|
Definately this format is not for everyone, but I like to do black and
hhite myself as well, and this makes simple contact printing possible.
4x5 contact prints are just outstanding, and I would say nothing rivals them.
If you have not done contact printing, before it is outstandingly simple, and
very low cost. So I can get simple prints, and beautiful enlargments
of scenes I like
Apart from when I want to make a really high quality image, depending
on what I want, I use either Digital camera or 35mm. I don't think
they need to go head to head and produce a winner and a looser as
they are both good at different things.
I've found (for me) that the important selection items on a digital camera are:
- manual focus
- good macro
- ability to save images as RAW
- swinging / pivotable viewing screen
- optical view finder (handy in bright light)
- wide angle (speaking in 35mm terms something 28 or wider)
Its worth mentioning that in terms of angle of view most compact digitals are about equal to a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera
have a look at this table below to get an idea of the difference of what you get in the scene.
| 35mm lens equiv |
Angle of view |
| 24mm |
74 |
| 28mm |
65 |
| 35mm |
54 |
This smaller sensor issues is also an issue in non full frame DSLR areas too,
and part of the reason I sold my 20 D.
I was in the lucky position of having a very nice friend give me my first DSLR,
it was a new 20D. I used it for about a year, and then sold it. After yoyo-ing back
and forward, I have since purchased a 10D to 'replace' it. If you're in a simmilar
situation, perhaps the following will be of use to you too...
Personally I've been using digital cameras since 2000, but I had been
'hanging off' getting into the DSLR arena as mainly
I just don't photograph enough to have the film processing costs become
a significant cost, and I already own a substantial 35mm film system (lenses, flashes whatnot).
Now, if I was starting out, this might be a different equation as you would have to
buy lenses and flash system (should you be needing it). But if you have to factor
this into the purchase of a move into DSLR then things might not be as straight
forward.
if I was more into photographing birds than scenery, this conclusion
would be quite different as telephoto lenses work much more effectively
on the smaller APS sized sensors. But, I like wide angle lenses more
than telephoto and only the full frame sensor cameras allow
my wide lenses to be wide. So I'd have to buy new lenses costing at least twice as much as my 24mm
to give me an image as wide as I get on film with the 24mm.
Then there is the fact that scanning 35mm film (while time consuming) is
not much more so than converting RAW files. If I don't need HIGH ISO, the super lows noise
benefits of the DSLR is not as substantial either. Bang for buck you can get a lot of bang from
35mm neg and a 4000dpi film scanner
So I thought I'd compare my 10D with film to see what
was the outcome. That test is here, and kind of confirms what many are saying
about these APS digital cameras VS 35mm film scans.
I've found that it did not give me a cost benefit that was enough to justify the nearly $2000
investment needed for my non professional low volume photographing needs.
As well the EOS digital do not work with all my existing EOS flashes, so more money is
needed.
All in all there were a number of things that didn't make the 20D such a "wonderful"
experience for me, the reasons were:
- I had problems with images disappearing from some media cards I did not have problems with Lexar, but on many occasions lost 30% of my images on a cards which worked perfectly in other cameras.
- AF focus points were not always where they are on the viewfinder (and the smaller
screen and wider angle lenses makes seeing this focus issue difficult) making images seem blurry and soft.
- Occasional unexplained err99 shutdowns
- I already have a 35mm camera and a few lenses, it costs me nothing to keep using them.
- the 20D (and all other non full frame DSLRs) effecitvely alter the angle of view,
making wide lenses (like my 24mm) behave photographicaly nearly standard lenses.
To get the same angle of view, I would have to spend a over a thousand dollars more.
- DSLRs won't work with TTL flash (like my existing flash setup) meaning spending more money
- no net benefit in workflow, true I didn't need to wait for film to be developed, but if I was going to open RAW files, it took nearly as long as it does to scan 35mm film with a good scanner (like the Nikon LS-V or LS-5000 reviewed here)
It became a cost trade off, after comparing the images I was getting with even non professional negative
scans and comparing this to images I was getting (when they weren't disappearing) from
my 20D, I found that the film based image capture was not significantly lower quality and gave me
bigger images to play with. For example, 4448 x 2827 pixels can be had from a 35mm film scan, so even if
its a bit 'soft', you can sharpen and resize to equal the 3504 x 2336 pixels from
an 8 MP digital.
I went back to using only a compact digital, and other film formats.
Actually my Coolpix 5000 shooting RAW will give me images almost as good as the 20D
did, and nearly as good as 2700 DPI scans of film!!
Some of these could be solved by a camera like the 5D, but at over AU$5000
its a LOT of photographs I need to take before breaking even.
