Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

How long before digital overtakes 35mm?

Attention!

This topic is locked.

Reason : This topic was started an awful long time ago and has generated a lot of discussion. Many good points have been raised, but I feel we can now draw things to a close, so have locked this topic. Will.


24 Dec 2001 8:05PM
Having worked with 'wet film' for over 30years and now enjoying releaning the art using digital I don't believe there is competition. Back when I first picked up a 35mm camera I was told it was ok but would not replace 6x6 - it did. I still use a 6x6 Rollie as well as a 35mm Oly 2, but having tasted the digital sweetner of the Oly 860 and then the 2500l I finally fell for the charms of the E10. The results pre play with Photo Elements are outstanding. The industry will dictate the take up of digital and the demise of 35mm with both price breaks and advances in the systems but I defy anyone to show me a real difference except in the print size one can achieve with ink jet printers even A3. Ypou have to take into account a lot of factors, even the smell of developer and that time spent in the dark.
Ray

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

rcpage 12 2
29 Sep 2002 8:30AM
The new digital cameras from Canon and Kodak which are 11mp and 13mp respectively are more than equivalent to 35mm. At this resolution level they match the grain on the 35mm film! Voila! we are there but currently at a price.
peterkent 12 117
29 Sep 2002 10:33PM
Over the last twenty five years I have used 35mm,6X4.5 6X6 and 6X7 but nothing has given me the fun of my Fuji S2 plus Photoshop. Digital is the way forward - fact. It is already established that large format digital is better quality than emulsion at a cost of price and speed. Both these factors will resolve with time.

-Peter.
Badger 12 4.7k 20 United Kingdom
29 Sep 2002 11:19PM
I've only recently found the enjoyment and release photography can give, I currently use a standard traditional 35mm SLR. During this short time part of my enjoyment is trying to find the perfect picture, this includes finding the right position, correctly framing the image and waitng for the best light when outdoors.
All of this can be compensated for in photoshop or other similar software packages, for me it removes the fun and excitement of checking your newly developed photographs and more importantly using my eye to make a good subject look outstanding on film.
Now I can't say if in the future I'll change my opinion and follow the digital path but for now I'm staying with standard film, as I enjoy this format. If my cashflow and desire allow my to try this alterantive route to find picture nirvana then I'll never say never. I enjoy viewing the readers gallery whatever format is used.
In my honest opinion I like 35mm and won't be changing over to digital yet.
Matt
redsnappa 12 2.0k United Kingdom
30 Sep 2002 4:23PM
I sure I'm not the only one in thinking that current top of the range digital SLR's appear enviable untill you realise your paying two grand for a camera that will struggle to produce a 6"x8" print at commercial print quality (300 dpi.

I will stick to my film slr & my 12 megapixel film scanner (Benq Scanwit 2700) for now thank you.
bbdigital 13 21
1 Oct 2002 4:08PM
Resnappa.

Oh dear oh dear.

Are you out of touch or what.............I have 16*12 prints from a Nikon 900 which was a mere 1 megapixel camera. I have 20*16's from a 3 megapixel.

Get real mate and check out the kit before you make claims that are so wrong it is laughable. You might just influence someone into making the wrong step.

www.bbdigital.co.uk
Will 13 1.8k United Kingdom
1 Oct 2002 4:37PM
In terms of convenience it could be argued that Digital overtook 35mm as soon as the first cameras became available.

Either way despite several years development (obviously far more for film) both continue to develop and of course have their own strengths and weaknesses.

