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!

Film in 2005

Hi,

This is my first post here. I've had a G2 for about 3 months now, I can honestly say that both me and my girlfriend (we've both spent years working at Jessops camera shop) were blown away by what those lenses can do. I've done medium format too, both 6x7 and 6x4.5 and it's almost like stepping upto that kind of detail without the bulk. I thought the AF noise was a bit crappy, and the finder is pretty dim too, so have been thinking about an N1, but I'm not sure I'd feel so comfortable in foreign countries with that monster. Anyway, I've read some of the old posts from 2003 regarding the digital v film thing. I know its old and pretty pointless, I think even the media is beginning to grasp that, but I'd just be interested to know what you guys here think about the likes of the 20D S3PRO i.e. the 2005 dig line up etc in terms of quality of image. Why? Because I'd never dump on B&W film, but I'm wondering if dig would be a worth while investment for colour.
 
Hi Ross,

I use a Canon 20D with a wide range of adapted Zeiss lenses to complement my Aria and RTS3.

The 20D is capable of producing very fine images, and in many ways matches film, in some areas it even exceeds most film.

I have found however that digital has a particular look, clean and precise, just as Fuji NPH400 looks different from Velvia.
It suits certain subjects better than others, and in my opinion macro in particular is where digital excells. It seems to be able to resolve incredible detail. The 1.6 crop can also be a bonus for wildlife photography, giving extra reach, and the 20D is a fine and very versatile tool for these subjects.

For portraits I find it sometimes a little too 'clinical' looking, and for landscapes it doesn't quite have the rich and smooth tonal gradation that film can provide.

I would certainly recommend the 20D as a complement to a film body, and I think as image processing software becomes more advanced, one is able to produce increasingly better results.

I rarely go out now with just a film body, but sometimes I do take just the 20D.
 
Thanks Matt, I appreciate your insight.

The 20D certainly seems like a capable camera, and your opinion on digital landscapes has made me wonder if I might be better of with a scanner.
 
If your main subject is landscape then the 20D may not be the perfect tool for this particular job.

Things to consider in the equation are:
1) The 1.6 crop factor. On the 20D my wonderful Zeiss 21mm Distagon becomes a boring 33mm and I lose all the dramatic impact of the perspective that a 21mm can provide.
If you largely use wide angles you may have to invest in some Canon super wide angle glass such as the 10-22mm. But if you're used to Zeiss wide quality, expect to be disappointed.

2) Scanning time. I use a Minolta 5400dpi scanner and full res scans with digital ICE take about 15 minutes per slide. Not too bad if you're only doing a couple, but a full 36exp roll will take a weekend! Files from a DSLR are very quick to process.

3) Personal opinion/vision. Everyone sees things differently, and you may actually prefer the look of prints from digital. They just don't look quite right to me, though I have to admit it may just be that my post processing skills need improvement to achieve the look I want.

I you're still working at Jessops, maybe you could borrow a demo 20D on a day off and use it in your own style, then compare the results to scanned film from the G2. I'm sure a direct comparison will allow you to make your mind up quite quickly.
 
Hi to all,

I had the great occasion to shot using a Zeiss Distagon 15 mm on a Canon 300D.
The 15mm is very old (serial # 59....) with some scratches on frontal glass and T* coating close to be died.
Despite to this, here are the results :

393234.jpg


Using the built-in orange filter:
393235.jpg


This is extracting the green channel only
393236.jpg


I think the 15mm and 300D is a great couple !

Bye,
Ugo
 
That's a nice wide lens Ugo!

Unfortunately I'm no longer at Jessops, when I left it was still very much a case of digital being no where near film. Now obviously that gap has closed somewhat. Anyway, it's interesting to hear your opinion Matt, sometimes you get the feeling everything's gone digital and that's it.

The look of film vs digital as it were makes a lot of sense, and so does the focal length factors. I'm in the process of getting a film scan to compare it to both a silver print and a straight digi SLR print from an S3pro, on a canon ip8500. I'll post my findings soon..
 
Back
Top