Scanned 35mm Leica vs consumer DSLR

[qruyk12]

I am sure there are a lot of you out there than scan yuor Leica negs and also have DSLRs with prime lenses.

What are your thoughts? Are the new consumer DSLRs catching up or passed the 35mm scans?

[snip]

I am sure there are a lot of you out there than scan yuor Leica negs and also have DSLRs with prime lenses.

What are your thoughts? Are the new consumer DSLRs catching up or passed the 35mm scans?


Yes and no, some (most) of my scans are "below" what I have made with a prime lensed dslr in any aspect but the resolution of the stored file.

But, even the ones that are technically not great but have a good "feel" to them have far more "character" than the dslr ones, dslr pictures, in the ratios that I can compare on my computer, have less "feel" and "character" to them than scans.


Results might be different with Leica frames. I shoot Voigtlander and Hasselblad.

Some scans that I have seen online and at friends are far better than I could do with a dslr, this might be because those people are better photographers than I, because they scan better, or indeed because some of them are shot on Leica :




//Jan

[Fraser]

I am sure there are a lot of you out there than scan yuor Leica negs and also have DSLRs with prime lenses.

What are your thoughts? Are the new consumer DSLRs catching up or passed the 35mm scans?

They passed them at least 5 years ago.

[Tim Gray]

I like B&W film so I have gone with film cameras (Leica and Canon). I'm sure you can get close to it with a DSLR, but I don't really feel like jumping through those hoops when I can just pop in a roll of Tri-X.

I also print in the darkroom, so the film choice helps out there :)

Mind you, when most people respond to this question, they are talking about resolution first, and noise/grain second. If you like the look of films like Tri-X and TMZ, then those usually aren't you're first concern. You can shoot at ISO 1600 and 24mp on your DSLR with no noise? Good for you. I'd still take TMZ over that anyday - noisy as hell and what, maybe 2mp? :D

[hans voralberg]

You either do one of them, or both. No point in a versus really. Save for ISO1600 colour film, I prefer film, although I do own quite alot of dslr for professional work

[calajava@gmail.com]

I think technically, that's the longer an issue (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml) to compare film to digital pixel by pixel...for people shoot film like us that certainly other aspect includes mentioned above like "feel" and "character" those subjectively quality that sustain the choice of film.

[Frank Petronio]

In terms of resolution and noise, digital is way better. Color balancing mixed light sources is also much easier to do with raw digital files. And the latest cameras, like the Nikon D700, are amazing at high ISOs.

The reason to still shoot 35mm film is for the way B&W is rendered. You can get pleasing, good results from converting raw digital files (which are RGB) into greyscale files, but even the best technique still doesn't look "film-like". Although a few people, who print contrasty and dark, can fool you.... You can also get surprisingly pretty high resolution with slow film and Leica-quality lenses, and good technique (i.e. tripod).

Color 35mm film is used because you simply don't care to work with digital -- if we're talking image quality you might be able to do something competitive yet different with slow speed film and good drum scanner, but even a >$1000 consumer DSLR raw file will be at least competitive or better than the best scanned 35mm color film.

Commercially, a pro DSLR can be used where a pro used to use (need?) a medium-format camera.

[payasam]

Working with DSLR pictures is faster. So far as quality is concerned, the results of both are good enough for my limited needs.

[WoolenMammoth]

I wish people would take a slightly sophisticated step towards this issue. Its DSLR vs. Scanner, not DSLR vs film, the thing you are scanning has very little to do with it. Most people do not have a drum scanner and most digital cameras will resolve higher than what you'll get from a commercial scanner. Saying "film" in this case is as pedestrian as it gets as "film" can get scanned by just about anything with results that are simply all over the place. If your scan didnt cost $100 per frame this discussion is probably not worth getting into in the first place.

[snip]

Commercially, a pro DSLR can be used where a pro used to use (need?) a medium-format camera.


Aaw I don't know, Slide and good quality C41 frames from my Hasselblad look pretty damn tasty scanned when they come back from my lab scanned on an Imacon by a technician.

And the prints...Ah the prints..
//Jan

[MCTuomey]

what work i sell is all digi based (i'm amateur), sports and some portrait and event product.

most of what i do for myself, modest and limited volume, is b&w film, once i got over the initial digi thrill. at any rate, i believe that a proper comparison involves prints rather than monitor-based viewing. on monitors, the digi files typically trump scanned film pretty clearly, though not always. in the end, as others note, this is all rather subjective and depends on what you want to achieve.

