View Full Version : Scans Versus 4/3 or NEX Pix: Can You See A Difference?
wgerrard
08-04-2010, 15:49
Here's the deal: I shoot with an RF and scan the negatives. I don't print. Let's assume that some amount of image quality degradation is an inevitable result of the scanning process. if I picked up a 4/3 or a NEX or something similar to use while traveling, would I get images on a par with the scans I'm doing now? (I use a CoolScan V ED.)
I like my RF's, and I like the lenses, but I keep thinking I'm putting myself through some unnecessary hassle, especially since the scanning means I'm not getting the best possible results from the hardware.
what type of film do you typically shoot?
wgerrard
08-04-2010, 16:23
Ektar, and a range of b&w films I process myself.
Steve M.
08-04-2010, 16:29
I agree, it seems a digital would suit your needs better if you're not printing your photos. The only fly in the ointment is your B&W will not look as good. There are a number of sites you can download a digital image from whatever camera you'd like to buy. Do that, and convert it to B&W, and see if you can live w/ that. If so, or if you're happy w/ mostly color, then a film camera doesn't seem to be a good fit for you.
It just depends on what you are after I suppose... resolution wise you'll get better IQ with the digital stuff if you are pixel peeping but what you are going to lose the most is in the crop factor (4/3 is a 2x crop and the NEX is a 1.5x). I personally love film for its dynamic range, but if IQ is what you are after the NEX line has better IQ and better noise control over the 4/3 stuff. I'd jump on a NEX-5 myself but I just dont like the menu/control layout and there isnt an EVF out yet... I'm waiting to see what the NEX-7 has for me.
wgerrard
08-04-2010, 16:40
Well, I never shoot b&w while traveling. That's all color.
One thing that makes me hesitate is my difficulty using an LCD screen versus a viewfinder. I've used a variety of cameras with LCD screens, including the Ricoh GX-200 i have now. For me, framing and composing is so much easier with a viewfinder. On the other hand, I've found the GX-200's EVF to be less than stellar in both low light and very bright light.
I have managed to convince myself that the lack of anything comparable to my 2.0. 1.5 and 1.2 lenses might be (maybe?) compensated for by high ISO's and stabilization software.
[EDIT: Goffer, What I'm really after is less stuff to carry around when I travel. Something like a GH1 with a kit lens is sorely tempting.]
You tell me
ISO 100 and 320 on Panasonic G1 with a CV 25mm snapshot (A very sharp lens)
I don't have a film comparison... But the finer detail on the 100% crop is pretty impressive with a 12mp m43 camera and sharp adapted lens.
Film may be finer grained.. don't know
ISO 320 w/ 100% crop
http://files.myopera.com/arbib/albums/814357/320LS-P1020180.tn.jpg
100%
http://files.myopera.com/arbib/albums/814357/800LS-P1020180-100persent%20crop--.tn.jpg
ISO 100 w/ 100% Crop
http://files.myopera.com/arbib/albums/814357/800LS-P1020201.tn.jpg
100%
http://files.myopera.com/arbib/albums/814357/800LS-P1020201-100percent%20crop--.tn.jpg
Well, I never shoot b&w while traveling. That's all color.
One thing that makes me hesitate is my difficulty using an LCD screen versus a viewfinder. I've used a variety of cameras with LCD screens, including the Ricoh GX-200 i have now. For me, framing and composing is so much easier with a viewfinder. On the other hand, I've found the GX-200's EVF to be less than stellar in both low light and very bright light.
I have managed to convince myself that the lack of anything comparable to my 2.0. 1.5 and 1.2 lenses might be (maybe?) compensated for by high ISO's and stabilization software.
[EDIT: Goffer, What I'm really after is less stuff to carry around when I travel. Something like a GH1 with a kit lens is sorely tempting.]
I'd look at the EP-1 or 2 with the new EVF... supposedly it's quite something. Fast glass could be compensatable if you dont need DOF.
Here's the deal: I shoot with an RF and scan the negatives. I don't print.
If you don't print you need 3-4MP digital camera. Sorry about this ;)
Let's start again.
If you don't print, maybe you don't need film camera. I use 35mm film because it forces me to make prints. When i bought my first digital camera, my daughter was a baby. I was making photos, but no prints. After 6 months, whole family started to ask for prints from their newborn family member. Than i went back to film and never turn back. This is just my experience. It is not about technical comparison.
P.S. Also i can't simulate film look on digital.
sc_rufctr
08-04-2010, 17:16
GDI
The film scans look "better" to my eye.
It's hard to describe but somehow they look "warmer" , easier to look at.
(Hope that makes sense)
GDI
The film scans look "better" to my eye.
It's hard to describe but somehow they look "warmer" , easier to look at.
(Hope that makes sense)
I agree, even though the film shots are taken with a relatively low res/contrast lens. Digital falls short in my view for B&W when compared with trad B&W film; of course others feel differently.
...I use a CoolScan V ED...
Regarding your question you will get "something else" - not better and not worse. I have used loads of digital cameras and software to match. I still prefer the scanned pictures from my film cameras though.
