So what does this say about digital?

[kenneth]

I just happened to be glancing through the review section of Saturdays Daily Telegraph when I read an amusing review for the new Nikon D700. The bit that caught my eye was. "Nikon has effectively replaced the SLR's traditional film back with CMOS digital sensor that is the same size. As a result, your photos look alot more like old style film pictures- sharper and more vibrant" If that is not an admission that digital photography quality is poor and a manufacturer is coming out and saying as much then I don't know. But why are they trying to invent the wheel, don't they know someone already did. Highly amusing all the same

[brianv]

I replaced the CCD back on my DCS200 with an MF-20 so it could use film. We're even.

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by kenneth

...I read an amusing review for the new Nikon D700. The bit that caught my eye was. "Nikon has effectively replaced the SLR's traditional film back with CMOS digital sensor that is the same size. As a result, your photos look alot more like old style film pictures- sharper and more vibrant" If that is not an admission that digital photography quality is poor and a manufacturer is coming out and saying as much then I don't know...

They're just trying to reassure potential buyers that the camera is similar to, but better than film. I don't see anything that says previous digital cameras were poor - and anyone who's shot digital will know that isn't the case.

This is the Daily Telegraph after all, their readers are probably beginning to look towards replacing their Daguerreotype kit.

[carsten1610]

Originally Posted by kenneth

I just happened to be glancing through the review section of Saturdays Daily Telegraph when I read an amusing review for the new Nikon D700. The bit that caught my eye was. "Nikon has effectively replaced the SLR's traditional film back with CMOS digital sensor that is the same size. As a result, your photos look alot more like old style film pictures- sharper and more vibrant" If that is not an admission that digital photography quality is poor and a manufacturer is coming out and saying as much then I don't know. But why are they trying to invent the wheel, don't they know someone already did. Highly amusing all the same

It is absolutely fact that current digital capture is not to the quality of film - asked directly, any manufacturer would agree.

For better cameras and at low magnification, our eyes can no longer easily discern the difference, but it is still there. Digital (capture and) storage, however, offers its own advantages. I shoot digital (C-lux2) for everyday (work) snaps, but get out the film camera for proper photography.

I am wrestling over the pro's and cons of buying an M8. It is a few years old now, and the resolution is not top of the range anymore (10 mp?). I know it will not be as good as film, but 10 mp is surely too much of a gap... Also, since it wil probably be superseded soon - should I wait until the next upgrade?

[dpattinson]

Originally Posted by kenneth

I just happened to be glancing through the review section of Saturdays Daily Telegraph when I read an amusing review for the new Nikon D700. The bit that caught my eye was. "Nikon has effectively replaced the SLR's traditional film back with CMOS digital sensor that is the same size. As a result, your photos look alot more like old style film pictures- sharper and more vibrant" If that is not an admission that digital photography quality is poor and a manufacturer is coming out and saying as much then I don't know. But why are they trying to invent the wheel, don't they know someone already did. Highly amusing all the same

I don't know that it says much about digital, however it does indicate that the reviewer didn't really understand the effect of a full-frame sensor compared to a 50% crop sensor. I think he probably should have mentioned less noise and more DOF effects.

PS. If you really think that digital capture is 'poor' compared to film, try shooting any film at 6400iso and compare the results with the D3 (and presumably the D700).

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by carsten1610

It is absolutely fact that current digital capture is not to the quality of film - asked directly, any manufacturer would agree.

For better cameras and at low magnification, our eyes can no longer easily discern the difference, but it is still there. Digital (capture and) storage, however, offers its own advantages. I shoot digital (C-lux2) for everyday (work) snaps, but get out the film camera for proper photography.

I am wrestling over the pro's and cons of buying an M8. It is a few years old now, and the resolution is not top of the range anymore (10 mp?). I know it will not be as good as film, but 10 mp is surely too much of a gap... Also, since it wil probably be superseded soon - should I wait until the next upgrade?

Sorry, without wanting to start yet another film vs digital debate, it is absolutely not a fact. current sensors, the M8 included, beat film in all respects. LFI did indeed ask that question - not from camera manufacturers, but from film manufacturers, and the answer was unanimous: except for very slow B&W film, sensor resolution, dynamic range, etc, all beats film. Not that that makes film a lesser medium, quite the contrary, it gives us an artistic choice. 10 Mp is an optimum resolution. Don't fall into the megapixel trap. Look at Nikon's fine new sensors - no maximegapixels - it makes no sense for 99.9% of the users. I even doubt that many owners of Canon's megapixel monster need or use the 22 Mp - most of Canon's lenses are certainly not up to it.... 10 Mp will give you highly resolved 1m wide enlargements on the M8.

