Digital v Film again

[bunthorpe]

Perhaps some of our experts can clarify a couple of points.

1. One commentator recently mentioned that digital is not so good in low light applications. To a non-expert this seems a little counterintuitive, as were not the original CCD digital cameras used in astrophotography?? Is this likely to change soon?

2. Another commentator mentioned; "However, in five year's time, when average new computers reach a 10 Gb CPU speed, we will all be using digital." Why is the CPU speed more important than, for ex&le, the amount and cost of memory (to store for ex&le some of our prolific friend's annual 10,000 images).

 

[fotografz]

Charming as always Clive.

Just in case you missed it, this is the ND portion of the Contax forum. The ND had problems which early buyers encountered. As we complained about them, we each assisted one another to come to solutions. Irakly, DJ and others offered solutions until the camera became an asset rather than a libility. So, inconsistancy of feelings about the gear and the service is easy to understand, as is coming to like the camera once the solutions were in hand.

Are you so caught up in your meanspirited agenda that you cannot grasp that? It is, after all, the purpose of this ND forum (sharing/learning)...not a pulpit for you to endlessly spew your degrading of the camera to all those who own one.

As for your opinion, I couldn't care less. You have nothing to share except bile, which does nothing to help ND owners that come here to share experiences and maybe get more out of their camera.

The only reason I even answer you is because I hate to see a person who doesn't even use the camera telling everyone how bad it is. Especially after we spent the better part of a year solving the problems and making it a useful tool.

You have hijacked this ND forum from people who could actually benefit from it. To what purpose? To feel superior? To tell people who own this gear exactly what? That they are assholes for buying and using one?

 

[mike_nunan]

Hi David,

That comment about low-light use came from me. Yes, you are right, digital capture can be a good choice for astrophotography and night photography. Typically though, in these applications the sensitivity (ISO rating or whatever) will be set low, and long exposures will be used accordingly.

The problem starts at high sensitivities, where you want a workable shutter speed for moving subjects or hand-held use. Go to DPreview.com and take a look at some digital images shot at 1600 or 3200 ISO (from those few cameras that go that high) and you will see what I mean. Noise central! Clearly, film images shot at those speeds will have prominent grain, so maybe it's just that we're more willing to accept the familiar look of film grain. I guess that's a matter for each photographer to decide for themselves, but speaking personally I'll take the grain over the digital noise.

Lynn, for once I must express a difference of opinion with you, regarding the trigger-happy approach that digital allows. A colleague recently bought a Canon 10D, and has been happily filling his 1GB Microdrive on a regular basis. Considering this guy's only experience of photography until three months ago was family snapshots, some of the results are amazing. The freedom from the fear of "wasting film" has provided him with a very real epiphany. The EXIF data embedded in the image files is a great record of the camera's settings and he does take the time to review them.

Best regards,

-= mike =-

 

[writing4me]

(quoting Mike N.) > > The EXIF data embedded in > the image files is a great record of the camera's settings and he does > take the time to review them. (end quote)

Hi Mike, I don't think we disagree though, do we? That was my point - that the photographer needs to review the data and start to learn from it in order to make a larger percentage of good photos. At least it sounds like that is what your friend is doing. If I was unclear I apologize, but that is the one case where I feel being trigger happy is warranted - when the photographer studies the data and reapplies this new knowledge so that he/she can take fewer shots with the confidence they are the exposure he/she really wants. Then when that spur of the moment scene materializes before their eyes, they have a better chance of firing off one good shot before it vanishes. I honestly think we're saying the same thing. -Lynn

 

[clive_kenyon]

Marc,

You are right in one respect - that I have never handled a Contax ND. But I have seen prints from it courtesy of Michael Hahn and latterly via a local retail outlet. Unlike you I have been totally consistent in my argument. It amounts to one single aspect, that of image quality in relation to digital camera versus film cameras.

The ND .v. film camera issue was not raised by me nor did I make a direct comparison between the ND and any film camera. It was a general comparison of film .v. digital capture.

I am intrigued however at whether the 6Mp spread over the larger CCD is detrimental to the image compared with a small chip 6Mp camera and what the conventional sensors performance is compared to the Sigma. Those questions are not only valid to myself, but it just might interest others.

