35mm SLR vs DSLR

I've seen quite a few references to digital being better than 35mm film. Personally, outside of the convenience aspect, I am not convinced. For over 30 years I shot mostly with two cameras loaded with Kodachrome 64 and B/W plus-x, ASA 125. I usually viewed slides projected at an image size of five feet horizontal. Viewing distance was probably 10-15 feet.

Has anyone viewed these new digital shots projected at about the same size? How did they look? I haven't seen many projectors with really high resolution although it has been a while since I looked at them online. They have one at work that I may be able to access but I doubt it is more than 1024x768.

Just curious.

Rod

Here we go again....<Getting popcorn>

Naturalist wrote in post #17556791
Here we go again....<Getting popcorn>

You mean this is a rerun?

You can see by the number of posts I have I am fairly new here. Have to do a search I guess.

Rod

I view them as different tools for different jobs. I have several types and sizes of screwdrivers, too. Neither is better, just different.

Hi Rod, I don't mean to sound like I'm talking down, but frankly this question was pertinent a little over a decade ago.

I'll throw some history at you;

When the EOS 1Ds was launched, tests showed that it @ 11MP had more resolution and detail than most 35mm color film. The claim was that color 35mm film was clocking in around 9 million dots. That was 2003.

Likewise when Popular Photography reviewed the EOS 10D (6 MP) they claimed that the EOS 10D had the most accurate color reproduction of any camera they had ever tested. Including all film. ie: by 2003 Digital had surpassed color film for accuracy.

I shot with am 8.5MP 1D2 or 10.5MP 1D3 happily for many years thereafter. Maybe those two cameras did not beat out film in every way, but they were not the highest resolution available. Still, with a 1D3 RAW file and it's 14 bit per channel color depth, I was getting far better results than I ever could with Fuji Velvia. And I could do it in light that I could never dream of using Velvia in (1600 ISO etc..) Velvia was what, 50 or 100 ISO?

So while shooting these camera as a Wildlife photographer I was solidly convinced that I was besting anything I could ever do with 35mm film.

When the 1Ds 3 was launched, tests showed that the 22MP resolution moved the "Full Frame" DSLR far out in front of any film of the same size, and into the resolution territory of Medium format.

Now, we have Digital Cameras with better color reproduction, vastly more dynamic range, and stratospheric pixel density (36-50 million pixels)

I am afraid that good LCD projector (mind you the projector is the choke point here, good ones cost thousands) loaded with images from a 1Ds3 or Nikon D800, or even a 7D, will make an old 35mm slide look positively prehistoric.

With prints, it's much easier to see the improvement without braking the bank on a high end projector.

I absolutely agree that they are different tools. However, I am confident that as compared to 35mm film (not MF or Large format) that digital is in fact better in every aspect currently. (and has been for some time)
There are different screwdrivers, but my Klein's are is much better than the old Craftsman.

And all of that was just looking at Image quality of the medium.

Whereas the title of this thread would indicate a different comparison is required;

35mm SLR Vs. DSLR

As for camera bodies, the 35mm SLR was retired in the early 2000's
Canon for example has not made a new film body since the EOS 1V and a rebel or two.
that's nearly 15 years of innovation that can only be found in the body of a DSLR.

We had this made into a banner (about 1.6 metres high) for my wife's organisation. Shot on a humble 700D with EF 50mm f/1.4 at 200 ISO. Had it been shot on 35mm print or transparency film it would have 'fallen apart'.

read an item about a photographer, who only shoots swimming pool events at the Olympics, done 8 or 9 was the number, and said that he gets shots now, at an iso that could not NOT achieve on film ......... ever


i used film for long while, and the amount of very poor processing in labs , for me, means your theory is invalid

I love digital. It's made life very easy in being able to see your result immediately rather than having to wait for development. It's also great to be able to take many shots of the same thing without having to worry about burning through film at lightning speed. With all that being said, I really do feel that the film produced a certain look that the digital does not capture. For example I was looking at some 35mm prints I took 15-20 years ago when I went out west on several cross country excursions and there is a certain feel that film produces that I've not been able to reproduce on a digital. (I've not seen. An example would be the sky and clouds looking like a beautiful painting without that heavily processed HDR look. Creamy might be the right word.

