10D vs. Film

[Dans_D60]

Good friend that’s also a photo enthusiast since our high-school days stopped by yesterday. He still insists that film is superior to digital even with today’s new SLR technology. So, we went a shooting with my 10D. We took advantage that the Carlsbad (California) flower fields are in full bloom. He was astonished how the 10D did not over saturate or over sharpen. We printed a 13X19 on the S9000. He now agrees that the image quality is equal or superior to any film 35mm and may even challenge medium format! We have a convert to the digital side!
Dan
http://www.pettusphoto.com

A FEW IMAGES FROM THE CARLSBAD FLOWER FILEDS (11 April 2003):
http://www.pettusphoto.com/flower/flower1.jpg

http://www.pettusphoto.com/flower/flower.jpg

[rodbunn]

What lens did you use???

[Dans_D60]

rodbunn wrote:
What lens did you use???

10D using a 28-70 2.8 L for the macro shots. Also had my D60 and a Sigma 15-30 EX wide-angle.
Dan
http://www.pettusphoto.com

[Pekka]

Normal Koren has added 10D to his study:
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

He calculates that 10D's "resolution relative to 35mm is 0.72". This based on 35mm film that is scanned at 4000dpi and sharpened.

Of course low noise or 10D makes things look subjectively much better than film, grain matters a lot to subjective image quality.

Norman's site has also other usable stuff, like lens testing page with downloadable resolution targets ( http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html ) Check it out!

[Dans_D60]

Pekka:

Thanks for the link. A very informative and comprehensive site. I was a math major in college and actually understand it! But, you are right on with the “subjective” analysis as my large 13X19 10D (or D60) prints just look better than high-resolution (4000 DPI) scanned slides from my Elan II even with Professional Ektachrome. I have read other articles that argue film still has a slight edge with dynamic range. I just haven’t seen it. Thanks again for the link….. Dan
http://www.pettusphoto.com

[Webster]

Dans_D60 wrote:
I have read other articles that argue film still has a slight edge with dynamic range. I just haven’t seen it.


Don't forget that with film you get the high resolution or the high dynamic range. Not both at once.

[David Wild]

I'm not sure that it is true that digital pictures "will beat anything that can be done with film", but I don't think that it is relevant.

If technical quality was our only concern we would all be using 10" x 8" transparency film on view cameras. We're not going to do this, because

1 - it would be too expensive
2 - it would be too much to carry
3 - such a camera isn't suitable for many pictures by being unwieldy.

Since I have started using digital cameras I have taken many more pictures, including many that were "risky" in the photographic sense. I can afford to take risks because the cost of another shot is insignificant - and many of them have been successful.