WHat is the least expensive Digital SLR that is equal to film in Quality?

[glen]

I suspect it may be a CanonD30

 

[bsmithy]

= to film in quality around £4000000

 

[Kyteland]

I've heard anywhere from 8MP to 20MP. As far as features go, DSLR cameras are there.

The thing to remember is that film has grain, digital has pixels. They will never have the same "look".

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: glen
I suspect it may be a CanonD30

Doubt it. The D30 is old and not a whole heck of alot cheaper than the 300D

 

[glen]

This guy did extensive testing with the same lenses, and the digital always came out on top.
Other folks tried the same sort of tests, and people almost unanimously agree a CanonD30 takes better pictures than a Canon EOS 1V using Fuji Provia 100F. The lenses used were the same.
Check it out:
Here

 

[toant103]

Originally posted by: glen
I suspect it may be a CanonD30

i think you need a digicam with at least 25MP to get 35mm quality

 

[glen]

Originally posted by: toant103

Originally posted by: glen
I suspect it may be a CanonD30

i think you need a digicam with at least 25MP to get 35mm quality

Nope. Read the link in my post.

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: glen

Originally posted by: toant103

Originally posted by: glen
I suspect it may be a CanonD30

i think you need a digicam with at least 25MP to get 35mm quality

Nope. Read the link in my post.

I read your link, and I'm not convinced. He has way too many variables in there. The biggest being the scanner he used. every one of the problems (minus grain...which some do not consider a problem) could be directly linked to the scanner...or the user of the scanner.

I am sure that some day soon digital cameras will outpace 35mm format and eventually Medium Format and greater. But for right now I would say you're better off going with 35mm for money/quality. If you are looking for convenience, digital may be the way to go.

 

[StageLeft]

A while back somebody posted a website of some real asshole, but he's a competent photographer and posts a lot of good stuff on his site. He said that in comparing digital to film you're not doing justice to the film camera unless you have a VERY expensive scanner. Not $1000, but like $50k, so as prickly said a bad scanner can kill the competency of the comparison. For all intents and purposes there is no Digital SLR capable of matching a film camera in any price range you're likely to be able to enter (and even with unlimited funds I'm not sure it can really be done).

Soon, but as mentioned 35mm film is 20+ megapixels.

BTW I use digital and have for a while now. It's infinitely more convenient than film. A 3 megapixel digital image is much better than a non-existent image that I didn't take a picture of because I couldn't be bothered with the hassels of film

 

[JonnyBlaze]

the guy from that link said he used a $10k scanner

JB

 

[PlatinumGold]

i didn't read the link, but why would he need to scan it, couldn't he just blow the pic up to poster size or larger and look to see which as more prominent "graininess"??

 

[rahvin]

The Cannon D10 and Digital Rebel for all intents and purposes are equivalent to ISO 100 35mm film. There are websites out there that show you how to count the "pixels" in film if you search for them.

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm

The 10D's 22.7 mm (about 7/8 inch) length imaging sensor, which has 3072 pixels, produces an image equivalent to a 3400 dpi 35mm film scan. Since there is no film gain and digital noise is almost non-existent in this camera?s output at ISO 100, images can be resized up to 5500X3600 pixels and beyond and the resulting prints are beautiful.

 

[Sid59]

one time, i was sitting on photography class .. and the professor and student got into a debate on whether digital had the same quality as film.

the single biggest reason why film still wins ..

a professional film scanner can blow up a 35mm neg into 80+ MB RAW scan image
vs.
the size of a RAW 4 MP file

also read in a magazine, they took two Canon bodies - digital and film, used the same lenses and captured a nature scene. they blew up the picture and compared the detail in the shadow and through the depth of field. Film won again.

wish i still had that magazine to scan.

 

[ElFenix]

you'd have to blow up the images, say take a 35 mm slide and project it onto a 20 foot screen, and somehow get the same output with a digital image. more likely to lose quality digitizing the film pic than projecting the digital pic.

 

[Trevelyan]

Ok... you guys that are saying that 35mm film has a resolution of 20+ megapixels, are you insane?

Unless you move up to medium format there's no way you can get an image that is larger than 16X20 and maintain the crisp quality that you can get with a 6MP camera with an even bigger size.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I still think film has better quality at the moment, but that is with medium and large format film and muo-expensive analog cameras.

What people need to understand is not which has better quality, but which one has enough quality that is actually able to be transmitted to a print or scan reliably and affordably in real world situations. That's great if you can blow up a negative with a $50k projector and get better quality than a digital print, but I have no doubt that it's easier and more practical to obtain awesome quality with digital cameras than with film cameras.

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Ok... you guys that are saying that 35mm film has a resolution of 20+ megapixels, are you insane?

Unless you move up to medium format there's no way you can get an image that is larger than 16X20 and maintain the crisp quality that you can get with a 6MP camera with an even bigger size.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I still think film has better quality at the moment, but that is with medium and large format film and muo-expensive analog cameras.

What people need to understand is not which has better quality, but which one has enough quality that is actually able to be transmitted to a print or scan reliably and affordably in real world situations. That's great if you can blow up a negative with a $50k projector and get better quality than a digital print, but I have no doubt that it's easier and more practical to obtain awesome quality with digital cameras than with film cameras.

yes. they just said on the last page that Digital > Film in terms of ease of use.

 

[rahvin]

Everyone talking about film being better than Digital is talking out their ass for one simple reason. Film quality is completely and totally dependent on Brand and ISO (something not a single person in this thread saying film is better has mentioned). ISO is a direct reflection on the size of the silver particles. ISO 100 film has pretty good size particles and it limits film resolution. Some of you should go develop some 100 ISO film and blow it up beyond 8x10 and notice the graininess of the image.

