look at this review where they compare a digital slr with 35mm and MF

LOOK HERE

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), May 02, 2002

Answers

I’m still unconvinced…

At least it is what I can state after reading the article form luminous Landscape.

I have absolutely no doubt examining an A3 size print as a whole from the normal distance it is observed will hardly permit to notice the difference of precision brought by the D60 digital from a classical film (which film, the author of the article failed to mention by the way). A friend of mine, then a professional sports car photographer was once told to blow one of his negatives to a wall size for a car exhibition in Paris. When he saw what the lab has done he was horrified by the result: grainy, cloudy visibly less than sharp was what he saw on each of the multi-layer enlargement… But the lab technician just laughed and told him: “just wait until it is suspended in place and you’ll see…” And indeed the all image, when viewed from the place the general public could see it appeared as perfect and sharp as on the original “small” enlargement of 24 x 30 cm it was originally selected. This classical effect has to do with the human eye limits in being able to separate clearly two different points. The farther we see something, the smaller it appears and when remote enough, the grainy cloudy effect is gone.

But this goes well for a wall paper sized image, hardly for an A3 enlargement at all. Even in a gallery such an A3 enlargement is generally close enough to the viewer to permit him to way of seeing it: the general plan for which the digital image resolution might be enough to appreciate the composition and then a detailed examination of the print. This is where the silver halide film will literally blow to pieces the low resolution digital image.

So I still see no reason to go digital when the final destination of the image is not a monitor screen (and the D60 is an overkill there) or a printed document for a newspaper or a magazine (360 dpi maximum resolution anyway).

By the way, I can’t clearly understand why to reduce the jet ink printer resolution to 360 dpi. I have an Epson 1270 and regularly print at maximum resolution. While I can’t scan better than 1600 dpi with my present outfit (which authorizes only 13x18 cm prints with relatively high definition from a 35 mm negative) I ever had better results using the printer to its limits. I guess the 4000 dpi scanner to come as soon as possible will just permit me to obtain A3 format prints which will be like what can be obtained with silver halide paper in terms of definition from a 35 mm negative.

I have nothing against digital, but until it will permit me to obtain at least the same definition silver halide film can give me, it will stay on the retailer shelves. I have no intention to sacrifice the money I can better invest in a high definition scanner or in high quality lenses for my Hexar RF or my Mamiya 645 to buy a digital camera which, by the way, will be obsolete within 6 months to one year.

The strongly apologetic description of Canon zoom lenses, when we know the limitation of the digital sensors in terms of fully exploiting the high definition of any lens, makes me think the author is heavily biased…

One more disguised advertisement for the Japanese maker ? …

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 02, 2002.

"...(which film, the author of the article failed to mention by the way)..." Francois, it's Provia 100F, listed in the article under the "Methodology" heading.

"But this goes well for a wall paper sized image, hardly for an A3 enlargement at all. Even in a gallery such an A3 enlargement is generally close enough to the viewer to permit him to way of seeing it: the general plan for which the digital image resolution might be enough to appreciate the composition and then a detailed examination of the print. This is where the silver halide film will literally blow to pieces the low resolution digital image."

I respectfully disagree. I have seen many digital images shot with Canon D30's, shot by both amateurs and pros, hung side by side with traditional prints, printed as large as A3. While they are not identical, I hardly think digital is "blown to pieces." My own pet theory (which could be completely wrong) is that the artifacts inherent in film create an illusion of definition. Grain may not accurately reflect information derived from the subject, but it does lend some kind of texture which the eye may see as actual information. Digital tends to leave smooth voids where it can't resolve detail.

"By the way, I can’t clearly understand why to reduce the jet ink printer resolution to 360 dpi."

It is my understanding that the Epson printer drivers discard information greater than 360 dpi, meaning if you send higher dpi than this to the driver, it interpolates down to 360 dpi anyway before sending information to the printer.

"...to buy a digital camera which, by the way, will be obsolete within 6 months to one year."

Obsolete how? As long as lenses and computers are available, the camera can still be used. A newer, better camera does not make the older ones obsolete. Do you consider a Leica M6 obsolete simply because it's features were bettered decades ago by more modern cameras? Perhaps not longer "state of the art," but not obsolete.

