# Thinking bout going to digital



## dcobb (Aug 21, 2014)

Hello
       Several years ago I got started with photograph as a hobby and pretty much what Ive learned was self taught. I have a Canon AE1 with a variety of lenses and filters which I really like and have taken some really nice pictures with it in the past. I kinda let it go for a long time but recently I got the ole girl out and with a fresh battery it still works like a charm the problem is that I didnt realize that the cost of film and processing had went up so much. I have been entertaining the idea of stepping up to a digital SLR which brings me to another problem. Please excuse my ignorance but what little experience Ive had with digital has been only with my smart phone, which has an eight mega pixel camera. It does take pretty decent photos but it just doesnt do well with sunsets and rises and in low light it is noisy. So here are my questions if I may. First, do the digital SLR cameras really capture color as well as a film camera? And second, Ive been looking at the Canon digital s, primarily because Ive been happy with my AE1, and also the Nikons and wondering which may be the better of the two? 

  Thanks


----------



## limr (Aug 21, 2014)

dcobb said:


> Hello
> Several years ago I got started with photograph as a hobby and pretty much what Ive learned was self taught. I have a Canon AE1 with a variety of lenses and filters which I really like and have taken some really nice pictures with it in the past. I kinda let it go for a long time but recently I got the ole girl out and with a fresh battery it still works like a charm the problem is that I didnt realize that the cost of film and processing had went up so much. I have been entertaining the idea of stepping up to a digital SLR which brings me to another problem. Please excuse my ignorance but what little experience Ive had with digital has been only with my smart phone, which has an eight mega pixel camera. It does take pretty decent photos but it just doesnt do well with sunsets and rises and in low light it is noisy. So here are my questions if I may. First, do the digital SLR cameras really capture color as well as a film camera? And second, Ive been looking at the Canon digital s, primarily because Ive been happy with my AE1, and also the Nikons and wondering which may be the better of the two?
> 
> Thanks



I shoot film as well and haven't yet felt compelled to go digital. I keep costs down by developing and scanning my own film (color still goes to a lab for developing, but it's only $3 a roll and I still scan it at home.) So I can't answer your digital questions in detail like some of these other folks can, but I do know where you're coming from. 

First, to comment on your color question (from my limited experience with digital cameras other than cell phone cameras): I'd say that what you'd need getting used to is less about the color rendering and more about the dynamic range. Film has better dynamic range than digital. Even with a 'real' digital camera, mixed light situations will be more difficult to capture than they are with film. And I don't know how much post-processing you do with your film, but it's possible you might have to do more than you expect with digital if you shoot in RAW (which is apparently the way to go) in order to deal with some of those range issues. But if you're willing to deal with this, then you can probably get results that you like.

As for the second question....yipes! Can o' worms!  But what I'll say is consider whether or not you can/want to use your current lenses on your DSLR. If you do, stick with Canon. If you want to start new, then figure out what's more important to you, then research which brand is more likely to give that to you. And if you do step away from Canon, remember that there are options other than Nikon. Pentax, for example, doesn't get a lot of attention, but it often fares very well when compared to equivalent Canon and Nikon models, and they tend to be less expensive, so you end up with just as much camera for less money.

Also, some might mention that a DSLR isn't your only option for getting a proper digital camera. There are more mirrorless options from Fuji, Sony, Olympus that perform very well. A few folks here might talk about those options.


----------



## molested_cow (Aug 21, 2014)

Well, I haven't touched my SLRs since I went digital. It's not that I don't like it anymore, but it's just a lot more convenient and more potential for exploration. Your knowledge and skills with film will be 100% useful when you use a DSLR. The principles are the same. There will be new knowledge that you need to learn about digital, but it will be an easy learning curve.

Color wise, I don't think it's the color that is different. In fact, you can get whatever color in post processing. Digital images will always be different from film. It's not a bad thing if you are into landscape, sports, macro and wildlife photography when you need speed and sharpness. For street and portraits, film shows more emotions.

Canon or Nikon?

I am a Nikon guy so I will just talk about the advantages of going Nikon. The biggest advantage with Nikon IMO is the ability to use older lens. This is great for cheapskates like me who live on used lenses from 20 years ago. Good lens will always be good lens if kept well. I have a AI-S F1.2 50mm lens that sells for about us$300 used, a 80s design that still work on modern Nikon DSLRs. Also, I do feel that Nikon's product offerings now is more specific than Canons. Other than the usual pro cameras like the D4, you have a landscape and studio oriented D810, a hobbyist full frame D610. However I think the real question isn't about the brand but what you will be doing with it. I think it boils down to the particular camera as opposed to the entire brand.


----------



## chuasam (Aug 21, 2014)

My D300 was more than a match for film in terms of grain and colour. My D700 blew my D300 out of the water. These are older cameras. Film doesn't come close to modern digital slr in terms of performance. 

For your old lenses 
Try a Sony A7s


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## gsgary (Aug 21, 2014)

chuasam said:


> My D300 was more than a match for film in terms of grain and colour. My D700 blew my D300 out of the water. These are older cameras. Film doesn't come close to modern digital slr in terms of performance.
> 
> For your old lenses
> Try a Sony A7s
> ...


But it does with feel and the look is more pleasing


----------



## gsgary (Aug 21, 2014)

I bought the A7 to use my Leica mount lenses great camera


----------



## ann (Aug 21, 2014)

You can't use your older lenses with a new Canon digital camera as they changed the mount sometime ago.

The difference may be a shock as they work differently, i.e. + amd - exposures go in the opposite direction, and they may feel different, you need to handle them to see which feels the best for you.

Then digital has a different look and feel. They are really just different animals.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 21, 2014)

I had to check to make sure this post wasn't from 1995


----------



## runnah (Aug 21, 2014)

dcobb said:


> First, do the digital SLR cameras really capture color as well as a film camera?



Better and then some.



dcobb said:


> And second, I&#8217;ve been looking at the Canon digital s, primarily because I&#8217;ve been happy with my AE1, and also the Nikon&#8217;s and wondering which may be the better of the two?



How much do you have to spend? Nikon has the better $1,000 range cameras but if you can afford it Canon makes some great $2,000+ cameras.


----------



## CameraClicker (Aug 21, 2014)

dcobb said:


> Hello
> Several years ago I got started with photograph as a hobby and pretty much what I&#8217;ve learned was self taught. I have a Canon AE1 with a variety of lenses and filters which I really like and have taken some really nice pictures with it in the past. I kinda let it go for a long time but recently I got the ole girl out and with a fresh battery it still works like a charm the problem is that I didn&#8217;t realize that the cost of film and processing had went up so much. I have been entertaining the idea of stepping up to a digital SLR which brings me to another problem. Please excuse my ignorance but what little experience I&#8217;ve had with digital has been only with my smart phone, which has an eight mega pixel camera. It does take pretty decent photos but it just doesn&#8217;t do well with sunsets and rises and in low light it is noisy. So here are my questions if I may. First, do the digital SLR cameras really capture color as well as a film camera? And second, I&#8217;ve been looking at the Canon digital s, primarily because I&#8217;ve been happy with my AE1, and also the Nikon&#8217;s and wondering which may be the better of the two?
> 
> Thanks



There is no "better" between Canon and Nikon.  There are some differences between them, this is true.  But, there is only the question: "Which is better for you?"  And, only you can answer that.  

Visit a store.  Try them both, see what speaks to you.   Your AE1 lenses should work fine with the Canon digital bodies.  If you purchase a Nikon, you need new lenses.  

I borrowed a film body and shot a roll while shooting digital of the same scene through the same lens.  That exercise convinced me digital has arrived and for my photos it is much better than film.  I had to borrow a body because my last film camera was Nikon and my digital SLR's are Canon, and my old Canon film bodies all take FD lenses instead of EF lenses.


----------



## zaroba (Aug 21, 2014)

Asking Canon or Nikon is like asking somebody to pick Ford or Dodge.
For the most part it is purely personal opinion and there is a lot of bias and fans of each that will stand by one or the other no matter what.

Only time one would be better over the other is if one company releases a new camera with a new feature that the other doesn't have *yet*.


----------



## Ido (Aug 21, 2014)

Your AE-1 has the older FD mount, so you can't use your lenses straight-up, not even with a Canon DSLR. You can, however, buy an EF-FD adapter to use your existing lenses with Canon DSLRs. Don't think such adapter exists for Nikon DSLRs, but it does for pretty much any mirrorless system, so that opens up many options.