[stunsworth]

I totally agree Jaap, it's wonderful that there is a choice, but it's an illusion to think 35mm film beats the current crop of digital cameras.

Some film may have the edge in exposure latitude, but digital is no worse than shooting slide film in my experience.

[jlancasterd]

Originally Posted by jaapv

Sorry, without wanting to start yet another film vs digital debate, it is absolutely not a fact. current sensors, the M8 included, beat film in all respects. LFI did indeed ask that question - not from camera manufacturers, but from film manufacturers, and the answer was unanimous: except for very slow B&W film, sensor resolution, dynamic range, etc, all beats film. Not that that makes film a lesser medium, quite the contrary, it gives us an artistic choice. 10 Mp is an optimum resolution. Don't fall into the megapixel trap. Look at Nikon's fine new sensors - no maximegapixels - it makes no sense for 99.9% of the users. I even doubt that many owners of Canon's megapixel monster need or use the 22 Mp - most of Canon's lenses are certainly not up to it.... 10 Mp will give you highly resolved 1m wide enlargements on the M8.

I agree entirely.

I have a large collection of Kodachromes taken with various Leica cameras and lenses over the years. I have scanned a number of the best examples at 4000dpi on my Polaroid SprintScan, which gives an image where the grain structure is clearly visible. Compared with images taken with either the M8 or DMR, and enlarged to a similar size, the film images exhibit less sharpness and lower definition of small detail - i.e. pixellation is less of a problem than grain.

This is my own practical field test rather than a 'controlled laboratory test' but I'm happy that it shows the superiority of digital capture for normal day-to-day work.

[bobtodrick]

"but get out the film camera for proper photography"...are you serious??
I did not realize that all those images I see in Nat Geo, Time, Stern...oh heck, the list goes on and on...were not 'proper photography'!

[SJP]

Originally Posted by bobtodrick

"but get out the film camera for proper photography"...are you serious??
I did not realize that all those images I see in Nat Geo, Time, Stern...oh heck, the list goes on and on...were not 'proper photography'!

Presumably he thinks not - after all magazines are only color offset prints.

The only real photograph comes out of a tank that was personally shaken (not stirred) by you or your lovely assistant. Next you use a sort of slide projector thing to convert the image on the film onto another chemical medium. Magically all the erors involved in the whole process are removed from the final image and you will remain happy for eternity.

[adan]

"If that is not an admission that digital photography quality is poor and a manufacturer is coming out and saying as much then I don't know..."

Hmmm, when did the Daily Telegraph become a camera manufacturer? THEY said it, not Nikon.

When was the last time the Daily Telegraph reviewed a film camera - and what does that say about FILM?

;^)

[rob_x2004]

Its just english journalism. For people who wont read it. Like the BBC fillers no one gives any thought to content or accuracy because they know it wont even get to wrap fish and chips and all they have to do is hold your attention till the ads. It could as well be printed on a get well card.

[JBA]

Rather than embark on another film vs digital debate, perhaps we could instead rejoice in the fact that both are the best photographic media ever devised and we're able to shoot with both using the best cameras and lenses ever made.

[likea]

get a grammar book before the M8 and study apostrophes.

[mooky]

Oh boy.

Once again, Film is Film. Digital is Digital. May they both survive to give us a choice. I like the look of film. I like the idea of viewing an image from 30 years ago that still looks as good today as it did then.

The BIG difference is Film is a physically recorded, and proven long term, archival stored medium. It would have been interesting to see the same images also recorded digitally to see how they would have comparatively survived. For sure though - I'm still using film cameras and lenses from then and now. I doubt that I would still be using a digital camera from then.

[bobtodrick]

yeah mooky...and I wouldn't drive a car from 1750...duh!

[marknorton]

Originally Posted by carsten1610

I shoot digital (C-lux2) for everyday (work) snaps, but get out the film camera for proper photography.

If that runt of the photographic world is the extent of your digital capture, you might like to reserve judgment until you have used a "proper" digital camera for your "proper" photography.

This thread is nonsense isn't it?

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by marknorton

This thread is nonsense isn't it?

Of course it is Mark - Everyone knows there are no adverts on the BBC.

................... Chris

[bill]

Originally Posted by ChrisC

Of course it is Mark - Everyone knows there are no adverts on the BBC.

...and that apostrophes are punctuation, not grammar...

Regards,

Bill

[AlanG]

Originally Posted by carsten1610

It is absolutely fact that current digital capture is not to the quality of film - asked directly, any manufacturer would agree...

If that is so I wonder how Hasselblad has gotten people to pay nearly $40,000 for a body. Please go and ask all of the manufacturers directly and then report back. I'd love to see if you are correct.