Does it mean I use film cameras a lot? No, hardly ever actually. It is so much easier to shoot with digital (albeit whether it is cheaper is debatable if you - like many shooters - change cameras often) and you can backup. Something you cannot do with film until after the roll has been processed.
Are you using VueScan on your scanner? The guy behind is amazing. I do not even use his software and the output from my old Minolta scanner (far less advanced than yours) is good enough to me. But it is worth a free trial download.
If you consider buying into mirrorless? Then wait. To me the m4/3 cameras are heavily overpriced at the moment. Probably Photokina will bring out more competition and the prices will slowly fall quite a bit. Whatever you buy consider something where you can use your current lenses.
And, more than ever, I think it good advice to try out the cameras in your hands. Apart from the Ricoh GXR (quite pricey) none of them are very good handling wise. The GF1 (to my hands) is almost passable. Then PENs not. The bigger Panasonics definitely not - your hands may wary ;) The Samsung NX I do not like. The Nex 5 is okay, so-so.
In this size segment I have settled for Sigmas (DP1 and DP2). Those are cameras that will make you curse them at short intervals. Often you will head back resolved to sell them (if possible) and otherwise throw them into the rubbish bin, pour something inflammable unto them and rejoice while they burn. And then you see the pictures and forget. The output is almost film like.
Good luck hunting.
I got a Lumix G1 4/3 after shooting film for forty years; I can state with certainty that the image IQ is inferior to any scanned 35mm film (shot properly) when you want excellent prints of 10" (long side). The major issue is the small sensor. It is also vastly inferior with the use of, say, the VC 15mm. I've shot it with Summilux lenses and they perform well, but far too long for average work (for me), and it remains that the IQ is inferior due to the small sensor.
So, to my fresh eyes 4/3 just sucks. It looks just plain bad.
Your Eyes and Mind May Vary.
Those color G1 pictures-I think the scans from my SD IV are a lot better. Enough to outweigh the convenience/ Not sure...
wgerrard
08-05-2010, 04:52
Thanks everyone for the comments. I hope we can keep the focus on mirrorless versus scanned film, rather than the dead horse of film versus digital. When folks post images here to illustrate film vs. digital differences, I have to admit I usually can't see a difference.
The fact is, as I see it, that a scan is is a digital image. Every photo posted anywhere on the web is a digital image. Has to be.
I use RF film cameras because I like the cameras and their lenses, not so much because I'm a film fanatic. And, I like to travel with as little "stuff" as possible. Right now, that's a smallish bag with one RF and three lenses. I only use the bag when I travel, and after even a week I'm complaining about lugging the thing. So, since I don't, and almost certainly won't, print, I'm looking at this issue and wondering if I'd be happier traveling with a mirrorless camera and a kit lens. The convenience factor is important here.
Xpanded brought up the subject of handling, and how comfortable a camera is to use. I agree. I'm 6'4" with reasonably large hands and have found many smallish cameras to be difficult to use. It's like the buttons were made for people half my size.
I'm not looking to buy immediately, if I do buy. But, I have a trip coming up in late September. If something new hits the market before then, I'll certainly take a close look.
(In reading this, I sound very much like someone who has already decided to buy a mirrorless and a kit lens, but hasn't seen any that say "Buy Me!". Hmmm...)
Benjamin Marks
08-05-2010, 05:25
Bill: I'd like to offer a different point of view. It seems to me there are two major things you change when you move from 35mm (or some larger format) to a chip with smaller-than-35 surface area (either m4/3 or a 1.3 crop). The first is the behavior of your lenses, which will be cropped. This will affect near-far relationships in your pictures if you keep the same FOV (e.g. a 20mm lens for your old 35, or using your old 35 or taking six steps back to preserve your framing). The second is the response of your medium. Film has its characteristic curve, sensitivity drops off gradually, but you may have to deal with reciprocity; digital is linear (either responds or doesn't) and has no reciprocity problem/features. If you are used to using slide film, you may find these digital qualities less annoying than I do. I "grew up" on Tri-X and got spoiled by its latitude. I am assuming that you are an accomplished enough scanner that you can get your full dynamic range out of scanned film.
When I started using a Nikon D3, I felt that I finally had found a camera where the IQ, particularly at high ISOs was consistently better than what I could achieve with film. For me, this translates into more flexibility, less expense and hassle. With the smaller chips in 1.3 crop and m4/3 cameras, you give back some of these gains in IQ. How much? I can't quantify it in a useful way. I'd say that IQ from my EP-2 at ISO 800 is a little better than Delta 1600 pulled to 800; but I happen to like the look of the Delta much better and have been unwilling so far to try to duplicate that look in conversion of the EP-2's RAW files. It probably could be done with an AlienSkin type BW conversation plug-in. I think xpanded has it right: you will get something different.
If you have a film-to-digital workflow, then you really have to manage backwards from the IQ possible (and associated problems) on monitors and in the venues you want to see your images. One way of thinking about this is: What is the lowest level of image quality you are willing to live with?
Ahh, what the hell. Just get the camera.
Ben Marks
I think it all depends what you are after. To my eye most digital captures looks somewhat live-less (sterile could be a better word). Color can often look very dandy. In other words - the look is very different.