I cannot comment on the color question, as I have never shot film. But I can tell you this: Digital isn't bad at all. Some cameras' processing in-camera is pleasing (my camera is among them), but many (including me) prefer to shoot in 'raw' format, which can then be edited very easily in an editing program, much like developing film. The possibilities are endless, unlike film development, but you can still limit yourself to just dodging and burning.

Don't compare brands, compare camera models and lens/flash systems. If a certain brand has the camera you want and the lenses/flashes you need, it doesn't matter what its name is.


----------



## Designer (Aug 21, 2014)

As for color capability; runnah's answer should tell you to have confidence in digital.  As to that; I'm guessing that you have experienced some color tendencies in film. 

If you haven't already, search the forums for "Nikon vs Canon".  You'll find enough reading material to last you into next year.

Or you can use this handy shortcut:

Get a Nikon.


----------



## timor (Aug 21, 2014)

Designer said:


> If you haven't already, search the forums for "Nikon vs Canon".  You'll find enough reading material to last you into next year.
> 
> Or you can use this handy shortcut:
> 
> Get a Nikon.


Yup, the ad listings are full of people selling Canons as they switch to Nikon and selling Nikons as they switch to Canon. So, why don't you go with Pentax ? Very few people are selling them second hand. Maybe it means, they love them ? Unless you want to go "full frame" then no Pentax, pentax doesn't have "full frame" body, instead it makes medium size camera with sensor about 1/3 bigger than FF (not that much bigger) but Canon and Nikon have nothing to compare.  (But it's not all that straightforward. )
I don't know, if you should even think about dslr, maybe Fuji X20 would be more, than enogh. I shoot my vacation photo on 4 MP, 10 years old Canon p&s. No one can tell it was than not done with dslr.
Off course digital is BETTER, but it doesn't mean it is better. Is it more convenient ? YES. For snapshots, after all it is more of a computer, than a camera and can calculate hundreds of solutions per second, while the film photographer can mainly rely only on his brain. But does it take better pictures ? Hm... this is not technology dependant. "Better pictures" are not mesured in pixel count or sharpness or colour saturation, better pictures are measured in feelings invoked in anyone viewing them. One small advantage of film photography is, that it is made by hand, in process devoid of automation, only by skill of individual photographer. (That's why prints made by AA costs like a new house, but his photographs printed today just couple of hundreds bucks.) Hand made things are often dearer.
 So we came to the point of ambitions. If you feel, that your photography is very important to you, doesn't matter, which technology you will go with, you in for much, much more questions, then only:"which camera to choose ?" You in for the whole journey, an exciting one. Welcome onboard.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 21, 2014)

I think it's more a matter of knowing what you're doing rather than whether or not you shoot film or digital. And it doesn't have to be either or, you can do some of both. I'm a film photographer and use all kinds of older cameras and have a digital camera too. 

I've found in submitting photos to juried exhibits that I've gotten accepted original B&W darkroom prints, color photos from film, a digital photo in B&W, alternate process images that I scanned and printed digitally. I think it's absolute crap when people say that you'd get a lack of good color with film, it has a different quality that I like but is only better or worse depending on knowing how to use either one. Using good lenses probably makes a difference in quality more than if you shoot film or digital - I use some of the same lenses on film bodies and with my digital camera.

As far as shooting in low light I find that I might be able to keep shooting longer as it gets dark using my digital camera (when I've reached the limit of getting any more exposures on film) but the quality isn't good at some point unless you set up a long exposure. The camera's recording light so it just gets to a point that you don't have enough light left in the day to work with.   

Since the Canon FD mount won't be directly usable with anything digital that would leave it open to plenty of possibilities, and if you keep that it would still give you a nice option for doing some film photography - most places that develop film will scan it or as mentioned you can scan your own. You could consider used, I've done well buying from KEH; then you could always upgrade later on once you find a system that works for you. If you have good skills in film photography you should be able to learn how to get good quality digital images too.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 21, 2014)

The newer Nikon cameras are amazing, because Nikon is buying sensors made by Sony, and also ones made by Toshiba, and Nikon is also making some of its own sensors. Their idea is to get the BEST sensor for each camera. A new, 24-megapixel full-frame Nikon blows any 35mm slide film I ever shot out of the water. The new 24-MP NIkons also blows Tri-X out of the water, but at ISO levels up to an including ISO 6,400, not 400.

35mm film has a lot of grain, and actually pretty low resolving power in most common emulsion types. I remember 12 yars ago, a buddy came by with the then-hot-new-thing, the Canon 10D, a 6MP d-slr. We shot it using my studio flash gear...I remember how AMAZED we were at how much MORE detail it had compared to Portra or VPS or any of the other pro films we'd shot...it was soooooo "smooth"...the image data was just "there"...just "revealed"--not trapped in a mosaic of grain-dots and clumps...


----------



## CameraClicker (Aug 21, 2014)

CameraClicker said:


> There is no "better" between Canon and Nikon.  There are some differences between them, this is true.  But, there is only the question: "Which is better for you?"  And, only you can answer that.
> 
> Visit a store.  Try them both, see what speaks to you.   Your AE1 lenses should work fine with the Canon digital bodies.  If you purchase a Nikon, you need new lenses.
> 
> I borrowed a film body and shot a roll while shooting digital of the same scene through the same lens.  That exercise convinced me digital has arrived and for my photos it is much better than film.  I had to borrow a body because my last film camera was Nikon and my digital SLR's are Canon, and my old Canon film bodies all take FD lenses instead of EF lenses.



I thought the AE-1 was new enough to use the EF lenses.  Not so.  I checked and see it used the older FD lenses.  So you are free to move to any digital system since you will need new lenses anyway.  You could get adapters, but you would not get the benefits newer lenses offer and the adapter adds space between body and lens.

Try Nikon and Canon, but also try Pentax and Sony.  While at the store, look at the mirrorless systems too.  Some of the landscape photographers are saying they work great for that.


----------



## runnah (Aug 21, 2014)

CameraClicker said:


> I thought the AE-1 was new enough to use the EF lenses.  Not so.  I checked and see it used the older FD lenses.  So you are free to move to any digital system since you will need new lenses anyway.  You could get adapters, but you would not get the benefits newer lenses offer and the adapter adds space between body and lens.  Try Nikon and Canon, but also try Pentax and Sony.  While at the store, look at the mirrorless systems too.  Some of the landscape photographers are saying they work great for that.



Budget is key. If money is no object id try out both the mark 3 and the 810. The Sony A7r is a nice little camera and so are the Fuji bodies.

But if you only have a little money you can't beat the nikon D3000 and D5000 series.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 21, 2014)

As runnah mentions, budget IS KEY! I used to sell cameras and video gear, many years ago, but the choices one has have ALWAYS been limited/dictated by budget. Right now, Canon's 7D is being sold at a hefty discount because the product is about ready to be "end-of-life" listed; the big German photo exposition, *photokina*, is this September, and it is expected that the Canon 7D Mark II will be announced. So, in anticipation and due to rumors about the next model coming out, retailers have dropped prices on the 7D, and refurbished units are available in the $805-$904 price range, depending on the day of the week, and the exact specific retailer and how their cash flow seems to be going. You could also step back, back in time, and pick up a Canon 60D, now that the 70D has replaced the 60D. 

Keep in mind, you can buy OLD technology, cheaply, because it's older, and less-capable and less-advantageous. The 7D uses a sensor initially released in 2009, and iterated in the following five Canon models. The 7D was once a $1600 camera--six years ago. Same goes for the older, discontinued Nikon cameras like the D5200 or D3100 or D7000: All those are older models that are heavily discounted because there are better, newer models that command the top dollar.

You need to determine how much money you want to part with, and then buy a camera that you think will be good. If you are willing to limit yourself to ISO 640, the Canon 60D or Nikon D5100 are great value cameras; if you want a small camera that shoots almost like a "pro" camera,even at high ISO like ISO 4,000, the Nikon D7100 is the camera to beat. Period. If you have eyesight issues, or eyeglasses, consider that the low-end Rebels and low-end Nikons have very weak, low-magnification, and small-image viewfinder systems; the viewfinder system is the main area of compromise with the lower-priced $400-$899 cameras, and it the BIGGEST single visible issue when one steps up to the mid-level camera like the 7D or D7100 or higher. I've sold hundreds and hundreds of people their cameras; some people really,really LIKE the mid-level niceties, like the better, bigger viewfinders, and the better control systems, whereas other people value SMALL cameras, sold at lower prices, like the Nikon D3300 for example, or the Canon Rebel series.


