For the combined reason of medium grain/noise and lense design philosophy, a japanese digital camera of moderate price can easily beat a german film gear in terms of sharpness. Sad, but totally true for me. However, I feel more and more uncomfortable nowadays when I visit online photo galleries. Stunning clean images, but man...I'd say more than half of the color were painted, not filmed. This art form by itself is totally fine and interesting, but it also suggests something else is missing. I really want to get my hands on a high end digital camera and see its color. This color thing is the last reason I'm sticking with film. If I can get anywhere close to the effect of a velvia on the light table with digital, I'll dash for it. Anyone can tell me if ND can do this?
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!
News from Zeiss on Wednesday
- Thread starter dirk
- Start date
Hi Tom, I could not agree more with what you say, I am just quite convinced now, that a colossul amount of people are getting the wool well and truly pulled over their eyes. It is a shame I cannot view the work of the shooters you mention 'in the flesh' as judging on a screen is just not good enough. I see at my local photo club, decent photographers spending anywhere up to £1500 on DSLR's and producing results very easily seen to be inferior to the results they produced with the far. far cheaper film cameras they just ditched, it just seems crazy. I visited the UK's largest photo exhibition last year and all around the huge halls of the NEC were very large display prints, produced by Nikon, Canon, Sigma and all the major manufacturers and they were all to my eyes clearly inferior to film and yet so many people were passing admiring comments. All of them seemed 'over sharpened' and worse still, none seemed to show natural colour reproduction. They were impressive at first sight, but the longer you looked, the worse they became. If the camera makers seem incapable of producing film quality, then who can? I am still sure many professionals have been duped by the digital 'enhanced resolution' factor and have forgotten what factors REALLY go to make up a truly professional and natural image. I also feel that many pros are now printing their own images, rather than letting a professional printer do the work and producing finished prints that are inferior. As a former studio pro myself, I feel quite sadened by the state of things at the moment, I am just glad their are still lots of people who still remember what true quality means. Cheers....Grumpy Steve.
jsmisc
Well-Known Member
Hi Steve,
I agree that digital is in many ways over hyped. It is down to the convenience factor and maybe the "cool" culture pushed by marketing (a bit like mobile phones). Digital cameras are also very expensive which is something the market seems to accept so why knock it from a sales point of view I suppose.
When you consider the reasonable cost of new film equipment not to mention quality second hand stuff, it makes digital very poor value for money, even taking into acount reduced processing costs and even these might not be all that cheap if you take your card to a lab for processing. No film to buy and cards can be used over and over of course.
I don't think that the average digital compact can produce anything like the quality of film despite the credit card wincing cost of the cameras. I do think though that the average snapper is getting better pictures from a "cheap" digicam than (s)he did from a cheap film camera a few year ago but I suppose this may be due to better procesing now.
"Entry level" digital cameras seem to be around £200 to £300 now.
When film cameras used to be tested, anything around £500 or so would have been classed as very expensive and would have to have been able to justify its extra cost, perhaps due to having a Carl Zeiss lens or being a Leica - which might itself have brought charges of an over inflated cost. Now it seems to much the norm or even thought of as quite inexpensive. When you think of what you could get for the cost of a Canon 5D, the mind boggles and very few people would have even dreamt of paying that much for a camera let alone the cost of lenses over and above. The digital age has brought these very high prices to the public as being acceptable. Of course, I accept that a digital camera has much more to do than a film camera and is a very clever and complicated device. They do come down in price too remarkably rapidly but they are still expensive. Having said that, I think that the 5D is the camera to aspire to at the moment and of course digital is improving at an amazing rate.
I expect that I will go fully digital too eventually but at the moment I am sticking to my Contax and Mamiya cameras bought over a period of years at no small expense. I would not want to part with any of them.
I have a Casio digital compact which is very useful and convenient but for quality, without paying thousands more, I go for film at the moment.
I have my negs and slides processed by dlab7.com very reasonably and I scan them which I reckon gives the best of both worlds. I don't bother with prints now from negs at the time of processing. I just scan them and this keeps the price down. I have found that CD's made at the time of processing are very variable in quality.