Thats were this equation pivots, if your a professoinal, who's photographing things
where a SLR is needed, then clearly you'll be shooting enough volume of work that you
NEED to have digital to be cost effective.
If on the other hand your needs are like me it will take a long time to break
even. If I do a roll of film a month it would be exceptional these days,
expecially considering that I have the compact digital for non high res needs.
Soon after I sold my 20D, the price fell by hundreds of dollars. This equates
to me the same loss of money that I have from shooting and developing film.
This has also worked in my favour, and I have been able to use the money and get
a 10D (which is an equally capable camera) for under $500. So I get a lesser DSLR
and a film scanner for what you need to pay to get a new DSLR.
Why be on the 'bleeding edge' if there is no benefits?
The kicker for selling the 20D for me was on a trip to Norway and Sweden, where
I took my 20D. I also took a Canon A520 compact. Of the shots I took with the 20D,
only about 10 were ones I will print (or have already printed). If I had used the
35mm camera the cost would not have been high. Mostly the images taken were snapshots
to be used for WWW and emailing, these shots were done with the A520.
To really hurt more, I also got a number of corrupt images with the 20D.
I am sure it is a CF compatibility issue of which ,
Canon has already acknowledged with at least one major brand
Comparing this result with a trip to China 3 months prior, where I took the A520 and
my 35mm camera (with a 24mm and a 50mm), I got just as many good shots from my 35mm
and no 'corrupt' ones.
Using this strategy, I :
- only used 2 rolls of 36 Provia slide film?
- Kept the 35mm in the backpack (just like the 20D) most of the time
- did not need 40GB of media to carry along with me for holding the big files
from the DSLR
- avoided unwanted thief attraction
worth mentioning is the beauty of slides. As I get to put these on the projector from time
to time. If you haven't ever seen a slide projected, you just don't know what the
colours look like. Slides project more vividly than any print or monitor.
Finally, it feels like its free shooting with a digital, but its not free.
- Digital "camera diarrhea" will have you exposing more and more pictures "just in case" without
thinking (this has pros too) and thus "needing" more and more media in the field
- perhaps even some other devices to free up your media on longer trips
- batterys and chargers for the digital
- depreciation, my 20D body only has dropped $1000 in less than a year, so you'd better not want the 10MP version next year! If your not a working professional, will you use $1000 of film?
Lastly there's the issue of theft. This stuff isn't cheap, and depending on where
in the world you travel you are a target.
A scanner for $1000 (such as the Nikon I've mentioned) will give results as good
comparable to "full frame DSLR" (which currently run at US$6000,
and are rather bigger to handle than most 35mm SLRs). The images I have had printed
with little scanning effort from film match those I've had done on the 20D,
and probably come close to the Canon 5D.
I've had enlargements made up to 50cm wide that look good.
I took images like this mountain shot back in 2001, the best digital camera
at the time could not have given me what I can still get with this slide
and a a basic Nikon LS-20E second hand film scanner that I bought
on the eBay for less than $100.
I find that it scans slides quite well enough for web and email,
and negatives even better. This mountain shot is a scan from Kokak VS100
and has quite dense shadows details. The woman in the Kimono is from Provia,
and even it shows good image detail, and shadow detail
As well 35mm scans gives me results that are quite acceptable,
and a as good as 90% of digital cameras
(see
my page on that, if you missed the link at the top), of
course having the slide has some advantages for me, as I like to
project them. I sometimes use my slides for presentations as well
as holidays photo slide shows with my friends. I've found that its
easier to show more than 4 people the photos as slides than pass
prints around the table explaining what each was to each person
in turn.
I am sure that a better scanner would give me better results, but
then I'd have to really have a need to be printing my images my
self, doing high quality reprographics, or some other semi-professional
reason. If I was buying new, I'd probably still settle for something
in the 2700dpi range, but then I'd have to spend something like
US$300 or more and my benefits would be only a little more detail
than I presently get.
About the only complaint I have with the scanner is that the LED
light source seems to show up dust and really minor scratches like
there's no tomorrow. One other advantage to 35mm for me is that
as scanner technology improves and prices come down, any shot I
take with it will be able to be scanned at much better resolutions
down the track, as there is more
detail on the film than I'm getting with this scanner some
suggest that 11 or more MegaPixels is available from 35mm slide
films. Unlike the digital camera, where the image is fixed at
what ever your camera is right now, I get better images every time I get
a new scanner and rescan my original film images. In the meantime, I don't
have to find hard disk or CD / DVD storage space for them as they're stored
on the optical storage media (that's the film btw ;-)
have fun!
| 
