pleeson Posted February 23, 2008 Share #21 Posted February 23, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) And when you factor in ease of use, no wonder film comes in second. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 23, 2008 Posted February 23, 2008 Hi pleeson, Take a look here M8 vs. M7 & Velvia 50. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bill Posted February 23, 2008 Share #22 Posted February 23, 2008 And when you factor in ease of use, no wonder film comes in second. Yup, couldn't agree with you more. Film is dead! You stick to digital. Regards, Bill *goes back to shooting with 78 year old film-burning Leica, with modern glass and emulsion* Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdi Posted February 23, 2008 Share #23 Posted February 23, 2008 Err... if this isn't bashing, I'm not sure what is! Tim ps otherwise I agree 100% with what you said! AH! I forget about those on ignore!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bayerische Posted February 23, 2008 Share #24 Posted February 23, 2008 AH! I forget about those on ignore!! I didn't even know you can ignore posters To the subject; It's really no idea to compare Film/Digital, only reason I see is for "entertainment" purposes, such as this thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted February 23, 2008 Share #25 Posted February 23, 2008 Scanning is pretty hard nut to crack for most of us, as we do not have access to a drum scanner etc so within those parameters we are better off with a Mate. For some who are chasing a particular effect/result, film can be the medium that delivers the goods. If you are there to replicate reality etc, buy a high end digital and enjoy life without the scanner's blues Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted February 23, 2008 Share #26 Posted February 23, 2008 AH! I forget about those on ignore!! He's on your ignore, too? Makes me wonder how many others have him on theirs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larryk34 Posted February 23, 2008 Share #27 Posted February 23, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks for sharing the results of your personal test. Several key assumptions always get lost in these kind of meaningless arguments. First, SLRs of any kind, film or digital, should never be brought up because everyone here prefers range finder cameras to begin with, especially Ms, either film or digital. Most of us have film M's and liked them enough to consider a digital version if one became available (Many of us have SLR's of some kind too, so again no reason to bring SLR's into it.). Second, it's become very difficult for most of us to continue with M's that require full tradtional film processing locally. So, a lot of us turned to scanning and printing ourselves, an enjoyable process at times but tedious and now seems very very time consuming as well. That means film plus digital technology mixed together. Third, the M8 liberated all of us from the mixed mode of operation and saved us many hours of labor to get digital files and our own prints. Fourth, this plus all the other conveniences of the M8 (immediate review, etc.) means that if the M8 experience merely ties or is only slightly lower in quality than our M film cameras, the M8 will usually win. Fifth, cost is just not a factor for most of us with M8s. If we couldn't afford one, we would not be reading these threads in the first place. This thread with several interesting comparison just confirms all five of these assumptions. It means I will put off even longer doing comparison tests of my own M6 and M8. What's the point now? Thanks again for sharing yours. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted February 23, 2008 Share #28 Posted February 23, 2008 Pleasant Valley Sunday for me......... misinterpretations will abound .. but it is nice to see that you are conscious of it:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted February 24, 2008 Share #29 Posted February 24, 2008 I´d appreciate if you´d bother to explain why. Really, I shouldn't have to explain why. If I timed a journey from home to work in rush hour in a 1000cc Mini and a Ferrari, I would probably find that the Mini would be quicker point to point. So therefore a Mini is a better car than a Ferrari. I would start by saying that posting results of mediocre scans on a website isn't the fairest basis of a comparison between film and digital. It might satisfy ones own puroposes but it isn't a conclusive answer to the film v digital argument, and therein lies the problem, that there shouldn't even be an argument. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
waileong Posted February 24, 2008 Share #30 Posted February 24, 2008 If you look at the published specs (lpm for Velvia) and the highest resolution scan you can get (say real 4000 dpi with Nikon 9000 ED), it's clear that Velvia will have greater resolution than digital theoretically. Whether you can get that level of resolution in real life without using a tripod is a separate matter, but if you want to make a definitive statement one way or the other, one would expect a scientific test setup. And that's just resolution. People like Velvia a lot because of its colour rendition too, which is so different from any other slide film or even digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted February 24, 2008 Share #31 Posted February 24, 2008 Take the dang slide and get it scanned on a Heidelberg already and then compare. I agree this is a useless comparison for the public at large. It may asuage the posters decision to shoot his M8 but does nothing for for a debate in general. Film also has an altogether different base structure than digital - sometimes thats good, sometimes not. I'll take on the M8 any day with a scan from my Mamiya 7 on my Imacon 646. But I use both cameras for different times, purposes, and reasons. C'mon people, resolution isn't everything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