"...when we know the limitation of the digital sensors in terms of fully exploiting the high definition of any lens..."

No, we don't know about this. Please educate us, noting especially how other alternatives (film) are better. Be specific. Give examples. Account for all steps and variables in the process, such as film processing and enlargement. Use real films, not Tech Pan.

"I have nothing against digital, but until it will permit me to obtain at least the same definition silver halide film can give me, it will stay on the retailer shelves."

Is definition the only criteria? I remember how this used to be the case with Leica - their lenses were the sharpest. Then, when they were equaled by other (Japanese!) makers, sharpness suddenly didn't matter that much. "Bokeh," "fingerprint," "signature," "microcontrast" and a lot of other terms suddenly became fashionable. Don't get me wrong, I think that the 35mm f2 ASPH is the best 35mm lens I've ever used, but I have to admit that the choice of film I put behind it, tripod mounting, etc. have much more impact on resolution and final image quality. My biggest complaint about digital is not the resolution, but the inability to hold detail in highlights. It's much like analog vs. digital music recordings. Analog can compress and hold onto information when pushed to its limits, while digital simply gives out, and the results are ugly.

"One more disguised advertisement for the Japanese maker?"

He wrote that the new digital (Japanese) Canon is an improvement over the old digital (Japanese) Canon, and for many purposes better than the film (Japanese) Canon, and compared it to a pair of (Japanese) Pentaxes. I guess when Leica comes out with their own (German? more likely re-badged Japanese) digital SLR or digital M, we can decide of there is a bias toward "the Japanese maker." Note that in other places on his site, Mr. Reichmann sings the praises of Leica and Rollei equipment. He even has a Hasselblad Xpan, but we all know that this isn't a REAL Swedish camera. Another clever ruse by a different "Japanese maker." Those sneaky Japanese.

-- Masatoshi Yamamoto (masa@nifty.co.jp), May 03, 2002.

Masatoshi San,

First and foremost be sure I have NOTHING against Japanese people I respect and admire much of what their millenary civilization has produced, my son is actually learning Japanese and I am writing books on Japanese Aviation…

My commentary was directed against Canon not all Japanese manufacturers (I used Nikon for years, I’m still using a Mamiya MF… and my binoculars are an old Nikon design signed Nippon Kogaku which probably dates back to the 40’s…). Canon is for me the quintessence of an overrated manufacturer which obtains fame today more from advertisement and other commercial practices and the massive embodying of gadgetry… I only do recognize their technical advance in fast AF systems for long tele-lenses… The fact Canon is a Japanese manufacturer is well known and I think undisputable. So I use the term Japanese manufacturer to avoid to repeat Canon once again…

Now you write

>> Francois, it's Provia 100F, listed in the article under the "Methodology" heading. <<

Oops, I missed the tip

>> I respectfully disagree. I have seen many digital images shot with Canon D30's, shot by both amateurs and pros, hung side by side with traditional prints, printed as large as A3. While they are not identical, I hardly think digital is "blown to pieces." My own pet theory (which could be completely wrong) is that the artifacts inherent in film create an illusion of definition. Grain may not accurately reflect information derived from the subject, but it does lend some kind of texture which the eye may see as actual information. Digital tends to leave smooth voids where it can't resolve detail. <<

I mostly agree with what you say Masatoshi San… But I insisted on the difference between the way you compare the print as a whole and a detailed examination of it (I meant when you look at certain parts of it for some details). I may give you an example: Suppose you want to know what is written on the front of a shop in such an image which is only a small part of the original print. I guess you’d be able to decipher it with a full definition print and you’ll have it blurred in a low resolution one… Do I err ?