Concerning the resolution digital is superior to film in any given format (like 35mm film versus FX cameras and so on). But the question is what you need. (I use MF film when I want larger prints, or even 4x5)
Still - if you do not have some particular lenses for your film cameras (which will change their angle of view when mounted on small sensor cameras) or if you do not have some favorite technique (BW or color) that gives you just the look you like - you might be better off with a digital camera. Now - whether the cameras that are currently on the market will fulfill your expectations is something you have to figure out. If there is no such one - just keep shooting film and get digital once you can get what you want.
wgerrard
08-05-2010, 05:41
What is the lowest level of image quality you are willing to live with?
Ben Marks
If I'm honest, it's lower than I'd like to admit. Maybe it's my eyes.
Because I don't print, I don't have complete control of how my images are going to look to someone else. Example: I work on a Mac. The first time I saw my images on someone else's screen (a Toshiba laptop running Windows) I thought I was looking at them through a dirty window. On the other hand, things looked just fine to the laptop's owner.
I don't bother synching my monitor because of that: Who knows what kind of screen the images be seen on.
I bought an enlarger last year, but can't get psyched to use it. (Creating the necessary darkness is a real logistics problem for me, as well.) The folks I want to see my pictures don't want prints. They want files on laptops and phones and Flickr.
wgerrard
08-05-2010, 05:47
I think it all depends what you are after. To my eye most digital captures looks somewhat live-less (sterile could be a better word). Color can often look very dandy. In other words - the look is very different.
Matus, I'm wondering about using a mirrorless for travel, not necessarily to replace the cameras I use now. For that purpose, convenience is important to me, and takes precedence over subtle differences in images. In any case, at least for me, the differences between scanned color film and a digital shot are pretty much a wash. Other people seem to notice much greater differences on screen than I do.
Thanks everyone for the comments. I hope we can keep the focus on mirrorless versus scanned film, rather than the dead horse of film versus digital. When folks post images here to illustrate film vs. digital differences, I have to admit I usually can't see a difference.
The fact is, as I see it, that a scan is is a digital image. Every photo posted anywhere on the web is a digital image. Has to be.
I use RF film cameras because I like the cameras and their lenses, not so much because I'm a film fanatic. And, I like to travel with as little "stuff" as possible. Right now, that's a smallish bag with one RF and three lenses. I only use the bag when I travel, and after even a week I'm complaining about lugging the thing. So, since I don't, and almost certainly won't, print, I'm looking at this issue and wondering if I'd be happier traveling with a mirrorless camera and a kit lens. The convenience factor is important here.
Xpanded brought up the subject of handling, and how comfortable a camera is to use. I agree. I'm 6'4" with reasonably large hands and have found many smallish cameras to be difficult to use. It's like the buttons were made for people half my size.
I'm not looking to buy immediately, if I do buy. But, I have a trip coming up in late September. If something new hits the market before then, I'll certainly take a close look.
(In reading this, I sound very much like someone who has already decided to buy a mirrorless and a kit lens, but hasn't seen any that say "Buy Me!". Hmmm...)
Humm, I don't think anyone intended to turn this into a film vs digital debate (I know I didn't). Yes, of course everything on the web was digitized at some point; but wasn't your question whether you will get the same thing if you shoot with a digital camera versus a film camera and scanned it on your Coolscan?
If that is correct, then the answer is no. But does it matter to you? If, as you say, you never print, don't calibrate your monitor, and don't have particularly high quality requirements, then I think you are making the right decision to go digital. It is so much easier, quicker and cleaner.
Good luck choosing the right camera for you (I actually think the new 4/3rds give very good results).
Film has its characteristic curve, sensitivity drops off gradually, but you may have to deal with reciprocity; digital is linear (either responds or doesn't) and has no reciprocity problem/features.
If you have a film-to-digital workflow, then you really have to manage backwards from the IQ possible (and associated problems) on monitors and in the venues you want to see your images. One way of thinking about this is: What is the lowest level of image quality you are willing to live with?
Ahh, what the hell. Just get the camera.
Ben Marks[/quote]
Hi Ben;
You are the first post I've found on this site that has some understanding of sensors. I suggest you give Fuji Acros 100 a try. Look at the Reciprocity Failure for this film. It's not infinite but it's very good and a change from past emulsions. I work in both digital and film worlds. I tend to work backward when picking a format and "photon-reaction storage device" .. FX, DX, Film. Is it web use, print (if print how big), for my use (I'll almost always use film) or is a client going to pay for a lot of post on the project (could the camera be destroyed). Long live film scanners. If you haven't tried a Creo Wet scan, you're in for a treat. p.
Benjamin Marks
08-05-2010, 09:48
Hi Ben;
You are the first post I've found on this site that has some understanding of sensors. I suggest you give Fuji Acros 100 a try. Look at the Reciprocity Failure for this film. It's not infinite but it's very good and a change from past emulsions. I work in both digital and film worlds. I tend to work backward when picking a format and "photon storage device" .. FX, DX, Film. Is it web use, print (if print how big), for my use (I'll almost always use film) or is a client going to pay for a lot of post on the project. Long live film scanners. If you haven't tried a Creo Wet scan, you're in for a treat. p.