Just today I have received back a print, a 16×12 monochrome print, I shot it on my 50D, with a Sigma 28-300 super zoom, it's probably the best print I have ever made (although the lab did do their part too), and required a 30.5× enlargement! Out of interest that was starting from 176 PPI for the 16" print, although I resized it to 300PPI on export from Lightroom, then converted it to a true grayscale 2.2 Gamma 16 bit TIFF in PS. I know I would not have been able to get anywhere near that result from an FP4 negative. Add in the complex dodging and burning that was also required and the 35mm film would never match this quality. Oh and as a matter of interest it was printed on traditional Ilford Baryta paper, a nice thick fiber based non RC paper. The same size colour print on Fuji Crystal Archive DPII Gloss paper looks as good as any (uncropped except for aspect ratio) 10×8 Cibachrome print that I have made from Kodachrome, let alone Ektachrome or Fujichrome 100. Even my old EOS 300D I would say matches the quality of Kodachrome 25 up to ISO 800 when correctly exposed for optimum RAW processing. Without the post processing options of digital I would not have had the option of both the colour and the monochrome prints, so another plus for digital.

Yes I would like to go back to using film, and working in the darkroom, I would enjoy the whole process, I do actually miss the darkroom. The thing is that I would have to be shooting MF film, not 35mm. For my 35mm work I cannot think of any way that digital is not better than film.

Alan

I'm with Jake on this one. When my EOS Elan shutter broke some years ago, I had to decide whether or not to get the 20D that had just been released. I wasn't happy that the sensor was not the size of the film that I had been using. When I got it, I thought that it was every bit as good as my old Elan, except for dynamic range. I had an image of a rehabilitated dolphin release that was blown up to 3x5 feet and put up in the Long Island Aquarium. I was surprised that it was as good as it was. When I got my 40D, there was no question in my mind that it had surpassed film. I now have a 7Dii. The other night, I took a test shot of my neighbor's car at dusk at 12800 ISO. Film has gone the way of the daguerreotype in my mind.

I get my 1V out now and again love it but am just a old Git memories
Hoof.

Thanks to all who posted. As I said I was just curious. I have no way to project my digital images and no hardware to do a proper scan of, say a slide, so I can do a comparison.

Rod

RodS57 wrote in post #17557478
Thanks to all who posted. As I said I was just curious. I have no way to project my digital images and no hardware to do a proper scan of, say a slide, so I can do a comparison.

Rod

And that is just part of why film is so inferior to digital. High quality digital scans of analog images (print/negative) are outrageously expensive. Our local photo shop will drum-scan negatives for $20/24 frames. All that just to get digital negatives with MUCH less information than what my 60D spits out for nothing. If you are going to end up with a digital projection, just start with digital.

It is, as mentioned, expensive to project slides with any decent size/IQ. I can take the card out of my 60D, transfer SOOC JPG files to a thumb-drive, and look at them on a 48" 1080p HDTV screen in seconds. Please allow me to add, at no cost.

I certainly agree with you that film is still a viable medium. It is no longer, however, a convenient medium. Photomat used to give me prints in an hour. I thought that was great!. Now I can take my SD card into Walmart and get 20"x30" prints for $20, or all the 4"x6" prints I want for $.15/each, all while I waiting for the deli to slice some provolone. The local Walmart Photo-Center even lets me tweak my own photos, on their equipment, if I don't like the way a particular print looks.

Or... I could drive 20 miles to a place where I can drop a roll of film off for processing, wait 7-10 days to get my prints back, and be stuck with the ones the lab 'corrected' for me. I still shoot a roll or two of film every year. Part of it is just to hear the clerk say, "We don't see that much anymore."

I love the convenience quality and versatility of digital, however, I really miss just bunging a few rolls of film into the post, now I'm sat in front of a PC for days...........