----------



## coffeefilter (Aug 21, 2014)

I've done a lot of camera research in the past few weeks, and it seems to me that if you want Image Quality, go with *Nikon*. Big, beautiful sensors and _lots_ of lenses.

*Canon *looked better for high-speed shooting and video, less so for image quality and lens selection.

*Pentax*, I didn't really look.

To be fair, I'm biased toward Nikon. I started on Nikon and I love the image quality, as well as the ergonomics. I was between a D7000 and D5300. I went with the D5300, btw, for the sensor size/resolution, the high ISO/low noise capability, phase detection autofocus, acceptable video performance and the articulating screen for easier perspective shots.


----------



## pez (Aug 22, 2014)

If you aren't trying to make a living with photography, and therefore don't necessarily "need" a heavy, large, and expensive FF camera with its expensive stabilized lens system, then Pentax is a viable option. Any K-mount lens made in the last 40 years (Pentax and 3rd party), will function on any current Pentax DSLR, a true money-saver for the enthusiast. Also, any and every lens is stabilized with the sensor-shift in the bodies. Just pointing this out, as there are "very few" Pentax fanboys in here, lol. I believe the 24mp sensor in the Pentax K-3 camera is the same Sony sensor that Nikon uses in the D7100. Here's a comparison of image quality between a K-3 (APS-C) and a D-600 (FF), just for fun. Pentax still lags behind a little in autofocus speed, and Canon probably has the best video capability of the DSLRs, but unless you're a pro sports photographer, I doubt it would matter much to most people. I have several Pentax bodies and a lot of lenses, some of which were built in the 70's, that all work great.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 22, 2014)

The only digital cameras thats shots look like colour film are Leica digitals they were designed with this in mind


----------



## Browncoat (Aug 22, 2014)

gsgary said:


> The only digital cameras thats shots look like colour film are Leica digitals they were designed with this in mind



100% false. Crap like this gets circulated around the internet and posted on photography boards all the time. It's completely baseless.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 22, 2014)

Browncoat said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > The only digital cameras thats shots look like colour film are Leica digitals they were designed with this in mind
> ...


No Nikon or Canon looks like colour film


----------



## Browncoat (Aug 22, 2014)

gsgary said:


> No Nikon or Canon looks like colour film



Subjective, not fact.

Anyone who shoots RAW and is proficient at editing can simulate the look of any type of film.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 22, 2014)

Browncoat said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > No Nikon or Canon looks like colour film
> ...


It will never look like film


----------



## Browncoat (Aug 22, 2014)

gsgary said:


> It will never look like film



You're right there. It looks better than film.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 22, 2014)

Thats a joke post some and I will let you know


----------



## Browncoat (Aug 22, 2014)

Quick! Hit the refresh button!

Unless you've seen a side by side comparison, I dunno how you can possibly make that call. I was recently at a street photography workshop where we did just that. A side by side 24" print of a Fuji X100S vs Leica M6 vs Leica M9. The Fuji was hands down the winner, and frankly, just about all of us who attended (65 was the head count) guessed wrong. Almost universally, we all selected the same image because it was clearly superior...but we thought that was the Leica image. Nope. It was the Fuji.

I would put the latest Nikon sensors up against Leica as well. Even the cheaper Nikons. I can't speak to Canon, because I don't know much about them. Leica used to be the cream of the crop, but now it's just a status symbol. You're paying for build quality, for sure. But Leica's days of being king of the image quality hill are over.

Film will always have a certain look that appeals to some people. Definitely. But to say that film is universally better, or that you can't achieve the same look with digital, is not realistic. Not anymore. It sounds like keyboard warrioring, coming from someone who has spent too much time reading forums and old books.


----------



## zaroba (Aug 22, 2014)

Operator experience is key to getting a good photo.
If I handed a cheap point and shoot to a professional photographer and gave my 15 year old brother who has rarely used a camera a Leica, do you really think the Leica would still have better shots?

Also, do you really think editing can't make a photo look better?
Anything can be done in editing.  Just look at modern films that employ CGI.

3rd, it's all a matter of opinion.
What one person likes, and thus thinks is better, wont be what everybody else in the world likes.


----------



## pgriz (Aug 22, 2014)

Um, yeah.  In the debate about which is better (Canon vs. Nikon), I'll let the experts debate.  Ultimately, it's the budget and the handling that will determine which one you'll choose.

I want to address the film vs. digital discussion.  I shot film and slides for over 30+ years, but I was pretty much 100% self-taught.  And in that context, I knew some things very, very well, and was embarrassingly ignorant about many other elements that are fundamental to photography, but then, you don't know what you don't know.  Three things changed this situation for me about ten years ago:  1) I took a formal course given by a practicing pro; 2) I joined a local photo club, and 3)  I got a basic digital camera.  The course opened my eyes to rather large parts of the photographic skill set that I was deficient in.  The photo club, though its competitions, mentoring classes, and workshops, gave me a much better understanding of what can be achieved, and how to do it.  The digital camera opened up the ability to quickly see the results of any set of choices.  And given the cost of making a digital exposure ($ zero), it opened up a whole world of purposeful experimentation.  This is, to me, the most important aspect of digital - the ability to make a set of photographic choices, and then get instant feedback as to whether those choices worked, and if not, in which direction I need to make changes.

Now, the areas I already had a good grasp of (from a technical point of view) were exposure (including metering, the zone system); composition, natural light management.  The areas that improved were:  understanding the relation between aperture/focal length and the depth-of-field; concept of useful dynamic range, relation between shutter speeds and techniques like panning, using motion blur; the ability to recognize and use white balance, and getting a much better understanding of flash photography.  

Actually, the last deserves its own paragraph.  As a self-taught amateur film photographer, I didn't use flash much, and when I did, it was with usually ghasty results (that's what happens when you use direct, unmodified flash).  With the instant feedback that digital gave me, I was able to build up my understanding of bounce flash, the use of multiple flash units, the ways the various modifiers can be used to shape the light, the ways fill flash can be used, and how to combine flash and ambient (both in terms of light levels and colour temperature) to give pleasing results.  Of course, all of those lessons could have been learned with film, but it would have taken me much longer (remember, I'm self-taught).

Another characteristic of film is that it has to be developed, and then printed.  My skills in the darkroom were limited to black-and-white film processing and printing.  I never had the equipment to do colour printing, and usually relied on the neighbourhood photo processing service to give me the prints.  With digital, that aspect is now under my control.  I have to admit that my skills in post-processing are very basic still, but working with the RAW files, I can get much more detail out of the images than I could with film.  Again, both advanced amateurs and pros could do much with film that I couldn't, but going to digital gave me the feedback and control that dramatically accelerated my learning.

Would I go back to film?  Maybe.  But for my purposes, digital is much more forgiving, and most importantly, gives me the instant feedback that I can use to correct the situation while I'm still in the field.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 22, 2014)

Browncoat said:


> Quick! Hit the refresh button!
> 
> Unless you've seen a side by side comparison, I dunno how you can possibly make that call. I was recently at a street photography workshop where we did just that. A side by side 24" print of a Fuji X100S vs Leica M6 vs Leica M9. The Fuji was hands down the winner, and frankly, just about all of us who attended (65 was the head count) guessed wrong. Almost universally, we all selected the same image because it was clearly superior...but we thought that was the Leica image. Nope. It was the Fuji.
> 
> ...


I didn't say film looks better, it does to me because I love shooting film for me digital looks too clean but now I have bought a Sony A7 I don't mind digital again


----------



## limr (Aug 22, 2014)

Browncoat said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > It will never look like film
> ...



Is that not also totally subjective?


----------



## chuasam (Aug 22, 2014)

gsgary said:


> The only digital cameras thats shots look like colour film are Leica digitals they were designed with this in mind



Hahahhahah that's the funniest thing I've heard here since the Newb names thread. Leica digitals are most rebranded Panasonic.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Browncoat (Aug 22, 2014)

limr said:


> Browncoat said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



Congratulations. You picked up on the irony.


----------



## limr (Aug 22, 2014)

Browncoat said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Browncoat said:
> ...