TMax100 also has a less-than-scary reciprocity curve. In fact, for long exposures it is "faster" than Tri-X. So I was generalizing. For general use, even with film, reciprocity won't be much of a factor. I guess what I was trying to say was that when you choose your medium, you choose its limitations. So, as I think your post states quite nicely, the answer to the question of "which fits my needs film or digital?" depends as much on how you feel about the mediums' limitations as their strengths.
I was looking at some portraits I did earlier this year with Kodak CN400 and an M5 and then scanned with a Nikon 4000 . . . I was really pleased with the look, even in a web-sized image I could identify the differences. Was the IQ "better" than the D3 would have produced? I don't think so, by any objective measure (sharpness, graininess, motion blur introduced because of the film's modest speed compared to the D3's high ISO performance). But the portraits worked and had a certain something that was very pleasing. Reproducing those effects with digital may have been possible, but would have been a lot of work. With film + scanner, they were just _there_.
The OP's question can be unpacked into many parts. In general, I think that the masses have chosen. But anyone who is getting consistently satisfying results with conventional film has a familiarity with his medium and a set of skills worth keeping sharp.
Ben Marks
shadowfox
08-05-2010, 09:55
To me it's quite simple.
I use film because a) I like to use vintage manual cameras, and b) I like darkroom printing.
Otherwise my E-P2 is enough for me.
Years ago one of the Nikon reps told me the lens designers were upset that film hadn't kept up with the lens resolution in their lenses.
I think if you're creative, and know your stuff, you (intelligently) pick the correct tool for the project. If you get the "look" you want you are a master of your craft. p.
To me it's quite simple.
I use film because a) I like to use vintage manual cameras, and b) I like darkroom printing.
Otherwise my E-P2 is enough for me.
There is much in your approach I envy. p.
I have made 16x20 prints from my E-P1 using cv 12mm and 21mm lenses. I would say the results are very similar to the work I have done with my Hexar AF with 400ISO color film.
wgerrard
08-05-2010, 13:44
Humm, I don't think anyone intended to turn this into a film vs digital debate (I know I didn't).
I didn't mean to suggest anyone was trying to to start that debate, something that happens often here, but to try to keep the thread on topic: the tradeoffs between using a m4/3 or similar camera while traveling versus my current RF/film/scanning routine.
No one here has said a large difference in quality exists between m4/3 images and scanned filmed images, which is interesting. Some have said they see a more subjective difference between digital images and film images after scanning. I'm inclined to think so many variables exist that a comparison between images from any single digital camera and images from a single brand of film scanned on a single kind of scanner is pretty meaningless.
The point about the web is, I think, important. As I mentioned, I don't print largely for reasons of lack of interest and inconvenience, but no one has ever asked for a print. What they ask is: "Where did you post it?". They don't want me to bundle up a stack of paper pictures and ship it to them. They want a URL.
All which makes me wonder, every so often, why I don't take the easy way out.
Again, I think it depends on the final use (output). If you have a digital camera, you can email images as you travel. 4/3 cameras, are a great format. I like the models without the mirror box. Most of the better digital SLR cameras are on the big side. You have to be able to charge batteries with a digital camera. If it were me, I would pack my film camera and take a small P&S digital. I have a Nikon P6000, that will allow file upload with out a computer. It has a RJ45 port on the camera. I just like to travel light. I don't like packing a lot of unnecessary stuff. p.
On the question of scanning v. digital:
1) For color, use digital.
2) For B&W - how are your traditional darkroom skills? How are your "digital darkroom" skills?
The only reason I even develop B&W in a "wet darkroom" is nostalgia. I still enjoy the workflow. If I didn't, I'd shoot digital exclusively.
On the question of a travel camera, the relevant question: Is an EVF an absolute MUST? If YES, then your want the E-P2. If NO, then I think the advatange of the NEX5 (bigger sensor) is more appealing.
I went though the same thought process, and decided that, for me, a larger sensor was more important than an EVF. I am now having LOTS of fun with my NEX5, and seriously considering using it (along with my ZI) INSTEAD of my DSLR on my upcoming trip to Costa Rica.
Supposedly there is an EVF for the NEX line that is in the works.
wgerrard
08-05-2010, 16:12
Is an EVF an absolute MUST? If YES, then your want the E-P2.
The EVF, for me. Much more comfortable to use. I'm reading good things about the E-P2's EVF. The Sigma-DP2 also offers an optical VF, but that seems very much a love-hate camera.
douglasf13
08-05-2010, 17:37
The great thing about the NEX is the manner in which the screen tilts up 80 degrees. It is like a waistlevel view finder, and it allows you to press the camera against your chest for stability, and it also doesn't draw attention by being up against your face. IMO, it is one of the main reasons to buy the camera (although I do hope an EVF is offered.) It's like a stealth mini-Rollei.
Bill:
Some people seem to be reaching conclusions on "film-is-better-then-digital" from your two sets of pictures, which look like knee-jerk reactions to me. Those two sets of pictures are so differently lit, and so different in tonality, that they are not at all comparable. You could have processed the digital ones in Silver Efex Pro and easily achieved the tonality of the film set, which, to be frank, is not exceptional.