In addtion scanning data and generating an 80mb RAW file doesn't mean there is any more information there than a 7mb RAW image if the scanner is more accurate than the medium being scanned.

Digital cameras are currently equivalent to lower ISO 35mm Films. Hell most reviews say the new Cannon 1D with it's full frame 14mpixel sensor beats all 35mm Film in quality. At the rate Digital is advancing, Digital will be rivaling Medium format in a few years.

 

[glen]

Originally posted by: rahvin
Everyone talking about film being better than Digital is talking out their ass for one simple reason. Film quality is completely and totally dependent on Brand and ISO (something not a single person in this thread saying film is better has mentioned). ISO is a direct reflection on the size of the silver particles. ISO 100 film has pretty good size particles and it limits film resolution. Some of you should go develop some 100 ISO film and blow it up beyond 8x10 and notice the graininess of the image.

In addtion scanning data and generating an 80mb RAW file doesn't mean there is any more information there than a 7mb RAW image if the scanner is more accurate than the medium being scanned.

Digital cameras are currently equivalent to lower ISO 35mm Films. Hell most reviews say the new Cannon 1D with it's full frame 14mpixel sensor beats all 35mm Film in quality. At the rate Digital is advancing, Digital will be rivaling Medium format in a few years.

Yep and no one has read either the article I linked or the one you linked.

In almost any debate there are folks on both sides of the issue.

In the film vs. Digital debate, there is now almost no one, who has done the comparison, on the side of film.

Heck if anyone went to either of those two links and just LOOKED at the side by side pictures, you would have no question.

The only film that comes close is the 4x5 format Velvia.

SO, for film to compete you have to go to an apples to oranges comparison, and even then digital has the edge in many ways.

 

[GoSharks]

nobody looked at that same link i posted in the digital v film thread from a few days ago either. ppl just refuse to process that information or something.

 

[glen]

Originally posted by: GOSHARKS
nobody looked at that same link i posted in the digital v film thread from a few days ago either. ppl just refuse to process that information or something.

I did.
it made me want to take the plunge and get a digital SLR. If the canon D30 is that good, can't I get one used for a song?

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: glen

Originally posted by: GOSHARKS
nobody looked at that same link i posted in the digital v film thread from a few days ago either. ppl just refuse to process that information or something.

I did.
it made me want to take the plunge and get a digital SLR. If the canon D30 is that good, can't I get one used for a song?

The prices really haven't dropped all that much. You can get the body for about $600 used.

 

[DBL]

I have a 10D and I have read all the comparisons studies on the Internet and it's pretty clear to me, that at this point in time, DSLR technology equals good 35mm film (ISO 100-3200) at the low-end (300D,D100) and surpasses it on the high-end (Canon 1DS). It's true, that in many of the comparisons, it can be claimed that the scanner is what is holding film back or that you need a high quality projector to appreciate the fine details apparent in slide film. However, these solutions are impractical and very expensive. A drum scanner can run upwards of 50k, which puts it easily in the 22MP medium format back category, which by many accounts is significantly better than MF film. So, when comparing DSLR technology with 35mm film, compare like with like.

There are pros and cons to each medium. I happen to like the superior noise-free characteristics of Canon's CMOS sensor, which gives blue sky's a creamy texture, and which also enables tremendous enlargement potential. Consumer 35mm film and small digicams fail here b/c of grain and noise issues. Another aspect of DSLR technology, which I prefer to film is low-light performance. Current DSLR technology has tremendous ISO 800 - 3200 performance, much better than any equivalent film emulsions provide at this point.

Of course, the last aspect which seals the deal for me, which other have touched on, is the ability to practice, practice, practice with digital. You can experiment with different exposure settings, switch ISO on the fly, layer in Photoshop for increased dynamic range, receive instant feedback on exposure, etc. For me, it makes the overall photography experience more enjoyable.

 

[glen]

Originally posted by: DBL
I have a 10D and I have read all the comparisons studies on the Internet and it's pretty clear to me, that at this point in time, DSLR technology equals good 35mm film (ISO 100-3200) at the low-end (300D,D100) and surpasses it on the high-end (Canon 1DS). It's true, that in many of the comparisons, it can be claimed that the scanner is what is holding film back or that you need a high quality projector to appreciate the fine details apparent in slide film. However, these solutions are impractical and very expensive. A drum scanner can run upwards of 50k, which puts it easily in the 22MP medium format back category, which by many accounts is significantly better than MF film. So, when comparing DSLR technology with 35mm film, compare like with like.

There are pros and cons to each medium. I happen to like the superior noise-free characteristics of Canon's CMOS sensor, which gives blue sky's a creamy texture, and which also enables tremendous enlargement potential. Consumer 35mm film and small digicams fail here b/c of grain and noise issues. Another aspect of DSLR technology, which I prefer to film is low-light performance. Current DSLR technology has tremendous ISO 800 - 3200 performance, much better than any equivalent film emulsions provide at this point.

Of course, the last aspect which seals the deal for me, which other have touched on, is the ability to practice, practice, practice with digital. You can experiment with different exposure settings, switch ISO on the fly, layer in Photoshop for increased dynamic range, receive instant feedback on exposure, etc. For me, it makes the overall photography experience more enjoyable.

I completely agree. So, which camera do I take the plunge with?

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: glen
I completely agree. So, which camera do I take the plunge with?

IMO in the Digital Rebel offers the best price/value. At $1K for the kit you have the exact same CMOS sensor in the 10D (which goes for $1.5K without a lens) and only a slightly reduced feature set that most amatures won't even notice.

 

Canon 1D.

Though, there is no "equal" to film, ever.