I also picked up on the fact that several commenters made similar claims about digital and yet no one called them on that. That seems to be accepted without challenge. Yet someone substitutes "film" for "digital" and it's suddenly a target of argument and mockery.


----------



## Augphoto (Aug 22, 2014)

Most (not all) will probably tell you that once you go digital you'll never go back.  I would be in that camp, for sure.  With that said, there will initially be a learning curve.  How great that curve is depends on you.  Once you get over the initial hump, so to speak, it is sheer joy.

Just one man's opinion.


----------



## limr (Aug 22, 2014)

Is the OP even paying an attention to this? He casually dropped BOTH the Canon vs Nikon AND the film vs digital bombs and it would be nice to know that he's at least reading the answers.


----------



## pgriz (Aug 22, 2014)

limr said:


> Is the OP even paying an attention to this? He casually dropped BOTH the Canon vs Nikon AND the film vs digital bombs and it would be nice to know that he's at least reading the answers.



See, that's the problem with "code words" or "code phrases".  Those who use them knowingly, know the explosive mixture potential.  Others may be completely oblivious to the associations that come with these words/phrases.  But I agree that it would be interesting to see what he/she makes of this.


----------



## pez (Aug 22, 2014)

I don't always reminisce about my B&W darkroom days, but when I do, I dig out some old negatives... and scan them for Lightroom and PS! In the 21st century, I can fix every scratch, hole, and piece of debris if I want to! 
However, I do miss watching an image materialize on some nice photo paper floating in the tray- that's magic! And those all-night burning and dodging sessions. Remember solarization? Way fun! On the other hand, Lightroom never, ever spills on the floor.


----------



## timor (Aug 22, 2014)

Again "beautiful" discussion. Love that. Film against digital, real thing against a simulation (in technical terms). Guys, computers are powerful enough, to make believe on everything, and their powers are only growing. So it is maybe worthwhile to invest in this completely new technology (oh, well, only 30+ years), but let keep the old one alive, cause once rare earth metals run out mankind gonna have to reinvent photography once more. If at all.  (Not in our lives, no worries.) And Gary, don't fight young digital guys, they gonna always shout louder. Study a bit biology and behaviourism and you will know, why. . "Modern" people don't know much about older technologies, for them that's crap (they don't know, exactly why, but everybody is saying this, right ?). They are born into a new world of consumerism and speed, speed too great to warrant much of reflections.
 To OP, if he is still here: doesn't matter Canon or Nikon,get something on the limits of your budget and start shooting. My advice, take what will fit your hands best, the way the camera lays in your hands is more important than the ability to "shoot" 20 or 24 MP files.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 22, 2014)

timor said:


> Again "beautiful" discussion. Love that. Film against digital, real thing against a simulation (in technical terms). Guys, computers are powerful enough, to make believe on everything, and their powers are only growing. So it is maybe worthwhile to invest in this completely new technology (oh, well, only 30+ years), but let keep the old one alive, cause once rare earth metals run out mankind gonna have to reinvent photography once more. If at all.  (Not in our lives, no worries.) And Gary, don't fight young digital guys, they gonna always shout louder. Study a bit biology and behaviourism and you will know, why. . "Modern" people don't know much about older technologies, for them that's crap (they don't know, exactly why, but everybody is saying this, right ?). They are born into a new world of consumerism and speed, speed too great to warrant much of reflections.
> To OP, if he is still here: doesn't matter Canon or Nikon,get something on the limits of your budget and start shooting. My advice, take what will fit your hands best, the way the camera lays in your hands is more important than the ability to "shoot" 20 or 24 MP files.



But they don't punch harder


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 22, 2014)

limr said:


> Film has better dynamic range than digital.



I don't want to get into any "discussion" about what looks like what. If you enjoy shooting film and want to do that you should and vice versa. As for the Canon vs. Nikon debate that's easy: Nikon.  

The OP didn't ask about "look" she/he asked, a question that warranted a technical answer. The OP's question about color was answered. Otherwise, sticking with the spirit of the OP's technical question, let's not leave the above stand uncorrected. The opposite is true. It's 2014 and the state-of-art in digital sensors well exceeds the dynamic range of any film.

Joe


----------



## timor (Aug 22, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Film has better dynamic range than digital.
> ...


No clipping ?


----------



## timor (Aug 22, 2014)

gsgary said:


> But they don't punch harder


For us in our age they do.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 22, 2014)

timor said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



Not one pixel.

Joe


----------



## zaroba (Aug 22, 2014)

Augphoto said:


> Most (not all) will probably tell you that once you go digital you'll never go back.


I don't miss using film one bit.



Ysarex said:


> It's 2014 and the state-of-art in digital sensors well exceeds the dynamic range of any film.


Also this.

There are reasons that digital photography is vastly more popular then film photography, and only growing more so as technology improves.  Mainly, ease of use.
No dark rooms or costly film developing - you only need a home printer
No film rolls to lug around and change
Instant viewing of photos to see if they turned out nicely
Easy sharing with other people - internet being the prime example.  Over 1.3 billion people on facebook
No running costs - unless you have a camera that doesn't have a rechargeable battery pack
Easy storage of photos - hard drive or online vs boxes and boxes of photos and negatives
Easy editing of photos - load them in any picture editing program
Easy to learn - you instantly see your mistakes and learn how to correct them with trial and error

Comparing film to digital?
That is like comparing the fuel mileage of a car from 1960 to that of a brand new car.  Or windows 3.1 to windows 7.  Or an 8 bit video game console to a modern video game console.  the origional Gameboy to a brand new Gameboy.  A TV from the 1980s to a modern LED flatscreen.  You get the idea.  Yea, some people may like the older technology better.  But guess what?  If it was so good it would not have been replaced with something more convenient, easier to use, and it wouldn't become popular.  Like HD-DVD,  Blu-Ray proved to be a better media format so HD-DVD died pretty quickly.  If film was truly better then digital, and if most camera owners/buyers believed that, then digital cameras wouldn't still be being sold or wouldn't have evolved in to what we have today.  They would have died shortly after being first produced.


----------



## limr (Aug 22, 2014)

Are you going to explain it or are you just going to say "Wrong!" and move on? Because if I'm wrong, it would be nice to be educated about something instead of just being scolded.

And I would also like to clarify something: when you say "state-of-the-art sensors" do you mean the sensors that are in any current digital cameras? (Current meaning the last couple of years - not older digital sensors) Or does it refer only to the top-of-the-line digital cameras?


----------



## limr (Aug 22, 2014)

zaroba said:


> Comparing film to digital?
> That is like comparing the fuel mileage of a car from 1960 to that of a brand new car.  Or windows 3.1 to windows 7.  Or an 8 bit video game console to a modern video game console.  the origional Gameboy to a brand new Gameboy.  A TV from the 1980s to a modern LED flatscreen.  You get the idea.  Yea, some people may like the older technology better.  But guess what?  If it was so good it would not have been replaced with something more convenient, easier to use, and it wouldn't become popular.  Like HD-DVD,  Blu-Ray proved to be a better media format so HD-DVD died pretty quickly.  If film was truly better then digital, and if most camera owners/buyers believed that, then digital cameras wouldn't still be being sold or wouldn't have evolved in to what we have today.  They would have died shortly after being first produced.



This is far too simplistic. Film --> digital is NOT the same is comparing the same technology, only improved over time. The concept is the same and the lenses apply to both technologies, but the way they produce images involve different technologies, so no, it's NOT fair to just say that digital is an "upgrade" because it's not.

You're also assuming that "convenient" and "better" are the same. Sometimes they are, and for something as subjective as photography, the two words _are_ synonyms for a person like you who values that convenience more than other aspects of the activity. Not everyone has the same priorities.


----------



## zaroba (Aug 22, 2014)

You are correct, it is just my opinion.
I find being able to pop out my memory card and put it in my computer far more convenient then sending film off to be developed.
Although I don't know how, I'm pretty sure it's also more convenient then it would be to set up a dark room in my house and develop film myself.


Whats next though, saying that VHS is better then DVD/Blu-Ray?


----------



## timor (Aug 22, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...


I gonna hold you to your promises.


----------



## limr (Aug 22, 2014)

zaroba said:


> You are correct, it is just my opinion.
> I find being able to pop out my memory card and put it in my computer far more convenient then sending film off to be developed.
> Although I don't know how, I'm pretty sure it's also more convenient then it would be to set up a dark room in my house and develop film myself.
> 
> ...