[snip]

I wish people would take a slightly sophisticated step towards this issue. Its DSLR vs. Scanner, not DSLR vs film, the thing you are scanning has very little to do with it. Most people do not have a drum scanner and most digital cameras will resolve higher than what you'll get from a commercial scanner. Saying "film" in this case is as pedestrian as it gets as "film" can get scanned by just about anything with results that are simply all over the place. If your scan didnt cost $100 per frame this discussion is probably not worth getting into in the first place.

I agree to a point, it can be hard to get good results, even with the best scanners, but as I have seen myself, being good at scanning can get you very good results, even with scanners costing under $2000 just as the photographer is as important to the picture as the camera.


//Jan

[snip]

what work i sell is all digi based (i'm amateur), sports and some portrait and event product.

most of what i do for myself, modest and limited volume, is b&w film, once i got over the initial digi thrill. at any rate, i believe that a proper comparison involves prints rather than monitor-based viewing. on monitors, the digi files typically trump scanned film pretty clearly, though not always. in the end, as others note, this is all rather subjective and depends on what you want to achieve.


Yes a black and white portrait shot on 5x4 and wetprinted will tear a digital black and white portrait apart most any day.

A home scanned 35mm frame and a digitally shot image, when printed, are somewhat more a balanced mix and the digital files are predominately better, especially in colour in reflection to the number of prints being observed.

//Jan

[Chris101]

If you kosh someone in the noggin with a hefty flatbed, chances are it's gonna be lights out for a while. Hit someone with even a large DSLR and, it's gonna hurt, but they're probably not going down. But the strap does help with swinging it. I'll give the edge in a free for all to the scanner.

ps, for making digitized images, I have 2 dslrs and 2 scanners, so I guess they are evenly matched.

[Double Negative]

As far as 35mm, even my scanned negs give my Canon 1D Mark IIn and L lenses a run for their money. I'd say they're similar. The higher quality of the Zeiss glass offsets the lower resolution (8.2MP) of the DSLR. Those same Zeiss lenses on the M8 also look sharper. I don't know if it's the Zeiss glass being that good or the 1D Mark IIn's 8.2MP resolution getting a little long in the tooth these days (I believe it's a little of both).

Where I think DSLRs really move past film is full frame, 16-21MP bodies. Cameras like the Canon 1Ds and 5D and the Nikon D3 and D700. 35mm film starts to get a little constrained by this point. Factors like the grain of the film hamper getting more detail out of such a small format.

If you want to see DSLRs get spanked... Scan some 6x7 negatives! ;)

I still like film for many reasons though and will continue to shoot it. The aforementioned drawing of B&W film, for example, being one reason. But also the signature of all films, like Velvia, etc. Digital doesn't quite compare.

[pachuco]

At this point it is purely a personal choice for me. DSLR images obviously looks cleaner than a 35mm scanned negative but most of the time I do not want a perfect image. That's just the way I roll, I like my images like I like my women....a little on the dirty side :cool:

[WoolenMammoth]

I agree to a point, it can be hard to get good results, even with the best scanners, but as I have seen myself, being good at scanning can get you very good results, even with scanners costing under $2000 just as the photographer is as important to the picture as the camera.


//Jan

If we are talking resolution only here, being good at scanning doesnt enter into this, its just the mathematical limitation of the equipment in question.

[nightfly]

I look at film sort of like a saved Photoshop action. Encoded in the way I shoot and develop film is 90% of how I like my final print to look. Different types of film encode different looks, many of which I really like. Usually when a photo grabs me, it's about more than the content, there's also something of the look of it which draws me in. In most cases it's NOT the sharpness or resolution.

I'm sure someone talented in Photoshop could examine this "look" that I like and come up with adjustments to get digitally captured files to look like my film scans, however it seems like a moot point for me as I like what I'm producing.

However the entire process from capture to print is much more pleasurable to me with film cameras and film. Although enjoying using your tools can certainly leading to fetishing, a positive relationship, I can't help but think improves the work.

Film long ago passed paint as an accurate medium for producing likenesses yet people continue to paint. Go figure.

[nrb]

I shoot digital, Canon and Sony, but I still find solace in shooting bw negative film for the graphism of it and for the convenience small film cameras provide for street photography.

[elude]

In terms of resolution and noise, digital is way better. Color balancing mixed light sources is also much easier to do with raw digital files. And the latest cameras, like the Nikon D700, are amazing at high ISOs.

The reason to still shoot 35mm film is for the way B&W is rendered. You can get pleasing, good results from converting raw digital files (which are RGB) into greyscale files, but even the best technique still doesn't look "film-like". Although a few people, who print contrasty and dark, can fool you.... You can also get surprisingly pretty high resolution with slow film and Leica-quality lenses, and good technique (i.e. tripod).

