR as part of my arsenal, so to speak, so I'm hardly anti-digital. I simply meant to make the point that, handled correctly, film, and especially the larger film formats, are still capable of awesome results.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up