Cheers,
Hybrid John
I agree that digital is in many ways over hyped. It is down to the convenience factor and maybe the "cool" culture pushed by marketing (a bit like mobile phones). Digital cameras are also very expensive which is something the market seems to accept so why knock it from a sales point of view I suppose.
When you consider the reasonable cost of new film equipment not to mention quality second hand stuff, it makes digital very poor value for money, even taking into acount reduced processing costs and even these might not be all that cheap if you take your card to a lab for processing. No film to buy and cards can be used over and over of course.
I don't think that the average digital compact can produce anything like the quality of film despite the credit card wincing cost of the cameras. I do think though that the average snapper is getting better pictures from a "cheap" digicam than (s)he did from a cheap film camera a few year ago but I suppose this may be due to better procesing now.
"Entry level" digital cameras seem to be around £200 to £300 now.
When film cameras used to be tested, anything around £500 or so would have been classed as very expensive and would have to have been able to justify its extra cost, perhaps due to having a Carl Zeiss lens or being a Leica - which might itself have brought charges of an over inflated cost. Now it seems to much the norm or even thought of as quite inexpensive. When you think of what you could get for the cost of a Canon 5D, the mind boggles and very few people would have even dreamt of paying that much for a camera let alone the cost of lenses over and above. The digital age has brought these very high prices to the public as being acceptable. Of course, I accept that a digital camera has much more to do than a film camera and is a very clever and complicated device. They do come down in price too remarkably rapidly but they are still expensive. Having said that, I think that the 5D is the camera to aspire to at the moment and of course digital is improving at an amazing rate.
I expect that I will go fully digital too eventually but at the moment I am sticking to my Contax and Mamiya cameras bought over a period of years at no small expense. I would not want to part with any of them.
I have a Casio digital compact which is very useful and convenient but for quality, without paying thousands more, I go for film at the moment.
I have my negs and slides processed by dlab7.com very reasonably and I scan them which I reckon gives the best of both worlds. I don't bother with prints now from negs at the time of processing. I just scan them and this keeps the price down. I have found that CD's made at the time of processing are very variable in quality.
Cheers,
Hybrid John
> Hi John,
I agree that "a digital camera has much more to do than a film camera and is a very clever and complicated device" but so what? I, and I think you and others, believe that the end result is far more important than the means employed to achieve it. When I was an IBM salesman, we all had KISS cards on our desks: "keep it simple stupid".
Cheers,
Neil.
I agree that "a digital camera has much more to do than a film camera and is a very clever and complicated device" but so what? I, and I think you and others, believe that the end result is far more important than the means employed to achieve it. When I was an IBM salesman, we all had KISS cards on our desks: "keep it simple stupid".
Cheers,
Neil.
> Ming, I'm trying to work out how a "German film camera", or any other film > camera come to that, suffers from "medium grain/noise". As for your claim > that German lenses (Leica, Zeiss) are not as sharp as those of a > moderately priced Japanese digital, I suppose you are entitled to your > opinion but "can easily beat"???
You don't mention black and white but, at least in my very humble opinion, digital capture, or rather conversion, is nowhere.
So, if film colour is, subject to your remarks about getting your hands on a high end digital, better and, if you agree with me about B&W, that film is unbeatable for mono what is the point in digital (other than emailing pictures to friends)? My wife has a cheap Kodak digital. My son-in-law's mother uses disposable film cameras. When my wife compared photos of our new grandson recently, she remarked on how much better the pictures from the disposable are. And they are because they are believable, with no sign of artificialty.
Sharpness is not everything. In fact I find that too much digital is over-sharp to the point of being totally unnatural and squeaky-clean. But I believe that this is the fault of software and not of lenses. In fact I suspect that software is used to hide the deficiencies of lenses used on digital cameras, especially the cheap and moderately-priced.
Obviously, I am a member of the soap-box brigade! I would willingly invest in digital if I felt it was worth it. At the moment, however, I just feel that it is an over-expensive marketing con for the average person.
You don't mention black and white but, at least in my very humble opinion, digital capture, or rather conversion, is nowhere.