>> It is my understanding that the Epson printer drivers discard information greater than 360 dpi, meaning if you send higher dpi than this to the driver, it interpolates down to 360 dpi anyway before sending information to the printer. <<

It looks really strange to me as the Epson 1270 is sold as a much higher resolution printer and I’ve seen the difference while testing the reduction to 360 dpi… So may be this tip is now obsolete and was only valid for the first generation of inkjet printers…

>> Obsolete how? As long as lenses and computers are available, the camera can still be used. A newer, better camera does not make the older ones obsolete. Do you consider a Leica M6 obsolete simply because it's features were bettered decades ago by more modern cameras? Perhaps not longer "state of the art," but not obsolete. <<

Sorry to fully disagree here… I consider obsolete today digital cameras because between 6 months to one year after you buy one the resolution of the new one available on the market generally doubles… It will be so up to the moment it reaches the silver halide film resolution… It has nothing to do with the built in features of the camera…

>> No, we don't know about this. Please educate us, noting especially how other alternatives (film) are better. Be specific. Give examples. Account for all steps and variables in the process, such as film processing and enlargement. Use real films, not Tech Pan. <<

Even a 400 ISO B&W film is able to capture more information than today small format (in fact half frame in size) sensors, so it is no use to have very high definition lenses on a digital camera as the sensors themselves will be unable to record the mass of information transmitted through the lenses and will even be inferior to what a high speed film is able to record… It is true you are limited by the film when using Leica lenses (or Nikon lenses, or Mamiya lenses, or Konica Lenses or Voigtländer lenses …) and you cannot resolve the same as with Tehnical Pan but this limitation is still FAR from being so stringent with a high speed film than with the present digital elements…

>> Is definition the only criteria? I remember how this used to be the case with Leica - their lenses were the sharpest. Then, when they were equaled by other (Japanese!) makers, sharpness suddenly didn't matter that much. "Bokeh," "fingerprint," "signature," "microcontrast" and a lot of other terms suddenly became fashionable. Don't get me wrong, I think that the 35mm f2 ASPH is the best 35mm lens I've ever used, but I have to admit that the choice of film I put behind it, tripod mounting, etc. have much more impact on resolution and final image quality. My biggest complaint about digital is not the resolution, but the inability to hold detail in highlights. It's much like analog vs. digital music recordings. Analog can compress and hold onto information when pushed to its limits, while digital simply gives out, and the results are ugly. <<

Well, I never said nor thought the Japanese lenses were bad ones… I have used my share of them (and still use them both on my Hexar RF – 90 mm f/2.8 – and on my Mamiya). For the very same reason you expose and because of a limited budget I plan to increase my rangefinder camera lens choice by using a fair number of Cosina Voightländer lenses … On the assumption (I scarcely use a tripod with a 35 mm SFRF but a table one) what you cannot see in practice you haven’t to pay for. But there are clear objective tests which prove beyond doubt Leica lenses still retain the edge. As for global rendition, I think it would be more appropriate to speak about Japanese lenses as the result of a different choice in the art of compromise which always finally determines things with the best lenses. I was found of my Nikon 180 mm f/2.8 for example… But please don’t tell me ANY zoom lens equals a fixed one in the same range of product … If you take the so-called “amateur” zooms now on sale as kits with most SLR’s (and not because they are Japanese) as promoted by Canon, they are just pieces of crap when compared to a good old Nikkor 50 mm f/2 !!! …

>> He wrote that the new digital (Japanese) Canon is an improvement over the old digital (Japanese) Canon,… <<

This is only the obvious consequence of the increase in definition… Just what I told you about the fast obsolescence of today digital camera… Let’s wait for next year or so the future “D 120”… And the same will apply…

>> and for many purposes better than the film (Japanese) Canon, and compared it to a pair of (Japanese) Pentaxes. I guess when Leica comes out with their own (German? more likely re-badged Japanese) digital SLR or digital M, we can decide of there is a bias toward "the Japanese maker." Note that in other places on his site, Mr. Reichmann sings the praises of Leica and Rollei equipment. He even has a Hasselblad Xpan, but we all know that this isn't a REAL … <<

The question for me is totally unrelated to the origin of the camera… Leica is issuing the Minilux already (though not an SLR)… It doesn’t interest me any more than any other digital camera for the moment. I saw the result of digital backs in MF and LF (though these ones are high definition, awesomely priced backs, unable to take instant color pictures, in fact they scan successively in RGB and are good only for “natures-mortes”) and I have absolutely no doubt the future lays in digital photography. But for me to spend such a large amount of money to get what you got once with a 110 format camera is strictly out of question… I also had a (Swedish made but mainly Zeiss calculated lens) Hasselblad… I’m forced to say the lenses were indeed superior to what I get with my Mamiya 645 ones but they are far from being on the same league by the prices. Nearly everything in life is made of compromises… And the Mamiya performs well enough for everyday work (though I miss my stolen Hassie equipment dearly). As I put first I have nothing against Japanese products… I’m the proud owner of a Seiko watch and a Kawasaki 1000 GTR Motorcycle (Concourse in the US)… Nor I have anything against the Japanese people… I’m extremely sorry you take my text as an anti- Japanese one… I just hate the Canon way to imagery…

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 03, 2002.