You mentioned that you don't like composing on the LCD. My feeling is the oppsosite: I much prefer to compose using Live View on the LCD. I used to like the Leica-M viewfinder because one sees what is outside the frame, but the way I use the LCD on the Ricoh GXR/A12 and the GRD3 that I now use, I like better: I use the LCD only to establish, roughly, the edges of the frame and then look directly at the subject when pressing the shutter. This, for me, leads to a looser, or more fluid, shooting style that I value, particularly for street photography.
My advice is to try using Live View for a while without any preconceptions of a viewfinder beeing better. Indeed, when I bought my first Ricoh GRD, I placed my VC28 viewfinder on it, but ended up not using it even once.
Here are two digital pictures followed by a film one. I like them all.
Bangkok | Ricoh GXR/A12 | 50mm EFOV | ISO 1600 | f/2.5 | 1/320 sec
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4054/4353705622_51d42c779a_o.jpg
Pak Nam Pran | Ricoh GXR/A12 | 50mm EFOV | ISO 200 | f/8.0 | 1/320 sec
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2786/4269062058_6e6fff731d_o.jpg
Manila | Ricoh GRD3 | 28mm EFOV | ISO 400 | f/1.9 | 1/55 sec
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3480/4049578053_04b65e11b4_o.jpg
Bangkok | Ricoh GRD3 | 21mm wide-converter | ISO 1600 | f/1.9 | 1/25 sec
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2794/4121328308_4820649904_o.jpg
Bangkok | Leica M6 | Elmarit-21 ASPH | Tri-X | ISO 200 | f/5.6
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/221/535777175_688fb35c40_o.jpg
—Mitch/Bangkok
Bangkok Hysteria Book Project (B&W)
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/malland/sets/72157613189560804/show/)Shophouse Demoliton (color) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/malland/sets/72157624633044066/show/)
Bill:
Some people seem to be reaching conclusions on "film-is-better-then-digital" from your two sets of pictures, which look like knee-jerk reactions to me. Those two sets of pictures are so differently lit, and so different in tonality, that they are not at all comparable.
I think he knee jerk reaction is to assume that anyone tried to prove film is better than digital. I read the whole thread and see nothing of the sort. But, there is a surprising sensitivity here to people expressing their opinions or offering examples.
I posted the sample set ( same lighting, BTW - it is the exposures that are different) simply in an effort to provide some perspective on a micro 4/3s camera and the ability to get similar results to a Nikon scan.
You could have processed the digital ones in Silver Efex Pro and easily achieved the tonality of the film set, which, to be frank, is not exceptional.
Not to fall prey to your "digital with Silver Efex is better than film" argument - but I would have to say that. IME, when it comes to DR, most digitals (even high end ones, not just P&S) can't approach a well exposed B&W film shot with a single exposure - even when it has been passed through an A/D converter during scanning. No amount of software processing can recover detail that was never captured and this affects overall tonality
The lost detail in the shadows and blown-out highlights of your second shot is a good example of this. The lower contrast digital shots do look good, though I imagine some of the FPN could be distracting in enlargements.
But, back on topic, I think it is apparent Bill has reached his conclusion (which I can agree with) - a 4/3 cam will do what he needs. It makes sense to me - drop the hassle of film if it is not needed for your purposes. He just needs to find one that works for him. I think he would well advised to try out both EVF and LCD models, a lot of people do not like the LCD ergonomics - it is a personal thing with no right approach.
...The lost detail in the shadows and blown-out highlights of your second shot is a good example of this. The lower contrast digital shots do look good, though I imagine some of the FPN could be distracting in enlargements...The loss of detail in the shadows and blown highlights in the second shot are intential in the processing to reflect the brightmess and heat. Actually, something similar is happening in the Tri-X shot. I tried to show a range of digital shots.
...Not to fall prey to your "digital with Silver Efex is better than film" argument - but I would have to say that. IME, when it comes to DR, most digitals ...I never made such an argument: I merely said that that the tonality of that particular film set , which seems to have disappeared, could have been easily achieved by Silver Efex. Why is your nose so much out of joint, it's only a discussion?
What is FPN?
—Mitch/Bangkok
Shophouse Demolition (http://www.flickr.com/photos/malland/sets/72157624633044066/show/)
Jim Simmons
08-06-2010, 03:38
I have the Olympus E-PL1, which I use with a 25mm CV Snapshot and a 40mm Leica Summicron. They are both good lenses, although the 25mm is quite soft wide open at f/4 and stopped down to f/22. It is soft in the corners at all apertures. For this reason, it does not meet my standards for sharpness on micro 4/3, although it is a very sharp lens when shooting film. The Summicron is slightly soft and desatured wide open at F/2 but sharp all the across the image at all other stops. These results come from properly shot tests on a tripod. For handheld shooting at slowish shutter speeds, these sharpness results don't matter. I'd like to replace the 25mm f/4 lens with the 20mm f/1.7 Panasonic though.
