How do modern digital SLRs compare against 35mm cameras?

[Arkitech]

I have a Rebel 2000 EOS and I'm curious how it stacks up against modern digital SLRs. Anyone know of any sites that goes into an in depth comparison of digital pics vs film pics?

 

[996GT2]

I have a Rebel 2000 EOS and I'm curious how it stacks up against modern digital SLRs. Anyone know of any sites that goes into an in depth comparison of digital pics vs film pics?

In what sense? The Rebel 2000 is a pretty basic entry level film SLR, so it can't really compete in features or build quality. As far as image quality goes, film is very good as long as you don't shoot high ISO.

As far as long-term cost goes...digital is pretty much free, whereas film is $15 per roll for film/developing.

 

[Arkitech]

In what sense? The Rebel 2000 is a pretty basic entry level film SLR, so it can't really compete in features or build quality. As far as image quality goes, film is very good as long as you don't shoot high ISO.

As far as long-term cost goes...digital is pretty much free, whereas film is $15 per roll for film/developing.

Really the only thing that matters in a camera comparison is the image quality. Sure price and features come into the discussion but ultimately its all about the image quality. So I'm just curious how the picture quality from a older 35mm compares against the newer digital SLRs.

 

[angry hampster]

Really the only thing that matters in a camera comparison is the image quality. Sure price and features come into the discussion but ultimately its all about the image quality. So I'm just curious how the picture quality from a older 35mm compares against the newer digital SLRs.

Any 35mm film camera can have great image quality, if used with a good lens and a good roll of film. Are you using a junk lens on the Rebel?

To an extent, digital SLRs are the same way. The biggest difference you'll notice is lack of dynamic range and tonal gradation when using older digital cameras. Going from my 5D to my 30D is a huge step down in image quality as well, even though they were produced at the same time and have nearly the same body.

All in all, there are lots of things that come into play for image quality with an SLR, but most of it boils down to the glass in front of the sensor.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Personally, I think modern dSLRs equal 35mm film for most intents and purposes. A few dSLRs are nearly (or are) equal to the real world resolving power of good 35mm film (~25mp, IIRC). Many are able to control noise at high ISOs like 3200+ better than film was able to control grain. Film probably still possesses superior dynamic range.

Like angry hampster said, it gets to a point where the limiting factor for image detail becomes the lens rather than the film or sensor.

 

[ElFenix]

negative film has more dynamic range. slides may still have better tones. digital has them beat in resolution. the very best b&w slide film has better resolution (the stuff that is used for microfiche has ridiculous resolution but basically only works at a single exposure value, digital is no where near that though).

the rebel 2000 is fairly basic. about the only thing it beats most modern SLRs on, feature wise, is viewfinder size. and carry weight. oh, battery life.

 

[996GT2]

Really the only thing that matters in a camera comparison is the image quality. Sure price and features come into the discussion but ultimately its all about the image quality. So I'm just curious how the picture quality from a older 35mm compares against the newer digital SLRs.

Assuming that you have good photographic technique, image quality mostly depends on the lens you use. If you are using the cheap kit zoom (e.g. 28-80mm) that comes with your Rebel 2000, your images are not going to be the sharpest or most contrasty. Lenses are the most important (and most expensive) part of the image quality equation. If you want good image quality on the cheap, invest in the 50mm f/1.8 II.

The other factor is what type of film you use. A low ISO color slide film like Astia will have very fine grain and great tone reproduction, but you shouldn't expect 35mm film to compete with newer digital SLRs at higher ISOs like 800 or 1600.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

A modern full frame digital camera ($2000 ballpark) will meet or beat film in almost every regard, especially at higher ISOs.

The latest crop sensor cameras (DX for Nikon, 1.6x factor) are 99% as close, and beat film in resolution, and probably match it in most other applications.

This has been true since approx 2008.

 

[finbarqs]

A modern full frame digital camera ($2000 ballpark) will meet or beat film in almost every regard, especially at higher ISOs.

The latest crop sensor cameras (DX for Nikon, 1.6x factor) are 99% as close, and beat film in resolution, and probably match it in most other applications.

This has been true since approx 2008.

Where's the proof in this claim?

I've wondered the same exact question, and I just recently went to Page, AZ to try and find my conclusion.

With me, I have a 5D Mark 2 with a 24-70 f/2.8L lens equipped with Raw + Landscape Fine JPEG. Post side, I have nik software color effects 3, ready to use the "velvia 100" action.

the contender, a Nikon FE with a 28mm f/2.8 prime, coupled with 2 rolls of velvia 100.

I've gotten my slides developed, and digital, is digital.

Now my next step is to find a GOOD slide scanner, that can get good resolution of my film. So that's what I'm working on now, finding a good scanner.

To further add fuel to the flames, Digital Requires Post Work to get the most out of it. Film is halfway there. But anyways, I've done some exact focal length, aperture/shutter to compare results. Oh yeah, they were on the same tripod too! The FOV should be the same as well, as both cameras uses the 36x24mm format.

 

[Madwand1]

I can hardly believe that people are still arguing about film vs digital in late 2010. Look, it's been done to death already, and there's an obvious winner. Just look around if you haven't yet figured that out. Consider also that many many people have had this debate for themselves, many with reluctance, and the adoption of digital is not just some sort of mass delusion fueled by good marketing.

 

[ElFenix]

Now my next step is to find a GOOD slide scanner, that can get good resolution of my film. So that's what I'm working on now, finding a good scanner.

send away for proper wet drum scanning

 

[ProfJohn]

I can hardly believe that people are still arguing about film vs digital in late 2010. Look, it's been done to death already, and there's an obvious winner. Just look around if you haven't yet figured that out. Consider also that many many people have had this debate for themselves, many with reluctance, and the adoption of digital is not just some sort of mass delusion fueled by good marketing.

Your argument is invalid.

Look around you, how many Chevys do you see verse Mercedes?

Does that mean that Chevy is a better car? Or does it mean that Chevy is more practical?

 

[alkemyst]

Your argument is invalid.

Look around you, how many Chevys do you see verse Mercedes?

Does that mean that Chevy is a better car? Or does it mean that Chevy is more practical?

Your arguement is.

The highest level pros still choose digital as the medium they go with.

Film at the high end is a very niche market and those guys still shoot digital as well.

 

[finbarqs]

film for portraits and/or commercial work most likely doesn't exist any more... But for landscapes... you can bet it still lives...

 

[finbarqs]

who does wet drum scanning? also I've been reading about the epson v700 and the 750 pro, and they can scan @ over 7000 dpi... is that even worth a look/try?