Thanks Stefan for flagging this. A remarkable article, like most articles on that site.

Digital is evidently in the process of reaching maturity for almost all photographic applications, and the question 99% of active film- based photographers ask themselves now is "shall I step over to digital now or wait another 18 months for the next generation?". Not "if", but "when".

For Leica R users, this doubles with a "shall I get rid of my R equipment now, while it still has some resale value, in order to migrate to a platform that will provide me with state of the art digital when I decide to step over? Or shall I remain faithfull to Solms and take the risk of seeing my $$$$ investment being pushed even more into the margins of the photographic flows within 18 months?"

For Leica M users, I feel those questions are probably less pressing, as digital will need to perform some quantum leaps forward in terms of power management (!!!), operational time lags, low light sensitivity, ergonomy and reliability to really compete with the M. So, I Another 4 years before the M's demise?

But when it comes to final results, one must admit that the future is here already. Thanks to those fantastic Japanese engineers, I shall add, who, as they have done for the last 40 years, have the unique talent of blending latest international technology developments with state of the art photographic functionality, in an increasingly affordable package... ;-)

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), May 03, 2002.

We'd hate to go back to fixed lens cameras.

I'd surely hate to get a fixed film camera.

-- Stephane Bosman (stephane_bosman@yahoo.co.uk), May 03, 2002.

I'm a long term Leica user (first Leica an M3 purchased in 1962) and I currently have a full R7 system. I have just gotten a D60 and am absolutely astonished by the quality. I don't do huge prints - 11 by 14's are about my max - but up to that size the output is actually better than any but super custom prints from a professional laboratory. I know the D60 may soon be obsolete, but it won't be unusable - any more than that 1962 M3. Its really worth looking at folks.

With regard to the "fixed film" argument. I was happily shooting cherry blossoms at ISO 100, then switched the rating with two clicks and did a banquet at ISO 400. Results - excellent. Digital is the antithesis of "fixed film". You can easily switch ISO's and even to BW with the flick of a switch.

-- Seth Honeyman (sdhoneyman@hotmail.com), May 03, 2002.

It will take a long time before digital can catch up with the resolution of film

Church by Marcus Dunkmann, Minox C, Agfa Copex Rapid developed with SPUR, the negative is only 8x11mm.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), May 03, 2002.

I sometimes think that the idea of the "expectations of digital" is what people refer to when they talk about their digital cameras being obsolete. In other words, no, there's no reason to think, for example, that the D30 I bought last year is "obsolete" -- physically it's fine, it's probably still in good shape and works fine -- but the expectations of folks shooting digital will certainly increase -- due to new technology. Older technology -- while physically fine -- no longer lives up to the newer standards -- and this, I gather, is the rub -- and the cause for saying that my three year old "Nikon Coolpix 900" is obsolete. It's "only" 1.3 megapixels. It's essentially a digital Holga -- a "toy" camera now. (It certainly feels like a toy camera -- and I was very sorry I bought it -- but, hey: ya live, ya learn ...)

Yet ... the Nikon CP 900 will take fine 1.3 megapixel pictures. So I don't understand why I'm hesitant to use it. It's great for taking auction photos, but that's all I use it for.

The "expectations of digital" is like some massive peer-pressure marketing move that every six months gets launched on (what appear to be) unsuspecting image makers, photographers, and gadget freaks.

-- Chris Schweda (cschweda@hotmail.com), May 03, 2002.

Digital cameras do become obsolete faster than film cameras, and this is reflected in dismal resale value of anything sold more than a year or two ago. Six months though is an exaggeration.