So, if film colour is, subject to your remarks about getting your hands on a high end digital, better and, if you agree with me about B&W, that film is unbeatable for mono what is the point in digital (other than emailing pictures to friends)? My wife has a cheap Kodak digital. My son-in-law's mother uses disposable film cameras. When my wife compared photos of our new grandson recently, she remarked on how much better the pictures from the disposable are. And they are because they are believable, with no sign of artificialty.
Sharpness is not everything. In fact I find that too much digital is over-sharp to the point of being totally unnatural and squeaky-clean. But I believe that this is the fault of software and not of lenses. In fact I suspect that software is used to hide the deficiencies of lenses used on digital cameras, especially the cheap and moderately-priced.
Obviously, I am a member of the soap-box brigade! I would willingly invest in digital if I felt it was worth it. At the moment, however, I just feel that it is an over-expensive marketing con for the average person.
"...a japanese digital camera of moderate price can easily beat a german film gear in terms of sharpness. Sad, but totally true for me. "
You should add the words "apparent sharpness". Images straight out of ALL digital cameras are soft compared to straight film images. Digital sharpness is the function of firmware in the camera (for jpgs) ... or application of sharpening programs after the fact. These sharpening programs tend to favor increasing edge contrast to give the appearance of sharpness ... which accounts for the actual separation of edges in the form of a white halo when an image is over-sharpened. Since edges are the main area sharpened it leads to the over-all plastic look of digital in areas not producing an edge.
To further aggravate the situation, Japanese lens designers ALSO tend to utilize edge separation as the touchstone for sharpness. German lenses, including Zeiss, favor micro contrast to achieve the appearance of sharpness ... without the harsh by-products of edge sharpness in out of focus areas.
The Digital Lemmings all actually believe that a 35mm DSLR can outperform a MF film camera simply because the broad areas are smooth. Further evidence of this attraction to "smoothness" at the cost of every other pictorial characteristic can be seen in the over application of Gaussian Blur to skin. The only POP these images would create is if you stuck a pin in a subjects cheek. A blow-up doll looks more human.
This is now the "standard" people aspire to, as they flock to digital capture without a clue what a image should look and feel like. It's not the digital camera's fault. It a mass of semi-blind people to whom the word "subtile" is meaningless as they process their 2D, smooth, ultra sharp looking, lifeless images.
For a majority, photography is a computer game.
Can digital work? I think so. I know a few others that have made it work. The right camera, in the right hands, guided by sensitivity and a subtile eye can work wonders.
Here's a snapshot I made of Irakly in poor light when my Leica 80/1.4 arrived ... straight out of the box and on to the Leica DMR set at ISO 400. Reminded me of old Ektachrome shots I used to love so much for male portraits in cloudy conditions.
You should add the words "apparent sharpness". Images straight out of ALL digital cameras are soft compared to straight film images. Digital sharpness is the function of firmware in the camera (for jpgs) ... or application of sharpening programs after the fact. These sharpening programs tend to favor increasing edge contrast to give the appearance of sharpness ... which accounts for the actual separation of edges in the form of a white halo when an image is over-sharpened. Since edges are the main area sharpened it leads to the over-all plastic look of digital in areas not producing an edge.
To further aggravate the situation, Japanese lens designers ALSO tend to utilize edge separation as the touchstone for sharpness. German lenses, including Zeiss, favor micro contrast to achieve the appearance of sharpness ... without the harsh by-products of edge sharpness in out of focus areas.
The Digital Lemmings all actually believe that a 35mm DSLR can outperform a MF film camera simply because the broad areas are smooth. Further evidence of this attraction to "smoothness" at the cost of every other pictorial characteristic can be seen in the over application of Gaussian Blur to skin. The only POP these images would create is if you stuck a pin in a subjects cheek. A blow-up doll looks more human.
This is now the "standard" people aspire to, as they flock to digital capture without a clue what a image should look and feel like. It's not the digital camera's fault. It a mass of semi-blind people to whom the word "subtile" is meaningless as they process their 2D, smooth, ultra sharp looking, lifeless images.
For a majority, photography is a computer game.