The point was not that film can be just as convenient as digital. The point was to say that some people _don't care_ as much about the convenience, but rather are more concerned with other aspects of the activity.

It's pointless to say something is better simply because it's convenient unless the ONLY criteria being used for judgment is "convenience." 

A Hot Pocket is also more convenient than food cooked fresh. Is a Hot Pocket "better" than freshly-cooked food, then? Depends on your priorities.


----------



## pgriz (Aug 22, 2014)

This "discussion" about the merits of digital vs. film has the same relevance as artist discussion of whether oils or watercolours are the "best" medium.  Pfttt.  Whatever works for YOU.  They both record images.  They do it in different ways.  And those differences allow different expressions.  So...  let's discuss the merits of Broccolli vs. brussel sprouts next.  or maybe using bags of frozen peas vs. cold packs to treat aches and pains.  Or a real controversial one - Red or White wine?  Zinfandel or Gammay?


----------



## zaroba (Aug 22, 2014)

Some people prefer the journey, others prefer the destination.
I prefer the destination.

As for the hot pocket scenario, it depends on the situation.  Do you have the time, supplies, and energy to prepare a freshly cooked meal?
If so, then yes, it would be better to make a freshly cooked meal.  It's far healthier.
However, if your pressed for time because you have to go some where, or are exhausted after a long day of work, then I would say the hot pocket would be a better choice.
I'd hate to be late for work because I had to prepare a fresh cooked meal to eat for breakfest.  But that hot pocket only takes 2-3 mins and I can eat it in the car on the drive to work.


----------



## timor (Aug 22, 2014)

zaroba said:


> You are correct, it is just my opinion.
> I find being able to pop out my memory card and put it in my computer far more convenient then sending film off to be developed.
> Although I don't know how, I'm pretty sure it's also more convenient then it would be to set up a dark room in my house and develop film myself.
> 
> ...


 So, convenience. Yes. YES. YES. YES.YES. 
That is why in the last 14 years was born so many "photographers". I think digital camera actually caused devaluation of photography. Made out of it a trow away item; 3 seconds attention and forget about it as new "stuff" is coming. No time for reflection. Anyway, what for ? 99% of images are looking the same.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=land...6oLADg&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=854
Dazzling colours, opium for the eyes, zone of dreams. Yes, we need that to, but tell me, how many of them is actually hanging on your wall ? For keeps ? Maybe a calender ? Every month new picture after disposing the old one ? I wish for you, that in your lifetime you will make 5 pictures emotionally so strong, that you will frame them, hang on the wall and they will stay there and be enjoyed until you gone. And it will be no matter, if you made this pictures with film or digital. Holga or 4x5. 4MP or 36MP, doesn't matter.


----------



## zaroba (Aug 22, 2014)

timor said:


> but tell me, how many of them is actually hanging on your wall ? For keeps ? Maybe a calender ? Every month new picture after disposing the old one ? I wish for you, that in your lifetime you will make 5 pictures emotionally so strong, that you will frame them, hang on the wall and they will stay there and be enjoyed until you gone. And it will be no matter, if you made this pictures with film or digital. Holga or 4x5. 4MP or 36MP, doesn't matter.



Is that a request for me?
I don't think I've had any type of photo hanging on my wall since the early 90s.  lol


----------



## limr (Aug 22, 2014)

zaroba said:


> Some people prefer the journey, others prefer the destination.
> I prefer the destination.
> 
> As for the hot pocket scenario, it depends on the situation.  Do you have the time, supplies, and energy to prepare a freshly cooked meal?
> ...



Exactly. What is "better" _depends_ - it depends on what is important to you (or anyone) at any given point in time. What's important to you today may not be so important in five years, or vice versa. What is important to one person is not to another. And this is exactly why the film vs digital "debate" is a fruitless endeavor and why "better" is meaningless because everyone is using different criteria and they are prioritizing those criteria differently. 

For me, a Hot Pocket is never ever ever a better choice. I would rather not eat anything than eat one of those things. But I am not everyone and everyone is not me, so who the hell I am to generalize about freshly-cooked meals being "better" than Hot Pockets?

So what is better, film or digital? Both! Neither! It.Does.Not.Matter.


----------



## timor (Aug 22, 2014)

zaroba said:


> Is that a request for me?
> I don't think I've had any type of photo hanging on my wall since the early 90s.  lol


 No request, absolutelly, just a wish and looks lika a valid one. Why don't you have any ? you don't like any of your pictures ?


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 22, 2014)

limr said:


> Are you going to explain it or are you just going to say "Wrong!" and move on? Because if I'm wrong, it would be nice to be educated about something instead of just being scolded.
> 
> And I would also like to clarify something: when you say "state-of-the-art sensors" do you mean the sensors that are in any current digital cameras? (Current meaning the last couple of years - not older digital sensors) Or does it refer only to the top-of-the-line digital cameras?



I don't want to get involved in the film/digital head butting here just want to keep the tech accurate. Digital continues to develop at a fairly rapid pace. Back a decade or more especially when most digital cameras were equipped with 10 bit A/D converters you could compare film and digital dynamic range and make a case for film. We're now solidly using 14 bit A/D converters in modern digital cameras with 16 bit converters showing up at the very high end. Yes -- top of the line stuff like a Nikon D800 which is very expensive. It would take two years of my film costs back in 1995 to buy one today. Film is mature tech and if improvements are made they are incremental at best. In 2008 I was shooting a 10 mgpx camera with a 10 bit A/D converter. Your statement may have been accurate then. Do the math and compare the difference between 2^10 and 2^14 and then try next year's 2^16. Film dynamic range got passed up somewhere between 2^12 and 2^14.

Joe


----------



## snerd (Aug 22, 2014)

limr said:


> zaroba said:
> 
> 
> > ......... A Hot Pocket is also more convenient than food cooked fresh.....
> ...


----------



## zaroba (Aug 22, 2014)

timor said:


> No request, absolutelly, just a wish and looks lika a valid one. Why don't you have any ? you don't like any of your pictures ?


oh heavens no, I have plenty of photos.  I just couldn't tell if your post was serious or sarcastic 
I have over 2.5k digital photos dating back to 2007 on my PC, I'm actually in the process of uploading them to my website.

Really it would be a matter of looking threw them all for the ones I like the most.
Off hand I know of one that I truly do love.  You wont understand it though:


----------



## limr (Aug 22, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Are you going to explain it or are you just going to say "Wrong!" and move on? Because if I'm wrong, it would be nice to be educated about something instead of just being scolded.
> ...



So the dynamic range of a very-top-end digital sensor is better than that of film. Does that hold true for entry-level or mid-range DSLRs? And I assume that this comparing the sensor against the film emulsion and size that has the best performance in terms of dynamic range (since not all films are created equal, as you know), yes? This is not an argument, it's a question.


----------



## timor (Aug 22, 2014)

zaroba said:


> oh heavens no, I have plenty of photos.  I just couldn't tell if your post was serious or sarcastic


No, absolutely no, I am not sarcastic. (But if you weren't sure it means, that I handled myself well ) You see, my opinion here is, that the final goal of photography is a print. Not everything has to be printed, but what you consider impressive should. Having portfolio of good prints first of all elevates a photographer by showing, that his skills are complete, then print looks different, than a computer screen image, usually it loses somewhat of it's brilliance (no backlight) so it is a control of processing. And then print just pinned to the wall could be looked upon at any given time, could be studied at any given time and that will stimulate your sensitivity as a photographer.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 22, 2014)

timor said:


> zaroba said:
> 
> 
> > oh heavens no, I have plenty of photos.  I just couldn't tell if your post was serious or sarcastic
> ...


Have you been on the pewo because I have


----------



## timor (Aug 22, 2014)

gsgary said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > zaroba said:
> ...


 Piwo.  No I am at work, but that reminds me I have none for the evening.:shock: :meh:


----------



## Browncoat (Aug 22, 2014)

limr said:


> So the dynamic range of a very-top-end digital sensor is better than that of film. Does that hold true for entry-level or mid-range DSLRs? And I assume that this comparing the sensor against the film emulsion and size that has the best performance in terms of dynamic range (since not all films are created equal, as you know), yes? This is not an argument, it's a question.



