DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Will we ever see a digital body for our Manual Focus lenses

<center><table border=1><tr><td>
attachment_icon.gif

DPP07D60A160C0434.jpgz (116.0 k)</td></tr></table></center>
 
Well, I have problem in posting the two images side by side. Have a look at both of them and see if you can tell which one is from film and which one is from a digital camera. I will come back and tell you the details of how I get them.
 
First photo.

Studio flash--100mm 2.8 C-Y at f5.6 --S2b-- Fuji Reala-- Scanned Imacon 646-- 6300dpi-- 305Mb tiff file-- colour balance-- crop in the same way as Canon crop 24X36 to small sensor 22.2x14.8 -- save for web photoshop

Second photo.

Same flash--same person--same lens same distance from subject same fno--Canon 350D--RAW file 800MP--Digital Photo Professional--Photoshop 46.7Mb tiff file--colour balance--Safe for web--NO Cropping so far.

Although many photographers would avoid showing too much details of the face, we do exactly the opposite and we wish to know the abnormal colours of the skin, freckles, pore sizes, severity of wrinkles. The first photo show a lot more details than the second. As a whole the photo looks more real.

You might ask what about if you use IDs2 instead of 350D ? If we are using 1Ds2 we will crop the image in the same way as the first photo. The difference cannot be explained by using full/partial frame.

We find film is superior than digital cameras to show the fine details of the face, it looks a lot more real.

There is a comparison between film and digital in luminous landscape. The author conclude digital is better than film. However, he was using Imacon scanner and scan to 3200dpi. If you scan it with 6300 dpi, film wins.
 
Hello,
sorry, but I can't say anything about the "film vs digital" question since I don't have experience in this...
Talking about the possibility to build a digital-contax body, I think it is not possible at this time: kyocera still owns the rights and so I guess it is also not possible to use either the C/Y mount nor the N mount. Is this wrong? I think it would be a great thing if someone could build a digital-back for the old contax cameras (like RX or RTS III): they have all the possibility to replace the normal back with a data-back... So would it be so impossible to build a contax digital-back with a full frame ccd sensor? Didn't Leica build something like that?

Thankyou
Bye
 
Yes Gabriele, Leica designed a digital back that replaced the door on the R8 and R9 SLR. The sensor is a 10 meg CCD with a crop factor of 1.33X from Kodak, and the electronics were done by Imacon. You can use the camera as a DSLR, or remove it and use it as a film SLR.

This was not meant to deteriorate into yet another film verses digital debate. I just wondered why the burning desire to go digital for those who already have and love their Zeiss glass and face the likelihood that there won't be a dedicated digital camera for those lenses.

A nice scanner can get you into the digital world, allow you to learn all the digital discliplines, let you scan all the films you have shot over the years, and do anything you can do with a digital capture file afterwards.

Showing that scanning film doesn't play second fiddle to digital capture in terms of image quality is only meant to be a reassurance that the Zeiss quality is there to be fully exploited even in the digital domain.

Joseph, I finally made the leap to an Imacon scanner. I waited until after Photokina to see what Hasselblad/Imacon was going to do with the scanners (which wasn't much more than eliminating some models and raising prices ... as we discussed on another thread).

I went for the 949 scanner so I can batch scan weddings ... even mixing MF with 35mm at the same time.
 
For me the main advantages of digital are to be found in wildlife photography, and low light situations (often hand in hand).

The ability to take perhaps 200 images without having to change film (or CF card) is quite important with a skittish bird or animal, in trying to remain unseen, the less movement from me the better (no added film or processing costs is also nice).

Being able to change ISO between shots, and having such high quality high ISO results has made my super-telephoto work much easier. Usually I am using 840mm or 1200mm, and very useable 400-800 ISO makes that more viable as faster shutter speeds are essential.

Digital also produces very clean images, which suits certain subjects. Again, wildlife shots in particular seem to show finer detail better without the grain of film. Perhaps the regimented structure of the pixels actually helps here.

Having said that, I do still use film regularly (particularly for landscape) scanning at 5400 dpi, and do appreciate the different qualities of various films. I would agree with Joseph that in some circumstances film just looks more real, or natural.

I would not wish to confine myself to one medium or the other, I am delighted to be able to select the best tool for the job.

Here's one taken this week with my 85mm f1.2 on a 5D at 1000 ISO.
My son and first child, just 5 days old.
proud.gif


466597.jpg
 
Lovely baby Matt: many congratulations to all three of you and thank you for sharing the picture.
 
Thanks guys.

Marc - Sleep? What's that? Oh, yes I remember now...

John - We have a few names to choose between, but mum and baby have only just come home (some complications kept them in hospital for a few days afterwards), so we want to spend a few days getting to know him before we finally decide.
I'll let you know, as I'm sure I'll find an excuse to post another pic soon!

Cheers,
Matt
 
Back
Top