Can digital work? I think so. I know a few others that have made it work. The right camera, in the right hands, guided by sensitivity and a subtile eye can work wonders.
Here's a snapshot I made of Irakly in poor light when my Leica 80/1.4 arrived ... straight out of the box and on to the Leica DMR set at ISO 400. Reminded me of old Ektachrome shots I used to love so much for male portraits in cloudy conditions.
Neil, I almost totally agree with you. First of all, I was trying to say that film (not film camera) is mostly more grainy than digital sensors, especially at higher ISO. I have never tried B&W films though. However on the issue of lense sharpness I do believe we have different understandings. In my undergraduate years I majored in physics, and optics as a subject interests me a lot. Believe or not, one of the most interesting thing I learnt in optical lense system is that it is actually very easy to design sharp lenses. Sharpness by itself is not a challenge at all, a sharp lense that is free from distortion/dispersion (color response problems) is the true challenge. That's why I mentioned "lense design philosophiyes". It is my believe that Japanese lense makers have a better grasp on the average consumer mentality, which pushes them to put sharpness at the highest priority. I may have to stick to my words "can easily beat", when one side is trying to make lenses that produce art works and the other is trying to make "sharp lenses". Note that I'm not doubting Japanese's ability to design good lenses though. Appendix: For one-element lenses, simply cover a small center portion of the lense with black tape will make it sharper! Of course for multi-element lenses it's more complicated, but the idea is still the same.
> Hi Ming,
Unfortunately (or not, depending on your viewpoint) I have no background in optics. Which is one reason why I find today's posting by Marc Williams so interesting. It seems very relevant to me.
So far as your comments about graininess are concerned, I have read too many reviews of digitals which note that a camera cannot be used at more than 80 or 100 ASA without being afflicted with unacceptable levels of grain and/or noise. If I use a B&W film like Ilford HP5 (400 ASA) I know that there will be some grain but it does not detract from the end result and can in fact can be used positively - much depends on the developer used.
I believe very strongly that the consumer does not necessarily seek absolute sharpness. Rather, he/she has been told by the marketers that that is what is she/he wants. I find it very odd that virtually all users of digital P&S hold the camera at arms length. No lens, however intrinsically sharp, can give sharp results in those circumstances, though in-camera software may help take the sting out of it. So now we have stabilisers to make up for the shortcomings of the poor user. More complexity and cost which means, with a suitable margin of course, that the consumer has to pay more for a new version of something he has been told is virtual perfection.
The problem, based on what you say, is that the Japanese lens industry concentrates just too much on a single design parameter - sharpness. But that is by no means the only parameter, even if the one that is perhaps the most easily definable in objective terms. Any lens has to be a compromise since none can equal the incredible complexity of human vision. The strength of the German industry, lead by Leica, is in the balancing of the many parameters in order to achieve what I feel is the ultimate goal: believability (not sure about spelling). The result is a compromise, but cannot be anything else, and for me is the most acceptable compromise since an over-concentration on the one parameter of sharpness, or indeed of any other single parameter, results in an unbalanced set of compromises. As I said in another posting, the end is far more important than the means and cannot be judged by the means that are used.
To continue along similar lines, I have little time for autofocus, even if very clever technically, though I accept that for fast-moving subjects it is very practical. Ignoring those subjects, the poor consumer is told that autofocus allows her/him to concentrate on composition (the subjective). Yet the choice of focus, or rather depth of acceptable focus, is an essential part of that subjective process. But once again the marketers win.
I am obviously a died-in-the-wool believer in film and manual focus, but not necessarily manual metering providing some choice is possible, not because I am antiquated (which I am) but because I judge by results rather than by technical prowess for its own sake.
Unfortunately (or not, depending on your viewpoint) I have no background in optics. Which is one reason why I find today's posting by Marc Williams so interesting. It seems very relevant to me.
So far as your comments about graininess are concerned, I have read too many reviews of digitals which note that a camera cannot be used at more than 80 or 100 ASA without being afflicted with unacceptable levels of grain and/or noise. If I use a B&W film like Ilford HP5 (400 ASA) I know that there will be some grain but it does not detract from the end result and can in fact can be used positively - much depends on the developer used.