I am not anti digital just anti 'digital hype' as spouted by the manufacturers, media and some members of the forum including yourself. I don't need to feel as though I must buy digital just because one tiny segment of the whole photographic spectrum have changed.

 

[fotografz]

Clive, there are tons of forums dedicated to film verses digital. This is the N Digital forum.

And, pray tell, why do you feel you must buy digital? Who said that you did? Just because others are enthusiastic about it should mean little or nothing to you. Evangelistic are we?

There are far more visable pulpits where you can spout off in the battle against the evil digital onslaught. Why not challenge the hype where it might make a difference if that is your holy mission.

Most here are just trying to get more out of our crappy $7,000. ND that, according to you, is incapable of shooting images to equal yours from a point and shoot film camera.

 

[clive_kenyon]

Hey Marc,
You was robbed! Michael only paid five big ones for his. And while you are defining who can and who can't post whatever on this forum just remember who regularly goes off - message about every camera known to man, film and digital.

My question about the 6Mp full size CCD .v. the 4Mp 'conventional' sized sensor still needs qualifying. As does the comparison between the Contax pixels and the Sigma pixels. They are relevant to this thread and this forum.

 

[coyot]

Lynn,

While I appreciate your dedication to the technical end ...knowing the correct exposure for a certain situation, I think the world is rapidly changing. As with my friend's approach, he can take the machine gun aproach and get great, great shots without knowing one thing about the technical aspects of how to set the camera's expsosure, etc. This is somewhat similar to when AUTO cameras started coming out. The user would only have to make the composition and let the camera handle the technical aspects.

I think, that even today, some professionals photographers tend to shoot in Auto mode ... concentrating on the right instant to get the shot, rather then on the mechanics of the system.

Here is the big difference with digital ... especially as it matures. On my ND, if I want to I can autobracket one stop over/under and auto depth of field at 3 points. This actually records nine images. Back when I used film, this would be very unrealistic to use very often, costing about 4.50 for these nine shots (at 50 cents a shot for developing and printing). However; now with digital, I have the luxury, without the corresponding expense to be "fer sure, fer sure" in my exposures and focusing! I'm convinced, that in the future, digital cameras will probably be programmed to shoot the main image, and then in the background they will make another couple of dozen images of the same shot that will be "technical backups" for the user, so we can easily "recover from a backup" if our main exposure was messed up. And the cost? Next to nothing, since there is no film involved, and storage costs are dropping.

Kind of sad ... but there will be an explosion of very, very great photographs, without the photographer really knowing the technical craft.

Michael.

 

[fotografz]

Clive, I said nothing as to who can and cannot
post here. Merely suggesting that there are better pulpits for you to preach from. Preach here all you wish. Anyone is free to ignore you.

I couldn't care less what gear you have. Why would you care what I use? Why are you obsessed with what someone else has? I do a wide range of work both professionally and personally. I use everything I have or it goes on the sale block.

I'm also curious as to why are you pressing the issue of digital sensor size when you can shoot your film P&S, and do a better job for mere pennys.

 

[writing4me]

(Sorry if this post appears twice - my first attempt seems to have failed) Michael, this might help explain what I was trying to say about getting the right exposure. This is a link to a proof sheet of mine from either 1996, or 1997 (can't remember the date right now) Here is one entire roll that I shot - no outtakes. No editing. (Granted my failing scanner is not letting the true look of the images come through.) If I had missed any of these shots I would have had trouble. I needed all of them - and I got them. I shot a large volume of film over 4 days and I couldn't fool around. The editor wanted my story and wanted a cover shot that was printed at about 11x17inches. I got it for her. Plus she used a large number of the other images on the inner pages for a spread. I don't do much of this anymore - I sort of miss it now that I look back. I guess I'd do a better job today than I did then - but here it is for all to see none the less. This is why I'm such a stickler about getting exposure right. To be truthful, it isn't that hard to get the hang of. If someone like me can figure it out - I figure anyone has a shot! But, if I had bracketed, only one out of ever 3 shots would have been a keeper, the editor would have hung me (rightly so too!) -Lynn
Please see this link:
http://www.turnkeydesign.net/photos/
(If you want the higher res version just email me, I didn't have time to trouble shoot the high res link and I don't think it is working quite right.)