The Nikon D800/800E/810 exceeds the dynamic range of film. Most other sensors in the past couple years either meet or exceed also. I say most, because some still aren't up to snuff...at least in my opinion. Aside from nostalgic value, DR was previously film's one claim to fame over digital, but those days are over.

Film is a horse drawn carriage. It's more about the ride and the "experience".


----------



## greybeard (Aug 22, 2014)

Digital has given me  creative freedom I never felt like I had with film.  Nothing like the immediate feedback you get with a dSLR.  Much better in low light.  Can you imagine have variable ASA film from 100-6400?  I think you will wonder why you haven't done it sooner.


----------



## CameraClicker (Aug 22, 2014)

timor said:


> zaroba said:
> 
> 
> > oh heavens no, I have plenty of photos.  I just couldn't tell if your post was serious or sarcastic
> ...



I always preferred slides to prints.  Large monitors are great, screensaver runs when the machines are not being used and I have a couple of thousand photos in the screensaver loop.  Our walls are fairly clean, some original Indian carvings and only a couple of pictures, the rest are all on monitors and change every few seconds.  I print a lot, just not for me.


----------



## timor (Aug 22, 2014)

CameraClicker said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > zaroba said:
> ...


 You are not getting the idea. Or you just print for money ?


----------



## gsgary (Aug 22, 2014)

Browncoat said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > So the dynamic range of a very-top-end digital sensor is better than that of film. Does that hold true for entry-level or mid-range DSLRs? And I assume that this comparing the sensor against the film emulsion and size that has the best performance in terms of dynamic range (since not all films are created equal, as you know), yes? This is not an argument, it's a question.
> ...


It doesn't beat medium format for dynamic range


----------



## gsgary (Aug 22, 2014)

Browncoat said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > So the dynamic range of a very-top-end digital sensor is better than that of film. Does that hold true for entry-level or mid-range DSLRs? And I assume that this comparing the sensor against the film emulsion and size that has the best performance in terms of dynamic range (since not all films are created equal, as you know), yes? This is not an argument, it's a question.
> ...


And it doesn't beat the Sony A7


----------



## timor (Aug 22, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Browncoat said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...


Gary, I told you already something about thid discussion.
Riding a horse drown carrige is now activity of social elite. The knowledge how to control horse is all but lost to wide population as well as the experience from that ride.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 22, 2014)

I have been on the Pivow


----------



## gsgary (Aug 22, 2014)

Piwo


----------



## timor (Aug 22, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Piwo


Forgot about that.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 22, 2014)

limr said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



Yes.



limr said:


> Does that hold true for entry-level or mid-range DSLRs?



For the mid-range now yes -- something like a Nikon D5xxx series. The  D5100 is equipped with a 14 bit A/D converter. Some of the entry level  cameras are still 12 bit. 10 bit is over.



limr said:


> And I assume that this comparing the sensor against  the film emulsion and size that has the best performance in terms of  dynamic range (since not all films are created equal, as you know), yes?  This is not an argument, it's a question.



Not all films are created equal. You'll get the very best dynamic range  from 70mm Kodak Tri-X professional (note: that is medium format) which is capable of reaching 3.5 to  almost 4D depending on processing. Color films are all going to be less  to a degree. A 12 bit A/D converter is 3.6D.

In both instances those are the "lab" numbers. "Lab" numbers can get  pretty silly when you have to roll up your sleeves and do the job.  Heaven help you if you ever try and print a 3.8D Tri-X neg. We used to  keep a chisel in the lab to tease the noobs. When they processed a neg  like that we'd hand them the chisel and suggest they shave some off  before taking it into the darkroom. The "lab" numbers for digital  sensors are equally unrealistic. That's one of the reasons I'm reluctant  to engage this issue too much more. 39 years doing this professionally  which includes a career shooting thousands of rolls (and sheets) of film  and I have no doubt that I can shoot film and a modern digital camera  side by side in high contrast light and pull more out of the digital  capture. So what -- just want the tech accurate.

At the same time if all I did was record the camera processed JPEG then  the film would trounce it. There are so many complications and nuances  to this that it get's unproductive real quick. That's why TPF prohibits  these film versus digital threads. 

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 22, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Browncoat said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



Yes it does: Breakthrough: New Sensor from RED breaks the film Dynamic Range Barrier | Bright Side of News*

Quote from the article:

_"The RED Dragon sensor needs to be directly compared to 65mm film._

_The Dragon has more resolution than 65mm film when scanned at 4K._

_The  Dragon has more dynamic range than film by a lot. 65mm film has about  14.5 stops. The Dragon has an easy 16 stops without sweating."_


Joe


----------



## limr (Aug 22, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> At the same time if all I did was record the camera processed JPEG then  the film would trounce it. *There are so many complications and nuances  to this that it get's unproductive real quick*. That's why TPF prohibits  these film versus digital threads.
> 
> Joe



I totally agree, which is why I am so bored with them unless I can actually learn something about those nuances. This is why I asked for your explanation and I appreciate that you were willing to give me one.


----------



## Browncoat (Aug 22, 2014)

gsgary said:


> It doesn't beat medium format for dynamic range





gsgary said:


> And it doesn't beat the Sony A7



Do you have anything of actual value to contribute, or are you just going to continue being a keyboard warrior who regurgitates information gleaned from across the internet?


----------



## Derrel (Aug 22, 2014)

The Sony A7 and A7r output 11-bit RAW images. You read that right: 11-bit RAW.

From Thom Hogan's review of the A7 and A7r, written after MONTHS of use: Sony A7 and A7r Review | Sans Mirror &mdash; mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan
"...let me lay out the basics: the D800E will shoot 14-bit raw files with no underlying artifacts and fully recoverable data. The A7r will shoot 11-bit raw files with potential posterization issues in the data. The same is true of the A7 versus a D610, too. "

"Let&#8217;s start with the 11-bit thing. Sony always uses compression in storing raw files. The way they do that is quite clever. They slice each pixel row into 32 pixel blocks. In a Bayer sensor, that means two colors, each with 16 data points). For each 16 pixels of a color, Sony looks at the minimum and maximum pixel values for each and stores that. For the _other 14 pixels_ they store a _7-bit value_ that is offset from the minimum value. In essence, they get 32 pixel values stored in 32 bytes, when normally 11-bit storage for that data should take 44 bytes. This is _not_ lossless compression. It is highly lossy. Nor is it visually lossless"

"_Put simply, the D800E is producing 14-bit data values with no extra manipulation in them, the Sony is producing best case 11-bit data values, and many of those values have been _calculated_ and are not the original data. "_


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 23, 2014)

limr said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > At the same time if all I did  was record the camera processed JPEG then  the film would trounce it. *There are so many complications and nuances  to this that it get's unproductive real quick*. That's why TPF prohibits  these film versus digital threads.
> ...



OK, keep it balanced though and quote this sentence as well: "39 years  doing this professionally  which includes a career shooting  thousands  of rolls (and sheets) of film  and I have no doubt that I can  shoot  film and a modern digital camera  side by side in high contrast  light  and pull more out of the digital  capture."

I know film. Before I retired I was the prof. who taught Zone System  discipline to grad students. I had them bent over the densitometer  graphing film tests. I'm not attacking film; enjoy shooting film it's a  great experience. Just want to keep the tech accurate.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 23, 2014)

Derrel said:


> The Sony A7 and A7r output 11-bit RAW images. You read that right: 11-bit RAW.
> 
> From Thom Hogan's review of the A7 and A7r, written after MONTHS of use: Sony A7 and A7r Review | Sans Mirror &mdash; mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan
> "...let me lay out the basics: the D800E will shoot 14-bit raw files with no underlying artifacts and fully recoverable data. The A7r will shoot 11-bit raw files with potential posterization issues in the data. The same is true of the A7 versus a D610, too. "
> ...



No wonder Gary thinks film is better.

Joe


----------



## Vince.1551 (Aug 23, 2014)

Film has a nostalgia feel while some purist feels that digital images are too clinical. And no I don't think the 'film feel' can be easily replicated with pp. Even if you could, it's not worth the time. I do agree that if Leica cams tend to replicate the 'film feel' however it will never be the same as the original. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limr (Aug 23, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



I don't understand - what was unbalanced? You know more about it and I learned something. What else was I supposed to say?