Color 35mm film is used because you simply don't care to work with digital -- if we're talking image quality you might be able to do something competitive yet different with slow speed film and good drum scanner, but even a >$1000 consumer DSLR raw file will be at least competitive or better than the best scanned 35mm color film.

Commercially, a pro DSLR can be used where a pro used to use (need?) a medium-format camera.

a drum scanner won't do s*** on a 35mm film. for professional use a simple beloved file scanned by a Nikon Coolscan 5000 will do a far better job.

[dfoo]

^ You've confirmed that?

[kxl]

I love the smell of stop bath in the morning!:rolleyes:

I shoot 35mm B&W film, develop it, then scan using a Nikon LS-5000 scanner. For color, I use digital for the convenience, since I do not develop color negs myself.

So, to me, it's about enjoying the whole "wet" process. :D

Keith

[rogue_designer]

It seems to me, that 35mm film still has a slight edge in dynamic range.

But if its a pure matter of resolution - 35mm and the better digital sensors (APS-C and Full frame) are more than equal with the performance edge falling on the digital side.

The decision to use 35mm film then is one of a particular aesthetic, workflow and artistic choice...not a technical comparison of which is "better" whatever that would mean.

However, the quality parity dissolves into something else entirely once you start talking about medium and large format film. There it's workflow only. Any technical edge still falls heavily on film's side.

[RayPA]

Yes. The results from even the most basic flatbed scanner are still pretty impressive, but FF sensors and high ISO improvements have narrowed or closed the gap (Funny, I can deal with high ISO film grain, but high ISO digital noise just bugs the sh*t outta me). Still, it's a matter of preferences and situations (H4C). I prefer the latitude of film when shooting on the street, but it's tough to beat digital in a controlled environment, and (as it must on a grear-related forum) it also comes down gear. Film gear is still superior.


.

[TimSki]

Definitely, Ray, film gear is still superior.

[mcgrattan]

I like the look of film images. And I found, scanning some quite thin low-light HP5 negs recently, that I can get detail out of the mid-tones in very contrasty lighting, even with my V500, that I can't get with digital.

That said, my dSLR beats scanned colour film for colour accuracy, resolution and lack of noise pretty much every time.

I use film cameras because I like using them -- the ergonomics, etc -- and because proper black and white film still has the edge [particularly in MF] for a certain kind of look.

[Nikon Bob]

If you are talking scanned 35mm colour film compared to a FF DSLR file I would take the FF DSLR file. B&W might be different. Lets leave medium and large format film out of this unless you want to compare medium and large format digital backs to them.

Bob

[mcgrattan]

FWIW, I've used medium format and large format digital backs quite a bit. I've been very impressed. However, I've only used them or seen them used photographing inanimate objects in a studio environment. Not had the chance to try one outdoors.

[CLE-RF]

I'm a better shot with my D300 than I am with my Leicas, in terms of metering and focus. But I am driven by the fact that some people are better with a Leica like mine, than I am with the D300.

I want to be as good as that using a Leica.

Why not just shoot the D300? I want to use the Leica which I love for its build and handling (far more than the D300, although it's a truly remarkable camera!) and come up with shots that equal the quality. I won't rest until I'm there. And, I'm having a hell of a time getting there:)

[Michiel Fokkema]

Hi,
I have a Canon 40d and it is fast and sharp and all that.
But I like the results of my Leica glass on film much more. It gives me what I visualised. digital never does that. Maybe I should upgrade to digital ff but that will cost me an arm and legg again. Or maybe I should hone my PS skills.
same thing with he hasselblad.I get exactly what I was looking for.
And I like the whole process of film, especially the home development.
If I just could put the memory card in xtol:-)

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

[aad]

For my printing needs, they are equal. I prefer film cameras, though.

For ultimate comparison, you need to compare direct-view slide film, thorough a loupe/scope, to make a scientific comparison. Not that it means anything.

[astroman]

Aaw I don't know, Slide and good quality C41 frames from my Hasselblad look pretty damn tasty scanned when they come back from my lab scanned on an Imacon by a technician.

And the prints...Ah the prints..
//Jan

I agree with snip on this.High quality scans of MF fine grain film still have a hand up over pro DSLRs

[Al Kaplan]

With large format you also have the ability to use the swings and tilts, rising and falling and shifting front and back. They'd work as well with a digital back but how many of us could afford a 4 X 5 digital back? There are some things that you can accomplish with a commercial view camera that can't be done with any SLR or rangefinder camera, film or digital.

[Sparrow]

Don't know, don't care; but i often wonder why people respond to provocative posts. That is something worthy of deliberation.