usefeet Posted February 24, 2008 Share #32 Posted February 24, 2008 Hello Olaf, The replies you have had are wide-ranging. Thanks for showing enthusiasm for your new camera camera, ..and of course your tests are not highly scientific, but nevertheless, you may find that in the near or distant future you will try the M7 (with film) again just for the pleasure and enjoyment of it! William Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Antony Posted February 24, 2008 Share #33 Posted February 24, 2008 Your test, whilst interesting doesn't really have any wide ranging implications. If you get better results from a certain modus then that is for you the way to go for you personally. Looking at the images, to me its a mixed bag, more noise in the film, and in a couple of cases slightly more detail. Contrary to popular belief Velvia isn't the finest grained film out there, nor does it have a very good latitude, its strength is its colour palette which is good for landscapes not so sure about cityscapes in high contrast conditions. All any of us can do is what works for us, I shoot mono 90% of the time i doubt any digi camera can give me the results I get from my Fuji RF and I've yet to see a print in mono from a digicam that I would be happy with. Of course YMMV as they say Have fun with your photography, chemical or electronic (or a mixture) it's the shot that counts! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfalo Posted February 24, 2008 Author Share #34 Posted February 24, 2008 Thanks for all those comments. I maybe was a little naive but I wasn´t aware of the minefield I entered opening this thread... As I wrote in the initial post it´s my intention to keep using the M7. In fact I also did similar tests concerning analog shots with lenses which carry an IR cut filter. (Leicas gives contradictory adivce on this. In the FAQs they recommend not using IR cut filters on lenses below 50mm. In the instuction which comes with their IR cut filters they state that you should not use them at all on film.) I´m going to post some results sometimes, when the smoke has cleared... Additionally this discussion here gave me new motivation to increase my knowledge about scanning... Yours Olaf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cme4brain Posted February 24, 2008 Share #35 Posted February 24, 2008 Yes. Scanned like described above. Afterswards small tone correction in PS for each colour channel & little sharpening like the other shots. All in TIFF, 16 bit. (File size is 238 MB...) Afterwards I cut out the detail, converted the file to 8 bit, saved as JPG (quality: 9), then chose "save for web" with high quality.What can I do do reduce the noise? Re chromatic abberation: I cannot see why this should be a matter. It´s not pausible that exactly the same lens (21mm Asph) with exactly the same f-stop (f=4) shows chromatic abberation on the M7 while it doesn´t on the M8. It´s either sloppy workflow [maybe something went wrong with the development of the film? The lab, HSL in Düsseldorf, is used by many pros...], a hardware or a software problem or really the inferiority of the analog system. I´d really appreciate if other people with experience in both worlds could comment on this. Yours Olaf This thread is an example of an amateur photographer (and a good one) sharing his point of view, and some members getting a little nasty about it, one of my complaints about this forum. His point is that the M8 produces files, for his experience, close to/equal to/better than film. I agree in that they are close enough for this level of photography (which appears to be mine as well) that the M8 is the way to go. For members to call the thread pointless seems a tad harsh, but exactly what I expect from this elitest crowd. I hope those resposes do not prevent Olaf and others from expressing opinions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted February 24, 2008 Share #36 Posted February 24, 2008 This thread is an example of an amateur photographer (and a good one) sharing his point of view, and some members getting a little nasty about it, one of my complaints about this forum. His point is that the M8 produces files, for his experience, close to/equal to/better than film. I agree in that they are close enough for this level of photography (which appears to be mine as well) that the M8 is the way to go. For members to call the thread pointless seems a tad harsh, but exactly what I expect from this elitest crowd. I hope those resposes do not prevent Olaf and others from expressing opinions. Yawn...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted February 24, 2008 Share #37 Posted February 24, 2008 This thread is an example of an amateur photographer (and a good one) sharing his point of view, and some members getting a little nasty about it, one of my complaints about this forum. His point is that the M8 produces files, for his experience, close to/equal to/better than film. I agree in that they are close enough for this level of photography (which appears to be mine as well) that the M8 is the way to go. For members to call the thread pointless seems a tad harsh, but exactly what I expect from this elitest crowd. I hope those resposes do not prevent Olaf and others from expressing opinions. Elitist? Moi? Wait 'til I tell that one to the chaps at the club tomorrow evening over the champagne cocktails! The OP made a fairly sweeping statement to start with and that he now 'knows better' after a few test shots - by the way the last couple of examples show a significantly inferior digital shot compared to film........ Anyway my point - for clarity - is that you can't make meaningful comparisons of VGA resolution images from two completely different mediums. Add in all the other variables such as processing/exposure/scanning ability etc., and it becomes even more subjective. What is the OP's intended use for the final images? If it is a 20X16" print then perhaps we should look at the prints side by side. If it is a projected image could we see both projected. If you prefer the look, convenience, speed etc. of digital in general then fine. Film is a different medium, and produces different images. I personally think that it is meaningless to try to compare them directly, just accept and work with those differences to your own benefit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfalo Posted February 24, 2008 Author Share #38 Posted February 24, 2008 just accept and work with those differences to your own benefit. James, I agree with you on this one. But for doing this I have to explore the differences in detail in the first place. Discussing them was my intention while opening this thread. To be honest: I do not think you´re elitist. Just a little rude but I can stand this. BTW the last couple of shots were done with DIFFERENT lenses. On the M8 I used the 21mm Asph, on the M7 the 35mm Asph. The inferior quality of the digital crop is due to a much bigger enlargement. Yours Olaf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoskeptic Posted February 24, 2008 Share #39 Posted February 24, 2008 I always scan at 4000 dpi with my 5400. IMO, you would have a closer comparison w/M8 files at higher scanning definition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbelyaev Posted February 25, 2008 Share #40 Posted February 25, 2008 It is possible that I missed something, but have you corrected the camera -to-object distance due to 1.33 crop factor? I compared m8 and provia 400x and didn't find much difference, except for somewhat limited dynamic range of the film (very nonscientific comparison) A couple years ago I compared a ISO 400 print film and 6mp top-of-the-line dslr. I'have not found much difference as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.