You said yourself that _technically_, digital does not always have the advantage over film in regards to dynamic range. It does in some cases and not in others. So yes, it's not entirely accurate anymore to say that film has better dynamic range. But - according to your explanation - it's also not entirely correct to say that digital has better dynamic range because it doesn't in all cases. And those cases are more likely to be encountered by people who are, for example, shooting with entry-level consumer digital cameras and shooting JPEG. 

So, it's a complicated issue that has different answers. Neither blanket statement would be "keeping the tech accurate."


----------



## timor (Aug 23, 2014)

Event of digital photography seems to be mostly about pixel count and performance of a sensor and image figuring algorithms. As much as for some folks it is an "artistically freeing" thing, I think, mostly, cause they couldn't "figure out" film and they need handicap of full computer. No question about it, no way digital technology may be inferior to organic film. Ha ! In ten years we will look at top performing cameras of today and laugh about their "flimsy" image quality "good for nothing". Yet digital brought a lot of limitations to creative nature of medium. Sensor is inflexible. To get all this pixels and DR it needs very precise exposure, no "over" or "under", stiff "developing" lol: love, when digitals are using this word) of the image. And that's good ! For most tasks of digital camera that's good, after all 99% of people using them know nothing about camera usage. In effect there is a limitation in creating the image "in field" in order to not to loose data. 
Digital rendered everybody to only one format of camera; eye level slr. Essentially we lost everything else for this so called creative process. No more is possible to see the world through the lens of large format camera or TLR. Potential of this camera systems is no more available. That's another limitation, who knows, perhaps the greatest. Looks like today's photography is only about sharpness and detail. But then comes (from the other thread) Olivia Bee, a glorification of Lomography, elevated by big bucks. I am sure it is only an ephemeris, but symptomatic.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 23, 2014)

limr said:


> You said yourself that _technically_, digital does not always have the advantage over film in regards to dynamic range.



Not quite. I acknowledged the existence of entry level digital cameras and that many people hobble digital technology in use (shoot JPEGs). Those are variations in usage. When you asked me to explain you made sure that I would compare digital with the best film can produce and I acknowledged that would be 70mm Tri-X Pro which is arguably the film DR king. If we re-do that comparison and substitute color slide film for Tri-X it's a different ball game. That's another usage variation. The usage variations get messy. Everybody shooting film doesn't shoot medium format Tri-X and everybody shooting digital isn't shooting raw with a camera equipped with a 14 bit A/D converter (16 bit A/D converters are showing up now). *But technically when you compare the "king" of one with the "king" of the other digital delivers more DR than film -- that's the accurate tech.*

You can't make the comparison and assume on the digital side a hobbyist shooting JPEGs with a Canon Rebel even though that might be a statistical mean. A disposable film camera from Walmart may also be a statistical mean.

*Your original statement was an unqualified, "Film has better dynamic range than digital." Qualified at high performance levels for both and the reverse is true. In asking for accurate tech I'm qualifying at high performance levels as I think accurate tech means cutting out the usage variations.
*
I know the usage variations are real and they're important especially for the person doing the using. Therefore I want to acknowledge positive aspects of film. (I made a career out of film.) It's easier with a good color negative stock to hold subtle highlight detail in high contrast light given the curve characteristics on the film toe and a digital camera JPEG will do very poorly by comparison. I can see suggesting film as a solution there especially to someone who doesn't want to learn raw capture post processing. Film has a very positive characteristic in that case and even substantial statistical weight since a lot people shoot digital JPEGs and don't want to be so serious as to learn raw capture post processing. But that's a "usage" variation and not the accurate tech.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 23, 2014)

timor said:


> Event of digital photography seems to be mostly about pixel count and performance of a sensor and image figuring algorithms. As much as for some folks it is an "artistically freeing" thing, I think, mostly, cause they couldn't "figure out" film and they need handicap of full computer. No question about it, no way digital technology may be inferior to organic film. Ha ! In ten years we will look at top performing cameras of today and laugh about their "flimsy" image quality "good for nothing". Yet digital brought a lot of limitations to creative nature of medium. Sensor is inflexible. To get all this pixels and DR it needs very precise exposure, no "over" or "under", stiff "developing" lol: love, when digitals are using this word) of the image. And that's good ! For most tasks of digital camera that's good, after all 99% of people using them know nothing about camera usage. In effect there is a limitation in creating the image "in field" in order to not to loose data.
> Digital rendered everybody to only one format of camera; eye level slr. Essentially we lost everything else for this so called creative process. No more is possible to see the world through the lens of large format camera or TLR. Potential of this camera systems is no more available. That's another limitation, who knows, perhaps the greatest. Looks like today's photography is only about sharpness and detail. But then comes (from the other thread) Olivia Bee, a glorification of Lomography, elevated by big bucks. I am sure it is only an ephemeris, but symptomatic.



I use this camera a lot:







For me it's all about more viewfinder flexibility than than my old TLRs used to offer and the camera's superior ability to deliver an expansive tonal range beyond the old limits of film. 

Joe

Edit: Damn! I swore I wouldn't get sucked in to this by the nonsense.


----------



## limr (Aug 23, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > You said yourself that _technically_, digital does not always have the advantage over film in regards to dynamic range.
> ...



*I've already acknowledged* that my original statement was overreaching because I did not know of the technical advancements at the high end. But it's not fair to ignore the usage variable because that is the variable that makes it ALSO unfair to make the opposite statement that digital has better dynamic range than film. You want to keep the tech accurate but *the tech doesn't always exist in the high end world. *I asked if you were comparing the high end sensors to high end film only because any other comparison would be unfair, NOT because I only wanted to know about the high end.

I'm not trying to argue that I was right. I'm also not attacking digital or your expertise. I'm saying that the *most accurate* description is "It depends."

What I'm also not trying to do is to suck you into some silly debate. What I AM trying to do is to understand *why*, after I recognized your point and accepted the information you gave me and then thanked you for it, you are still saying that I don't get it.


----------



## timor (Aug 23, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> I use this camera a lot:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:shock: Having such a tool now you obligated, I guess... Good luck.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 23, 2014)

I'm on the piwo again again


----------



## timor (Aug 23, 2014)

gsgary said:


> I'm on the piwo again again


 Well, looks like you can watch this thread only being on piwo.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 23, 2014)

timor said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > I'm on the piwo again again
> ...


Got a lovely pint of raspberry wheat beer in my hand


----------



## timor (Aug 23, 2014)

gsgary said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


Raspberry wheat beer doesn't have for me enough dynamic range in taste, that's one, second, I prefer beer with much more megapixels. However ,, they go only up to 8-9, not 36. But then I can always interpolate them artificially using a bottle of strong algorithm ! :idea: !


----------



## gsgary (Aug 23, 2014)

This is only 4mp but it loves a bit of Rodinal


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 23, 2014)

"It depends" seems to describe it well, that's I think how I go about it. I haven't read up on dynamic range, I go by what I see and to me there's a different look to images from film. I think it depends on the film you use and the camera and lens and the light you were shooting in etc. etc. - there are lot of variables but good is good, there are just various ways to get there.

My digital camera is DNG so it automatically produces a Raw image and a JPEG from that which I rarely use (I typically save a copy of the Raw as a JPEG if I need it because the quality looks better). I print my own and may print from the media card what I got in camera, or I may brighten it up or adjust contrast, etc. that's what works for me.

Same basic idea when I've done darkroom work, once I've determined exposure time if I shot a roll in the same place, same lighting I can often crank out prints pretty efficiently. Other times I might have to do more adjusting and burn in a light corner or dodge out some detail in a dark area, it depends on any particular frame of film. And sometimes I may have to do further adjustments to a film or a digital image, I do whatever needs to be done for a particular photo. It just depends! LOL

Ansel Adams did Polaroids and encouraged people to try out the 'new' technology at the time (which he corresponded with Edwin Land about) but I don't think by trying something new that meant he had to give up B&W film work. You don't have to stop shooting film to shoot digital.

The OP asked - could he get good quality color images using a digital camera compared to the good quality color photos he got from film, yes I would think so; good but most likely somewhat different. I think it's a matter of developing skills in using whatever technologies you use.


But... it should go to 11!


----------



## limr (Aug 23, 2014)

vintagesnaps said:


> But... it should go to 11!



:lmao:


----------



## jtmiv (Aug 23, 2014)

timor said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > timor said:
> ...