Still, with all the hype around digital cameras and their massive popularity, Kodak recently said something like 90% of the world's photographs are still taken on film. How they counted them all, I don't know! Wink
peterkent 12 117
1 Oct 2002 6:16PM
Redsnappa needs to do the maths again. At 3024X2016 the new digital SLRs are turning out nominal 10X8 images at the 300 dpi he mentions. The Fuji S2 turns out 4256X2848 images - a whopping 35MB file. Even the sceptics of Fuji's super CCD admit the real resolution is somewhere between these two file sizes (say 12X10 at commercial resolution). This is big enough for a full page spread in the average photographic mag. When you come to desktop printing you're into a whole new ball game. I agree with BB. A3 prints are stunning - better than my 35mm film results. As for price - I have just paid 1600 for a Fuji S2 including a battery pack with charger and spare batteries and Photoshop Elements and Fuji software. If you knock off the Elements and battery pack it puts the camera in for 1500 - not much more than a Nikon F5. The future is now!
peterkent 12 117
1 Oct 2002 6:17PM
Redsnappa needs to do the maths again. At 3024X2016 the new digital SLRs are turning out nominal 10X8 images at the 300 dpi he mentions. The Fuji S2 turns out 4256X2848 images - a whopping 35MB file. Even the sceptics of Fuji's super CCD admit the real resolution is somewhere between these two file sizes (say 12X10 at commercial resolution). This is big enough for a full page spread in the average photographic mag. When you come to desktop printing you're into a whole new ball game. I agree with BB. A3 prints are stunning - better than my 35mm film results. As for price - I have just paid 1600 for a Fuji S2 including a battery pack with charger and spare batteries and Photoshop Elements and Fuji software. If you knock off the Elements and battery pack it puts the camera in for 1500 - not much more than a Nikon F5. The future is now!
-- Peter.
photodoctor 12 101
2 Oct 2002 12:27AM
Dear Redsnappa,
Have to agree with BB on this issue. It's not what you've got, it's how you use it.
Join us in the 21st century - the digital age is here.
bbdigital 13 21
4 Oct 2002 4:43PM
In a way this is a bit of a pointless debate although I have taken part in it. The important issue is the image, how we get there is irrelavent.

The trouble is, digital can be daunting to new comers, even those who are already skillfull photographers. When people read in sites like this that you can only get a small print from a 300 dpi file they can be forgiven for not taking the plunge into digital.

The problem that annoys me is that this advice is misleading and wrong. I hope readers don't take it too literally and accept it is just an opinion, as is mine.

If the question is on your mind of whether Digital cameras are worth taking up yet.(comparing to 35mm) Just have a look around the net and download a full resolution file from a 3 or 6 million pixel camera. Then compare them side by side on your computer as you enlarge the file.

You decide, which one you want to work with. I do that regulary at camera club demonstrations and the digital file is chosen every time by the members.

www.bbdigital.co.uk
Pete e2
13 18.7k 96 England
4 Oct 2002 4:55PM
I'd just like to add that I don't think Barrie is referring to the editorial team's views of digital when he says "When people read in sites like this that you can only get a small print from a 300 dpi file". These may be opinions expressed by other members in the forums, but not ePHOTOzine and we do not offer misleading advice. You can see the ePHOTOzine editorial viewpoint from me earlier in this thread.
Big Bri 13 15.7k United Kingdom
4 Oct 2002 5:16PM
This is so cool. It looks like this thread started in March 2001 (that's 19 MONTHS AGO).
Is this a record ?

Anyway, I was holding out for an EOS 1Ds, but as Barry rates the D60 (and having seen what he can produce with a Nikon 900), I may have a play with one of those. Might even be able to afford one soon...
redsnappa 12 2.0k United Kingdom
5 Oct 2002 2:40PM
To peterkent,
I bow to your greater knowledge!


To bbdigital
I did not realise prints printed @ 150dpi was the equal of those printed at 240dpi for inkjets or 300 commercial.

If 1 megapixel is so good, why are million being spent in developing camera with more pixel than the 5 or 6 million that are on the market today?

I still beleive if your budget is less than 500 a film scanner is the way to go.

Final word to bb & peterkent enjoyed our little clash in the forum, what about another clash but the the gallery soon?
bbdigital 13 21
5 Oct 2002 3:34PM
redsnappa.

I agree that a verbal battle is a bit of fun as long as we are smiling while typing and I am...LOL

Why keep going above 1 megapixel, if they are so good? Well, they were good in comparison to 35mm when you consider just the pixel count. It should have been a no contest, but it wasn't.

They were not quite the equal of 35mm at that stage, but at Peter says, most people will print small with the occaisonal 10*8 and they were perfect for that. In the hands of someone who had more experience a 16*12 could be squeezed out

3 megapixels made that task easier and added the possibility of pushing the right image to 20*16 though not all of them.

6 million allows 20*16 easily and bigger if you want, but it allows us to start cropping again when we see something we missed at the taking stage.

Its not just size we are interested in, but the image quality. The thing is, even when we crunch down an image for emailing the quality of the original image remains there from a 6 million pixel camera.

I agree they are not cheap, but they will get there. Look at the full res files from the latest Canon full frame cmos chip and they are stunning in sharpness. Like using 6*6 or even 5*4 in an slr body.

Film scanners, I have one that cost me 600 gathering dust, anyone want it?

Last point redsnappa. Your scanner will be propping your lightroom door open this time next year....LOL

Peter.........Never meant to suggest redsnappa's comments were related to ePHOTOzine of course.

www.bbdigital.co.uk