# Digital or 35mm for christmas?



## Brently (Nov 27, 2004)

I have a 35mm pentax that is locking up and a sony p-72 3 megapixel camera.

My parents are offering $400 for either film or digital.
Its between a canon elan 7e or pentax *ist DS.
according to some calculations it takes 22 megapixels to equal film. 
I do enjoy editing with photoshop but with digital always getting closer to film should i get a cheaper film camera and wait for a different digital? There is always film scanners to look into also.

*i do sell prints sometimes and digital is easier because i dont know where you can get a $1.30 8x10 with film!


----------



## GerryDavid (Nov 27, 2004)

If you wait for a better digital, you will always be waiting since there will always be a better one around the corner.  And I heard 35mm film = 7mp. : 0)

But you could get a negative scanner and scan your negs in so thier digital anywase and get them printed for that $1.30, but your paying extra for film and developing.  But with digital you can take a virtual unlimited # of pictures.

And im partial to digital.  When I get prints back, they always look more dull/less saturated than my digital, plus with my digital I can tell if I get the picture at the time.  But I miss the manual options of my slr.

If I had to get a digital camera now, I think I would go for the olympus c470 or what ever the number is.  Manual options, good mp, good zoom.  :0)


----------



## Jamie R (Nov 27, 2004)

"If you wait for a better digital, you will always be waiting since there will always be a better one around the corner. And I heard 35mm film = 7mp"

That's a big underestimation; film resolution is much higher than that.  12 megapixels is closer.  Even scans from a full-frame 35mm format with a Minolta Scan Elite will produce files which are 7 times the size of your estimate.  

That's the latent power of film; working to such limits is beyond most of us still. 

Machine run 35mm prints are just awful; these are a good reason for the success of digicams and digital printing.  I recall years of being frustrated looking at substandard poorly optimised Kodak Q lab and Fuji Frontier work by half-hearted technicians.   It takes effort  to get it right.  For convenicence, digital is just great, but let's not pretend that it's going to be cutting edge.  

Seems like cost and price are more important to you than the high quality of 35mm film, with all of its detail and quality carefully eeked out; seems like you'd be better off sticking with digital.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Nov 27, 2004)

Brently said:
			
		

> I have a 35mm pentax that is locking up and a sony p-72 3 megapixel camera.
> 
> My parents are offering $400 for either film or digital.
> Its between a canon elan 7e or pentax *ist DS.
> ...


I've read a comparison where the 11 mp canon 1D(s) mk something... was better than film. 

Go with digital. It's fun... and down the road you'd pick up a cheap film body and have both. 

Or go with cheap film cam and start investing in AF lenses. Then when you feel that the digital SLRs are good enough for the money, you can switch to digi and you'll have the lenses.

Cheers.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Nov 27, 2004)

Jamie R said:
			
		

> Even scans from a full-frame 35mm format with a Minolta Scan Elite will produce files which are 7 times the size of your estimate.


Doesn't actually mean that the film holds enough information. 

If you have a 100mp scan of a slide, doesn't mean that there's actually 100mp of information in the slide. You'll be capturing the detail of the grain... which is useless...

It's like saying: "ooh, i can upsample my image from a 10D into a 100 mp file.... Therefore, the file holds that much info.

You see how that works?


----------



## Jamie R (Nov 27, 2004)

"Doesn't actually mean that the film holds enough information."

Using Maco Ort25 film; Gigabit film; Pan F+, it does actually mean film holds enough information; more than enough for most purposes.   Film holds more than information; it holds characteristics of silver halide on emulsion.  This is information that digital cannot hold. 

A 100 MP scan of a 35mm scan  of Ilford Pan F+ or Kodak TMax 100 does actually offer higher resolution than a 7MP scan, depending on whether the photographer shot with a fine enough grained film to resolve the detail.   Unless the photographer is shooting rubbish on ISO 3200 and then complaining that a 100MP scan is useless.....I'd agree.

"It's like saying: "ooh, i can upsample my image from a 10D into a 100 mp file.... Therefore, the file holds that much info."