The reason is that the technologhy is in that super growth spot right now, where breakthoughs are occuring every few months. People think they will be happy with a D60 4 or 5 years from now because they do not know what the equipment then will be able to do. In the likely near future, when Canon has a more compact, 14 meg full frame camera with lightning fast responses, gobs of storage, thrify batteries, better finder, for $1500, the D60 will seem like one of the early AF SLR's. Ther M3 anology doesn't really hold true to me. Its more like comparing an early Nikon F3 AF camera with an F5. The f3AF IS obsolete in the same way a D60 will be in a few years. An M3 will not be obsolete until you can't buy any 35mm film.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), May 03, 2002.

I have to disagree with that logic. Put the same lens and film onto/into a 1959 Nikon F and a 2002 F5 and you can get the same resolution. The difference is strictly in features, that's why a 1959 Nikon F is still worth something to a user today. Put the same lens on a Canon D30 and you'll get half the resolution of a D60. That's why a D30 is already worth half what it cost new six months ago, and twice what it will be worth when the D120 comes about.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 03, 2002.

Theoretically, the time to go to digital will be when manufacturers claim: "Okay, that's it. We've done all we can do. If you want digital imaging in this particular form factor, we're at the end of the road. We'll change camera features, but the resolution is as good as it's gonna get."

I mean, isn't this what happened to consumer photography in the Ernst Leitz II/Oskar Barnack years (1924/5) when the design was rolled out to the public? The film was already there -- 35mm motion picture film -- and Leitz and Barnack simply designed a small camera to take advantage of it.

Sure, we still see film emulsion improvements -- but there's no real reason I have to ditch my Leica IIIc (or whatever is your early Leica of choice) for an M6 or an M7: there's nothing I could capture with an M6 that I couldn't already capture with a IIIc.

-- Chris Schweda (cschweda@hotmail.com), May 03, 2002.

Saw that article and I thing the methodology for comparison has an inherent bias. The film was first scanned bringing it into the digital domain for comparison. What happened to mounting the slides and projecting them? Anyway, if scanning is done - I am not sure every ounce of detail was extracted from the scanner. Maybe they should have used the new Imacon 848 scanner instead of the lower end Imacon Photo.

-- John Tan (johnlktan@yahoo.com), May 03, 2002.

Digital is there. Ignoring it is ridicilous. But no digital camera, by defination, will give you the diversity of "artistic" film choices. For decades, video has been there in terms of sharpness and defination, but film still reigns supreme for it's emotional qualities. All the digital filters and innovations have not changed this fact. I love my D1-xs for what they do, but crank 'em up to 3200 speed and there is no comparing it to Delta 3200 shot with an M 35 Asph. Shooting the Nikon in low light at ISO 125 looks like Fuji P 800 out of my Ms. And let's just wait and see what films come down the road in the next few years. The military has had film that can resolve a car from outer space, so anything is possible. By the way, my local processor now has gone totally digital in processing film. I get negs and a fairly hi-res CD-Rom along with amazing digital proofs. For everyday shooting like consumers do, this puts film at less of a disadvantage.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 04, 2002.

It will take a long time before digital can catch up with the resolution of film
Church by Marcus Dunkmann, Minox C, Agfa Copex Rapid developed with SPUR, the negative is only 8x11mm.

Is that supposed to be impressive? It's 800x600 pixels.

-- Mark Ciccarello (mark@ciccarello.com), May 04, 2002.

Jeepers guys; you mean all this new fangled digital camera stuff obsoletes my Zorki 3C and my LTM Canon 50mm 1.2 ? .....How does one get use to all the buttons and knobs on a digital camera; and see which setting is which in the dark?....

ASA 800 Fuji Superia x-tra Canon LTM 50mm F1.2 @1.2 1/50 sec Zorki3C 1956 vintage:

ASA 800 Fuji Superia x-tra Canon LTM 50mm F1.2 @1.2 1/25 sec Zorki3C 1956 vintage:



-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 05, 2002.

ASA 800 Fuji Superia x-tra Canon LTM 50mm F1.2 @1.2 1/25 sec Zorki3C 1956 vintage:



This image was scanned in at 900 dpi with an epson 2450 photo scanner.... Because the negative was much under exposed several scans were made to adjust the scanning exposure & contrast using Silver Fast 5 SE .. an underexposed image yields a grainy/noisy shadow area... the proper exposure should be around 1/4 sec at asa 800 with a F1.2 lens....kelly

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 05, 2002.