I believe very strongly that the consumer does not necessarily seek absolute sharpness. Rather, he/she has been told by the marketers that that is what is she/he wants. I find it very odd that virtually all users of digital P&S hold the camera at arms length. No lens, however intrinsically sharp, can give sharp results in those circumstances, though in-camera software may help take the sting out of it. So now we have stabilisers to make up for the shortcomings of the poor user. More complexity and cost which means, with a suitable margin of course, that the consumer has to pay more for a new version of something he has been told is virtual perfection.
The problem, based on what you say, is that the Japanese lens industry concentrates just too much on a single design parameter - sharpness. But that is by no means the only parameter, even if the one that is perhaps the most easily definable in objective terms. Any lens has to be a compromise since none can equal the incredible complexity of human vision. The strength of the German industry, lead by Leica, is in the balancing of the many parameters in order to achieve what I feel is the ultimate goal: believability (not sure about spelling). The result is a compromise, but cannot be anything else, and for me is the most acceptable compromise since an over-concentration on the one parameter of sharpness, or indeed of any other single parameter, results in an unbalanced set of compromises. As I said in another posting, the end is far more important than the means and cannot be judged by the means that are used.
To continue along similar lines, I have little time for autofocus, even if very clever technically, though I accept that for fast-moving subjects it is very practical. Ignoring those subjects, the poor consumer is told that autofocus allows her/him to concentrate on composition (the subjective). Yet the choice of focus, or rather depth of acceptable focus, is an essential part of that subjective process. But once again the marketers win.
I am obviously a died-in-the-wool believer in film and manual focus, but not necessarily manual metering providing some choice is possible, not because I am antiquated (which I am) but because I judge by results rather than by technical prowess for its own sake.
I think film is great.
I have my plan. We should get a Canon EOS film body. No worries with partial framming. With the use of adapters, it can be fitted to a great variety of lenses including,
Zeiss C-Y,
Leica R,
Olympus,
Canon EOS
M42 (old Zeiss Jena lenses)
Nikon F
So the new Zeiss F lenses can be fitted to this body. Canon EOS mount is now the universal mount.
I have my plan. We should get a Canon EOS film body. No worries with partial framming. With the use of adapters, it can be fitted to a great variety of lenses including,
Zeiss C-Y,
Leica R,
Olympus,
Canon EOS
M42 (old Zeiss Jena lenses)
Nikon F
So the new Zeiss F lenses can be fitted to this body. Canon EOS mount is now the universal mount.
jsmisc
Well-Known Member
Neil,
I couldn't agree more that the end result is what counts not the equipment used to achieve it. I reckon we should each use what works for us but I think that we often also enjoy equipment just because it is enjoyable to use and own. There is nothing wrong with that. A guitarist for ex&le, enjoys the wood and figuring of his guitar.
Also I think we are always looking for ways to improve that end result. In the end, at the rate the technology is developing, no doubt digital will prevail in the quality stakes but I think that time is a few years down the road yet for the ordinary person which doesn't mean that the majority of people will not still use digital. Camera phone pictures are the next area up for improvement with improved lenses.
I think that at the moment we are still rather at the stage (to use a rather warlike analogy) similar to when firearms began to take over from the bow and arrow. The bow was still better but the musket had potential and eventually became superior.
John
I couldn't agree more that the end result is what counts not the equipment used to achieve it. I reckon we should each use what works for us but I think that we often also enjoy equipment just because it is enjoyable to use and own. There is nothing wrong with that. A guitarist for ex&le, enjoys the wood and figuring of his guitar.
Also I think we are always looking for ways to improve that end result. In the end, at the rate the technology is developing, no doubt digital will prevail in the quality stakes but I think that time is a few years down the road yet for the ordinary person which doesn't mean that the majority of people will not still use digital. Camera phone pictures are the next area up for improvement with improved lenses.
I think that at the moment we are still rather at the stage (to use a rather warlike analogy) similar to when firearms began to take over from the bow and arrow. The bow was still better but the musket had potential and eventually became superior.
John