Not so: a 10D has a fixed resolution capacity, unless the CCD is   binned and upgraded.  With  a 35mm camera, a user can switch between fine grained film for higher quality work, and medium grain film for standard work and gain from the higher resolution without introducing artifacts consistent with digital imaging.  

That's why 35mm film format works so well.  Digital works well because of its convenience; not quality


----------



## ksmattfish (Nov 27, 2004)

DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> I've read a comparison where the 11 mp canon 1D(s) mk something... was better than film.



I think you mean the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II, which is 16.7 megapixels ( and $8000 for the body).  In a review that I read (and trust) the testers felt that the EOS 1Ds Mark II did a slightly better job resolving small details than 35mm ISO 100 film (I believe they were testing it against Provia).  

Considering that just using either camera off the tripod probably reduces resolution substantially, I'd say that 35mm film has been matched in that aspect at least.  There were still other issues such as dynamic range, and there were strange digital artifacts showing up occasionally.  Of course film has it's issues too, such as all those messy, stinky chems needed.



> Go with digital. It's fun... and down the road you'd pick up a cheap film body and have both.



I think this is the way to go.  You need to save up some more money, and get a digital Rebel, and an under $50 35mm SLR.  You can get a Ricoh 35mm SLR for under $30, and they are wonderful, if unfashionable, cameras.  If you develop a true passion for film, then you can always upgrade later.  An awesome thing about film is that you can always upgrade to the latest image capturing technology for the price of a roll of film, even if your camera isn't state of the art.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Nov 27, 2004)

Jamie R said:
			
		

> "Doesn't actually mean that the film holds enough information."


I'm sorry, my english isn't good enough and I'm not re-reading what I write. 

What I meant to say that: "doesn't actually mean that the film holds that much information"




> Maco Ort25 film; Gigabit film; Pan F+,


OK, I'm confused by the terminology now. What are those films? Extra fine grain?

From what I've seen, ISO 400 shows grain when enlarged to 8*10. I can already see the "unsharpness caused by the grain" of film. 6.3 mp print from the rebel is smooth at 8*10...

Of course... you can't compare ISO 100 film with the rebel print.

The other interesting fact, is that YOU claim that film holds more info. It may be true, BUT 95% (bacially only L primes from canon lineup) can outresolve the 16.7 mp sensor. Others are not sufficinent.

So, bacially we're at a point where both film and digital users are limited by the quality of the glass. 

I call a truce!


----------



## John Orrell (Nov 27, 2004)

It's like vinyl vs digital audio: for a while the early CD players sounded artificial and clinical compared to the best turntables, despite the attraction of zero noise and doubtless convenience.  Years on, we've got to that stage where from the point of view of all measurable statistics, digital audio in the form of such as HDCD and DVD-Audio trounces records.  Yet there are many people - including me - who prefer the sound of a well-pressed record reproduced on a first-class turntable/arm/cartridge combo.  It's down to personal preference of what sounds "right" to one's own ears.

In just a few years - if it's not already happened - the same will happen with film vs digital: in terms of measurable specifications, digital WILL overtake film, yet there will be a small band of ardent deciples for whom digital photos look too processed and artificial compared to those captured on high-quality film by a good camera/lens combo.  It's the same thing happening all over again, this time with vision rather than sound!


----------



## photong (Nov 27, 2004)

Brently said:
			
		

> according to some calculations it takes 22 megapixels to equal film.



Dude, what size of print and film are you talking about??? Eep...a large format or print soze of more than 20 inches either side?? 

I would just go digital. You can get decent print sizes and great quality with that 3MP. Of course an SLR is awesome. I would think you would save money and it's easier to see if the image is alright/straight after you shoot it. At least those are my pros.

Where I go for prints I can get an 8x10 film or digital for 2.99 (Candian).

Yeah dont always wait for the perfect digital. You'll never get it. Better is always coming out. I suggest (if you can wait), find one you like at a decent price and wait for it to go down or the next model to come out and try then. For me my 3MP mini digi is fine with me. . I just can't control where I ficus and my depth of field, which sucks, but thats where I use film if I can. Having both is good. some clients don't like digital and vice versa.