+ 1000, million zillion and then some


----------



## dubiousone (Aug 23, 2014)

dcobb said:


> Hello
> Several years ago I got started with photograph as a hobby and pretty much what Ive learned was self taught. I have a Canon AE1 with a variety of lenses and filters which I really like and have taken some really nice pictures with it in the past. I kinda let it go for a long time but recently I got the ole girl out and with a fresh battery it still works like a charm the problem is that I didnt realize that the cost of film and processing had went up so much. I have been entertaining the idea of stepping up to a digital SLR which brings me to another problem. Please excuse my ignorance but what little experience Ive had with digital has been only with my smart phone, which has an eight mega pixel camera. It does take pretty decent photos but it just doesnt do well with sunsets and rises and in low light it is noisy. So here are my questions if I may. First, do the digital SLR cameras really capture color as well as a film camera? And second, Ive been looking at the Canon digital s, primarily because Ive been happy with my AE1, and also the Nikons and wondering which may be the better of the two?
> 
> Thanks




The AE-1 is a fine camera, I have several that I like to use myself. I took the jump to DSLR  a ways back because I was tired of crappy pictures. When you compare a P&S camera or cellphone camera to a DSLR just remember this is the 1980 comparison to a Kodak Instamatic to a Pentax or Nikon or Canon...whatever. Not even close.

Now, since the opinions on this here thread range from digital is better than film and your Canon FD lenses will work fine on a DSLR Canon, I figured I ought to throw my equally worthless opinion in...

Canon FD lenses will NOT work on a Canon DSLR. The mount is different. There are third party adapters and I have 'heard' that some people have got them to work but the adapter I have doesn't...yet.

Nikon lenses of most any vintage except pre-AI lenses will work on almost every Nikon camera there is including digital. Depending on the model that manual lens may not meter (use a handheld or adjust after the picture is taken by looking at the LCD) and of course focus in manual.

Film is NOT better than digital and digital is DEFINITELY not better than film. They are two distinct media. Yes I think film has richer colors and greater detail and depth but I've taken some very nice digital shots.

The principles are the same. Shooting film I guarantee you will be more caring with each shot in composition and exposure. With digital it costs nothing to fill up an entire CF card with crappy images to find...the one. Do that with film and you'll break the bank in a hurry!! (Fuji Pro400@ $15 a 36 roll, developing and printing at $12)


----------



## Derrel (Aug 23, 2014)

dubiousone said:
			
		

> Nikon lenses of most any vintage except pre-AI lenses will work on almost every Nikon camera there is including digital.



The "baby Nikons" D40, D40x, D60, D3000-series, and D5000-series *will accept unmodified pre-Ai lenses*,  as well as Ai, Ai-S, AF, AF-D, Af-i, AI-S P (both 45mm f/2.8 P- and 500mm f/4 P-Nikkors) and AF-S and AF-S G series lenses.


----------



## timor (Aug 24, 2014)

jtmiv said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


:???: Are this numbers of megapixels you will need in the nearest future ? Zillion is a nice, round number...


----------



## pez (Aug 24, 2014)

Derrel said:


> dubiousone said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Awesome- I have a friend with a D5200 and she is in a quandary about this point. This thread on DP review is a little confusing, however.


----------



## limr (Aug 24, 2014)

So...seven pages and the OP's last activity was three days ago. Should we start the betting on whether or not he'll come back?


----------



## timor (Aug 24, 2014)

limr said:


> So...seven pages and the OP's last activity was three days ago. Should we start the betting on whether or not he'll come back?


Well, if OP comes back and reads this discussion, which is now our discussion, he may go two ways. Or may recognise the technical expertise of Joe, derrel and others, who seriously and accurately answered his questions and he may see the passion for photography of the other folks. Or he may decide, that we are nuts and stay away from us. :no smile:


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 24, 2014)

Deciding that digital or film is 'better' because of some arbitrary contest at the extremes doesn't seem the right way to do it.

There are other questions that could be asked

Do the bulk of users (lets say the middle 65%) produce better photos in terms of image quality on average now as opposed to the bulk of users film days?
(Using the current film users as a comparison group is wrong because they self-select)​Do the bulk of users (lets say the middle 65%) have more control now than as opposed to the bulk of users film days?

and a loaded question-

Is the barrier to full enjoyment of taking pictures higher or lower now?


----------



## limr (Aug 24, 2014)

No. There's only one question to be asked, and each person needs to answer for him or herself:

"Which one is better _for me_ to fulfill _&#8203;my own_ creative vision."

Nothing else matters.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 24, 2014)

WWJD? is another valid question.


----------



## limr (Aug 24, 2014)

Derrel said:


> WWJD? is another valid question.



Had to google it, and then....


----------



## Derrel (Aug 24, 2014)

Although the computer has almost entirely eliminated the use of the typewriter, and both the typewriter and the computer have made hand-written letters almost obsolete, I still send people hand-written letters written in my very best cursive writing, a writing style I practiced diligently over years, to make as beautiful as possible. Whenever I ship out a CD of images, I enclose a hand-written letter. And although the photos are, I think pretty good, I ALWAYS get feedback that mentions ,"The very nice letter you took the time to write," or "Your beautiful letter." Every. Single. Time.

I think film-based photography possesses qualities similar to those found in a carefully crafted hand-written letter. No, film is not the most current method to use to transfer ideas to final form. Neither is a fountain pen and cursive handwriting. Film is not the most efficient or fastest method to transfer ideas, just as a handwritten letter is NOT the fastest way to say, "Thank you, I appreciate you entrusting me with your photography needs."


----------



## chuasam (Aug 24, 2014)

limr said:


> So...seven pages and the OP's last activity was three days ago. Should we start the betting on whether or not he'll come back?



The neoluddite like he is probably doesn't have a computer at home.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## limr (Aug 24, 2014)

chuasam said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > So...seven pages and the OP's last activity was three days ago. Should we start the betting on whether or not he'll come back?
> ...



That was insulting and unnecessary.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 24, 2014)

chuasam said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > So...seven pages and the OP's last activity was three days ago. Should we start the betting on whether or not he'll come back?
> ...



He is probaly processing 1000 crap shots from his new digital camera when he could have shot 36 good shots on film


----------



## timor (Aug 24, 2014)

Guys, relax.
Gary, that was not called for. You know very well, that to get 36 perfect exposures on one roll of film borders with a miracle. Unless you shoot all of them in singular light conditions in one location. This is never happening to me.


----------



## limr (Aug 24, 2014)

^^Agreed. Gary's comment was also rude. There's no need for an "us" vs "them" mentality and the snide remarks that come from both sides that result from that mentality.


----------



## chuasam (Aug 25, 2014)

gsgary said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



It's called a learning curve. If he shot a roll of film and got 36 great shots, his standards are too low; or he's Ken Rockwell. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## limr (Aug 25, 2014)

That just makes no sense.


----------



## runnah (Aug 25, 2014)

I think this sums up my feelings on the issue


----------



## limr (Aug 25, 2014)

Hey, you learned some new moves, tiger!


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 25, 2014)

He couldn't have shot 1000 digital photos, good bad or otherwise, because he didn't have a digital camera yet!! At least not when the thread started, that's what he was asking about. And who knows if he'll ever come back here to ask any more questions, digital _or_ film related. 

He might have shot a roll of 36 that were all good, we may never know. I've had everything on a roll turn out, doesn't mean they were all, it's a matter of  spectacular but they were at least decent. Then other times I've had a few frames not turn out or had a whole roll of mostly crap (especially with experimental stuff lately) and that applies to whatever I'm doing, digital, film, and you should have seen the paper I've trashed starting out with alt. processes! Geez the guy can still shoot his AE-1, and/or a new digital camera - and get good color images either way, it's a matter of knowing what you're doing. 


Good moves there Runnah!


----------



## gsgary (Aug 25, 2014)

Bloody hell I was having a joke


----------



## limr (Aug 25, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Bloody hell I was having a joke



I think it's time to learn about the winky smiley face


----------



## runnah (Aug 25, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Bloody hell I was having a joke



The first one is always the hardest.


----------



## timor (Aug 25, 2014)

runnah said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Bloody hell I was having a joke
> ...


Hardest to make ? Hardest to make it funny ? Hardest to lough from ? Pls, be digitaly precise.


----------



## sgthsth (Aug 28, 2014)

I bought the A8 to use my Leica mount lenses great camera


----------