I shoot both 35mm film and digital micro 4/3 for travel shots, but medium and large format professionally. I think that for someone who does not print and shares their work primarily online, digital is the natural way to go.
Nikon Bob
08-06-2010, 04:12
I think your idea of going digital for travel and web posting is a good way to cut down on time spent processing from film to digital. Check out images taken with a 4/3 camera on the web to see if it will meet your needs IQ wise or go to a store and try one out with your own card, then check at home. I am like you in that I am you height and have big mitts and I also like a VF for framing. I tried an EP-2 with the EVF yesterday and came to two conclusions. I think it is too small to be comfortable in my hands, that is why you should actually try one out for yourself. Lastly, the EVF is good enough for me to use and far better than what was out 4 years ago when I got a Panasonic for my wife. The tilting feature of the Oly's EVF would be very useful. I have no doubt that the 4/3 files would be good enough for web use and 8x10 prints as my old Oly C5050 was at half the MP count.
Bob
wgerrard
08-06-2010, 06:47
Just to be clear, I wasn't intending to chastise anyone, knee-jerkingly or otherwise, but only to try to contain the discussion within its intended boundaries, which is rather narrow: Am I likely to notice a difference between my scanned film travel images and travel images from a m4/3 or similar camera? The context of that question was camera use while traveling, because I'm tired of lugging a camera bag around on those occasions, even if it is a bag with an RF inside. The inherent qualities of film and digital aren't at issue. So, apologies if anyone took offense.
It seems the differences aren't nearly enough to warrant hassling with the bag. I'm not after perfect shots. I'm after not needing to put up with a camera bag while I'm trying to enjoy myself. That's an easy tradeoff for me, especially since I make no forays into printing.
EVF vs LCD: I have a bad habit of trying to frame too precisely, so that's one, undeserved, strike against the LCD. I also find keeping the camera steady is more difficult with the LCD.
What I've ordered: A Sigma DP2s. It's a bit controversial, but I had a chance to handle a DP2 some time ago and came away reasonably pleased. I've read a bunch of reviews and discussions, including a very useful thread xpanded started here. For my typical use, the camera's downsides ought not to be much of an issue. E.g., most things I shoot are inanimate, so they can wait out a slow AF. The reported easy-to-use manual focus is on the plus side for me. Got the Sigma VF, but promise to make a sincere effort with the LCD. Also, ahem, bought 2 extra batteries. (Anyone know if the Sigma DSLR's also gobble batteries? I'm wondering if the Foveon sensor both lines use is the culprit.)
What I've ordered: A Sigma DP2s. It's a bit controversial,
Oh, oh... :eek:
Seriously - if not already bought - you need to buy four more things:
1) the hood - it makes handling it so nice
2) the Franiec grip - it makes handling it possible
3) a good strap (like a Gotcha) and
4) a few hundred more batteries :bang:
I am looking very much forward to hearing how you find the battery life of the s-model. From what I gather it is better (and probably by far) than the non-s version.
I hope you will like it - and since you come from an RF I think you will - and that you will not pour kerosene over it any day soon.
Cheers,
Xpanded
wgerrard
08-06-2010, 15:16
Oh, oh... :eek:
Seriously - if not already bought - you need to buy four more things:
1) the hood - it makes handling it so nice
2) the Franiec grip - it makes handling it possible
3) a good strap (like a Gotcha) and
4) a few hundred more batteries :bang:
I've bookmarked the Franiec site, but I want to play with the camera for a bit. Ditto with the hood. Can't live without a strap; I'll try a local store first since they have a decent selection of that sort of thing.
Three batteries ought to do the trick, I hope. I'm a rather deliberate shooter, film or digital. Even if I'm out all day trying to take pictures, it's rare for me to run through more than two rolls of 36.
Ordered it from BH. Should arrive Monday.
arthur sadowsky
08-06-2010, 15:54
...if, as you say, you never print, don't calibrate your monitor, and don't have particularly high quality requirements, then I think you are making the right decision to go digital...
Very well put together! All these are very good points...
wgerrard
08-06-2010, 19:26
It occurs to me that one unsung advantage of using a small digital for travel, where convenience takes precedence over quality, is that you don't need to take up space with rolls of film. That may sound both obvious and silly. But, for someone like me who routinely takes only a carryon, the space in that bag taken by a couple large Ziplocs of film can happily be replaced by, say, a couple shirts.
Three batteries ought to do the trick, I hope.
The batteries run flat quickly - in a couple of days - if left in the camera. I wonder if it is the same as with the original Nikon D70 that as far as I know always drew a little bit on the batteries which made it possible to start quite fast. Only, the DP-series does not start that fast...
If you walk with the camera turned on (in my camera - I write this, because apparently there are some differences on battery drain between cameras of the same kind - say DP2) a battery lasts between 60 and 90 minutes. As stated elsewhere the DP2s should be (somewhat) better. On the upside (I guess) there seems to be little to no difference depending on the weather. It does not matter if it is cold outside or blazing sun. The batteries just don't last very long :(
If you make it a habit of turning on/off every time you shoot, then it will last longer. I often do that, but it is not optimal. Partly there is mechanical wear and tear on the lens moving in and out and partly there is a risk of the movements sucking in dust. I had this happening with a Ricoh GRD.