Goodluck


----------



## jadin (Nov 27, 2004)

I'm rather surprised you found a dSLR for around $400. Is there something I'm missing? Such as your own savings to combine with the 400??


----------



## railman44 (Nov 27, 2004)

I'm a film and Nikon guy but if I was given $400 toward a digital or film camera I would save that money until I had enough for a Nikon D70 and a "normal" Nikkor AF lens.   Some good "kit" deals on eBay.  My .02 pesos...


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Nov 27, 2004)

Listen to what mr burns has to say, he knows what's best for you


----------



## Jamie R (Nov 28, 2004)

Hey Frankenstein - 

That's okay.  The slower speed film are used for high resolution 35mm photography; Maco Ort 25, Gigabit film, Pan F+, Efke R25, and formerly Techical Pan,  are the current crop of 35mm slow film.   If you've never tried these, I can understand why you think digital is comparable to film. 

Again, comparing a 400 ISO film to digital doesn't answer much; 400 speed film is way grainier than ISO 100 film from the likes of Kodak TMax, Fuji Acros, to say nothing of the fine detail of slow film. 

It's a bit silly comparing a £8000 digital camera to a £100 35mm camera which has instant access to any slow film emulsion and then say that it's a no brainer between 35mm and digital.  
Having more sense than money, 35mm in the meantime and then  migration  up to medium format might not seem too challenging.

The 6.3MP print at 8x10" will be smoother; digital has a clinically clean 'cut-out' effect.  Look at your images and assess foreground subjects against the background.  People have a cardboard cut-off effect which suits magazines and advertising very well.  

"The other interesting fact, is that YOU claim that film holds more info. It may be true, BUT 95% (bacially only L primes from canon lineup) can outresolve the 16.7 mp sensor. Others are not sufficinent."

For £8000, I'd rather have a large format 8x10" kit; a 5x4" monorail; a 6x6 Hasselblad with a few lenses, and a Carl Zeiss 35mm Zeiss Ikon 35mm camera and a freezer full of slow film emulsion than an expensive camera whose 16.7MP is 5.3MP short of the latest medium format back offering......


"So, bacially we're at a point where both film and digital users are limited by the quality of the glass."

That's the way things may go if fine grained emulsion is discontinued due to increasing digital sales and the effect on film sales.  Until then, it's a digital fantasy 

Best of luck.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Nov 28, 2004)

Just curious... What's the ISO of those super fine grain films?

I'd imagine they are much slower than the ISO 100... making them suitable for tripod shots only, unless you're shooting in direct sun...?

I wouldn't want to shoot that high detail film handheld. I'd wanna stabilize it on a tripod...

What I'm getting into is that super fine grain films are suitable for tripod shots only... MLU... and not moving subjects...

BTW: If you have an 8*10 negative... How big of a print can you make of it?


----------



## Jamie R (Nov 28, 2004)

Hi Frankenstein,

Pan F+ = nominally rated ISO 50
Gigabit Film = nominally ISO 40
Efke 25 = nominally 25

In medium brightness, not necessarily  Bermuda or anywhere with sunny 16 conditions, these films are fine to handhold, especially with wide-angle lenses.  Most are only a stop slower than ISO 100 film.    Efke 25 is odd in that it's data indicates that when rated at ISO 50, it develops well.     Incredible grain detail results from "very slow" film like Kodak positive release film (phenomenally detailed!! It's used as a copy neg for that reason).  Its ISO is somewhere around 1 - 3.  Now that is slow!  The three films above are nowhere near as slow.  For moving subjects, some find that chromogenic 400 ISO film is finer than traditional B&W black and white negatives.  It depends on ambient lighting.  Photographers in sunny countries like Greece etc don't have a problem with using Pan F+ or even the old Kodak Technical Pan off tripod. 

For critical enlargement, a tripod is a good idea regardless of digital or film....camera shake shows up proportionally to the enlargement factor.  A lot of photographers on the move use Pan F+ for portraiture work with a flash as well so no tripod needed.

8x10" negs  - enlargement factor of 10x - wow!  Now there's a billboard for you!  Most of us run out of wall space before then....


----------

