Film vs Digital

Hello,
This is not meant to be provocative but to help me understand digital capture. It seems when using a camera like the G9-10-11 you have to SETTLE for how the camera captures the image. I shoot with a pair of EOS3's and wanted to look at a digital P&S like the G9. This would be my first digital camera but it seems like they lose detail on shots, delay or lag when you press the shutter and other limitations. Even high end DSLR's seem like they lose fine detail in shots where often times it's the detail that adds punch to the shot.
I shoot mostly B&W landscape or seascapes and was hoping to find a small digital to use that would do justice to the beauty of such natural scenes. Is it the size of 35mm film compared to the size of the digital sensor that allows the film to seemingly capture more of the finer details than digital? As you can tell from my questions I am not very knowledgeable about digital cameras. Here is an example of what I mean. In this article at the following webpage http://www.cambridgein​colour.com …ffraction-photography.htm about half way down is a comment on acutance. Run your cursor over the picture of the cordoroy cloth to see how the detail is lost with higher f-stops. How is this overcome or can it be? Thank you.

Tim

This is a known problem for digital camera. Diffraction; I mean. That's why some are calling for less mega pixels in cameras. Like me.

A 21mp camera will defract at a lower fstop than say a 12mp camera (e.g something like f11 vs f16 respectively)

Hi David,
If you looked at the example they used in the report it was started at f8. I don't know if there was any loss prior to f8 but it wouldn't surprise me. This loss vs film is because of the difference in size of film relative to the digital sensor I assume. As you know when shooting landscapes much of the time you want max DOF as well as capture of the details. I have looked at pictures of an autumn scene shot with a digital and there didn't seem to be much definition between the leaves on the tree. It was more a jumble or all the color and leaves seem to run together. Perhaps it was just poorly processed in photoshop or whatever software was used or digital capture really can't give a film equivalent shot. This might be what people say is the difference in look between digital and film. If that is so then I will most likely remain with film because of the loss in fine detail from digital.
I am trying to determine whether digital can give me the same detail and sharpness as film or whether the digital shots I have seen was caused by sloppy technique. At the moment I am going to put off buying a digital P&S like the G9 until I can resolve these questions/doubts that I have.


Tim

davidfig wrote in post #8516350
This is a known problem for digital camera. Diffraction; I mean. That's why some are calling for less mega pixels in cameras. Like me.

I did some tests a couple weeks back and here is a link to the thread on defraction that may be of interest.

enjoy,
mteetank

mteetank wrote in post #8518149
I did some tests a couple weeks back and here is a link to the thread on defraction that may be of interest.

enjoy,
mteetank

LINK
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=730594

Tim, there will be a reduction in image quality going to a small sensor Point and Shoot like the G series cameras, from film. However, the newer DSLRs are more or less kicking film's butt all over the place. Full frame cameras like the 5D, 5D II, 1Ds II and 1Ds III all offer enough dynamic range and detail to compete very easily with the best films at low ISO, and they destroy any film faster than ISO 200, both with their low amount of grain/noise and detail retained. A 5D II at ISO 3200 will have detail and noise comparable to the very best films at roughly ISO 400.

Trust me...good lenses on my 1Ds Mark II = outstanding detail on very large prints.

Diffraction is a problem on point and shoots because of the extremely small sensors. On full frame cameras, it affects the image the same as it does on film, so nothing to worry about there.

Thank you everyone for the education re digital. I shoot most of my landscapes at f16 with occasional use of f22 and f11. F16 is not far off the sweet spot for my long lenses and still gives me sharpness and DOF. With a small sensor like the P&S's, what f-stop would I use to give me an equivalent DOF like f16 and retain sharpness of detail?

Tim

One more tip - Shoot in RAW (not JPEG) and process with something like Photoshop or Lightroom.

Hi GF,
Thank you for your suggestion. I would only capture in raw as JPEG looses too much
information. I saw 2 pictures posted in this forum and the difference was significant.

Tim

For a deep dof landscape picture, if the condition is right, I would change the aperture to the lens's sweet spot and use manual focus to aim from closest to farest focus point and stich them together.
That's one of the conditions that live view focus really shines.

Tim, (excuse me, my pain killers are kicking in and if I ramble a bit I'm sorry.)

I shot film and almost refused to go digital because every single P&S camera I tried could not even compare to the film camera. I hated using them. I hated the photos from them. I almost gave up going digital all together. Then I tried the 30D, and even with a "cheap" lens the photos from it looks more like the old film photos then anything I had tried up until then.

I too shot nature and some landscapes. I have found that opening the lens nice a wide and using a tripod I can get more detail then I could with some film (not the awesome slide films like the B&W slides that I loved so much!) but the details were there. My cheap lens that I love (28-105 II) with a tripod set anywhere from f/8 to f/16 is great.

One thing that still bugs the heck out of me still today is the crop factor. I really regret not buying the 5D just for that, but I love this camera and plan on using it for a while yet. Long exposures also annoy me, with film I could set it to bulb, hit the trigger and let it sit for hours and not worry about how the image will look. I got some great night shots doing that, and with the 30D they don't come out good (and I don't like combining multiple photos.)

As for p&s cameras now. I haven't really tried one. My health is getting bad and I'm again looking to see about getting one for my bad days, just so I can go out and shoot. But I know that the IQ will not be what I want. Going into digital (P&S) you have to realize that you cannot compare them to the DSLRs or even the film SLRs. They are a different tool for different applications. On a nice day with ok light on a tripod you can probably get great landscapes shots with a P&S but you'll have to work a bit harder for them.

Thank you Gardengirl for your thoughts. I'm looking at the convenience of a digital as compared to a film camera and it is appealing. I was hoping the digital could give me close to what a film camera could in terms of detail and sharpness. The shots I have seen from a digital seemed to lack those small details`which can make a picture more appealing. I was thinking (hoping) it was just sloppy technique but maybe not. It sounds as though it is a limitation of digital compared to film or as some would suggest the look of digital vs film.
I think I will hold off for now and any shooting I do will continue to be with film. Thank you again for your thoughts and to everyone for their help.

Regards,

Tim

Tim - it sounds like you didn't listen to any of our comments....the digital comparison you are doing is to a digital compact, which won't do anything against good film. But current DSLRs have generally SUPERIOR detail to film. Trust me, a 5D Mark II will equal or slightly surpass Velvia 50, and it will absolutely DESTROY any film at 200 or higher.

Here's an amusing situation: This thread indicates the reduced image quality of compact digital cameras as compared to film but just a few posts away, https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=744289, favorably compares the G10 to a medium format digital camera!

I was hoping that I wouldn't need to go into the dslrs to get acceptable landscape shots but that is not the case it seems. Has anyone here experience with the Canon SX1 in regards to what we have been discussing? I like the 560mm long end of it's range but would it's images compare favorable with the G9,10 etc?
I realize my questions may seem simplistic but I truly don't know much about digital cameras and what they can and can't do. As this will be my first digital camera I want to make it an informed purchase with as few negative surprises as possible. Thank you to everyone for their kindness in helping me along the road to doing just that.

Tim