That, at least, is one of the advantages of the mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses - you can clean the sensor.
You may want to buy a little external harddisk with cardreader that will allow you to backup your pictures while traveling. It is smaller than a six-pack of films (if you have laptop that is of course also an option).
I think you made the right call buying the original external viewfinder. I got stingy and bought a used Voigtländer 50mm, which is a little too tight. It also did not fit the hot shoe very well. Actually I ended up swapping hot shoes between the DP2 and another camera. The Voigtländer is literally brilliant though.
I really hope that you will come to like the output of the DP2. I am constantly surprised as to how much "extra" the SPP program included can pull from the pictures if shooting raw. The program is quite slow, though, so slow that you will eventually start thinking that the program might have crashed. It most likely didn't.
Also I have found that there is no need (at least for my kind of shooting and yours does not seem that different) for fast cards in the cameras [unlike in the DP1].
Just out of curiosity - sorry if I missed it - what kind of rangefinder film equipment do you use?
...Xpanded
wgerrard
08-07-2010, 04:48
The batteries run flat quickly - in a couple of days - if left in the camera... If you walk with the camera turned on (in my camera - I write this, because apparently there are some differences on battery drain between cameras of the same kind - say DP2) a battery lasts between 60 and 90 minutes.
Well, that's not encouraging. I'll be sure to test mine ASAP.
It can't be difficult to locate the cause of a constant battery drain, if that's the problem. Fixing it, of course, is a different matter.
I think you made the right call buying the original external viewfinder. I got stingy and bought a used Voigtländer 50mm, which is a little too tight. It also did not fit the hot shoe very well. Actually I ended up swapping hot shoes between the DP2 and another camera. The Voigtländer is literally brilliant though.
Fear of a bad fit is the reason I sprung for the Sigma VF.
Just out of curiosity - sorry if I missed it - what kind of rangefinder film equipment do you use?
...Xpanded
An M2 and a Bessa R4M, plus an Oly OM-2N. I never wear the camera bag locally. I may use it to carry stuff in the car, but it's never draped over my shoulder when I'm out and about. When I travel, I typically spend 8-10 hours each day on my feet, carrying the bag. After 4-5 days, it begins to get annoying and uncomfortable.
I've found that messing around with the camera, the lenses, the bag and such tends to distract me from just enjoying the place I traveled to. I.e., I'm focused on looking for the next picture and thinking about lens choice, exposure, etc., to the detriment of just relaxing and having a good time. I know I've occasionally spent considerable time in particular locations because they promised to be photogenic, but later realized that, pictures or no, I'd rather have been somewhere else. I want to dial all that back a notch.
I've found that messing around with the camera, the lenses, the bag and such tends to distract me from just enjoying the place I traveled to. I.e., I'm focused on looking for the next picture and thinking about lens choice, exposure, etc., to the detriment of just relaxing and having a good time. I know I've occasionally spent considerable time in particular locations because they promised to be photogenic, but later realized that, pictures or no, I'd rather have been somewhere else. I want to dial all that back a notch.
Same here, Bill.
In fact, on my last trip to California where I visited Morro Bay, Death Valley and other photogenic places, I took no camera at all and had a great time with my friend. Next time, though I will take my camera and as you say, just "dial all that back a notch."
Mark
4/3 cannot approach scanned 35mm for IQ.
But if you cannot see, or appreciate the difference, then go with 4/3 and be happy.
End of subject, methinks.
wgerrard
08-07-2010, 11:36
4/3 cannot approach scanned 35mm for IQ.
But if you cannot see, or appreciate the difference, then go with 4/3 and be happy.
End of subject, methinks.
Pico, the context here is not wanting to carry an RF and lenses while traveling. Perhaps I should have phrased my original post a bit differently, something like, "Does the convenience of traveling with an m4/3 or similar camera make up for the potential loss of image quality compared with scanned 35mm film?".
After all, if image quality was the sole criterion, none of us would be using 35m cameras. Frankly, an RF is the largest camera I'd every consider traveling with. I had a Canon DSLR once, with a few lenses. No way i would have walked around all day with that stuff hanging off my shoulder. I like to enjoy my travel, not nurse a sore shoulder.
I had a Canon DSLR once, with a few lenses. No way i would have walked around all day with that stuff hanging off my shoulder. I like to enjoy my travel, not nurse a sore shoulder.
You know, another other option is to simply pack less. For example, take the SLR with only one lens (and I don't mean a big honking 28-200 either). I've travelled on business with an SLR and nothing but a fast 50 on many occasions (usually my MX as size does matter some). I usually don't even pack it--I sling it on my Black Rapid and it didn't even count as carry-on.
The same philosophy applies to RFs too. There's no need to take all your lenses. Just take one.
I find it to be a good creative exercise to work within a limited kit as well. Another advantage is this doesn't cost you a cent.
-- C
vidgamer
08-15-2010, 00:36
Bill:
...
You mentioned that you don't like composing on the LCD. My feeling is the oppsosite: I much prefer to compose using Live View on the LCD. I used to like the Leica-M viewfinder because one sees what is outside the frame, but the way I use the LCD on the Ricoh GXR/A12 and the GRD3 that I now use, I like better: I use the LCD only to establish, roughly, the edges of the frame and then look directly at the subject when pressing the shutter. This, for me, leads to a looser, or more fluid, shooting style that I value, particularly for street photography.
My advice is to try using Live View for a while without any preconceptions of a viewfinder beeing better. Indeed, when I bought my first Ricoh GRD, I placed my VC28 viewfinder on it, but ended up not using it even once.
...
Seems a bit controversial! In the bright sun it's hard to see details (on my Nex), so I do more like you suggest and just try to get the framing on the LCD. Most of the time I'm fine with the LCD, but I'm a bit undecided as to which is better (that or vf). I guess I like the LCD live view just fine, except for direct sun.
I'm actually finding it easy to manually focus with the LCD (although you have to use the zoom assist if you need to be precise).
kevinparis
08-15-2010, 03:58
No idea what you have done here - but those are the noisiest ISO 100 and 320 shots I have ever seen. Not a typical example of files from a micro 4/3 camera
K
You tell me
ISO 100 and 320 on Panasonic G1 with a CV 25mm snapshot (A very sharp lens)
I don't have a film comparison... But the finer detail on the 100% crop is pretty impressive with a 12mp m43 camera and sharp adapted lens.
Film may be finer grained.. don't know
ISO 320 w/ 100% crop
http://files.myopera.com/arbib/albums/814357/320LS-P1020180.tn.jpg
100%
http://files.myopera.com/arbib/albums/814357/800LS-P1020180-100persent%20crop--.tn.jpg
ISO 100 w/ 100% Crop
http://files.myopera.com/arbib/albums/814357/800LS-P1020201.tn.jpg
100%
http://files.myopera.com/arbib/albums/814357/800LS-P1020201-100percent%20crop--.tn.jpg
wgerrard
08-15-2010, 04:42
Seems a bit controversial!...
I'm actually finding it easy to manually focus with the LCD (although you have to use the zoom assist if you need to be precise).
Eyesight, I think, plays here. I wear glasses with progressive lenses. There is a small and specific range of distance from my eyes in which I can focus on an LCD's image. Hold the LCD too far away or too close and I can't see it clearly enough to be useful. Holding the camera within the required range is awkward and unpleasant for me.
Now, if I remove my glasses and hold the LCD within an inch or so of my eye, that's fine. But, then, it's just a big viewfinder.
And, of course, if a do take my glasses off, I can't see what I'm trying to shoot.
Those of you who haven't yet had to deal with such issues, remember, everything is downhill after 23. :)
No idea what you have done here - but those are the noisiest ISO 100 and 320 shots I have ever seen. Not a typical example of files from a micro 4/3 camera
K
not sure where you coming from...
But, both 100% crops represent about a 250 foot distance from the camera. Plus, I don't use noise reduction to "eliminate" noise...May be tone it down. But for samples IQ shots.. I Never Use NR. So you can see what the lens can produce in the detail available, before NR applied destroys some of it. And considering the detail of the decorative wood above the patio on the 2nd 100% crop, It's pretty good, I don't think you could see that kind of detail -- just looking at -- from about 250 feet away.
Now, I do use NR on images to only reduce the grain a little, much more than that, and the image losses the quality of OOF areas and Sharp edges that expensive lens in known for, and to much NR smears finer detail from that fine lens can produce. GRAIN IS OK.....And on stuff that is not "Test Samples" I will use it in moderation.
Too Many Young photographers have no idea that a certain amount grain can ADD to impact.. of some images...
All they want is Noise-Less ISO 6400 and under.... Sheeeesh.... Get real man!
If, you should use a 400 film, do you really expect it to be "Grain Free" ?? Or ISO 800-1600 Film?? Would you "Eliminate" the grain, thinking "any grain" is bad? Even if it destroyed all your fine detail and sharp edges??
Rant Over...
Please show me some of your m/43 images of a similar subject and with a 100% crop, with a 3rd party lens and NO NOISE REDUCTION used (to be fair), of 100 and 320 ISO... NR in camera is OFF like mine was. I was using a 25mm lens made for a Leica SM camera.
kevinparis
08-15-2010, 23:30
as an almost 52 year old who has shot film over the past 35 years I am mildly amused to be thought of as a young photographer :-)
Noiseless 6400 ISO will happen at some point and probably pretty soon
I will check my cameras to see what setting I have regarding NR and maybe do some comparison shots to see what results I get - though maybe not today as it is very dark and wet here in Belgium.
peace
Kevin
kevinparis
08-16-2010, 09:29
OK - struggling with this forums odd rules about up loading pictures
But I took my E-p1, turned off everything i could relating to noise reduction, Put on a OM 24/2 and focused on the wall across my very rainy courtyard.
Took the raw files into Aperture, made sure the Noise slider in the raw convert was fully off and then made a crop and exported at 100%
these are at 200, 400 and 800 ISO
bottom line is my shots look nowhere as noisy as the poster DNG's did
cheers K
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.