|
Special Message:
Everything comes in cycles: with every downturn; there'll be an upturn.
Get these
as cards
Get these as prints for
your walls
| |
|
 |
Film vs. Digital |
|
This is it: crunch time. The
ultimate battle between 35mm film against digital sensor. In the left
corner, we have the 35mm SLR Seagull DF-2ETM for Fujicolour Super CH135 400iso.
And in the right corner we have the Konica-Minolta Alpha Sweet (aka Dynax 5)
for the Interline Primary Colour CCD (23.5mm by 15.7mm) with Interlace Scan
digital sensor. If those numbers and things meant nothing to you, it's ok; I
had to look them up (See
KM product page here). |
|
What's
this about?
Have we been sucked into the marketing hype?
Have we been like sheep and followed the crowd? Or are images made by
digital means as good as film? To be fair, the Fuji film company, was
founded in 1934, so with a long time to develop their product, one would
expect the film to be significantly better. So, of course the first
generation of digital cameras would be shoddy. The digital camera being
tested today is of the second generation, made by KM, which has since sold
it's SLR camera division to Sony, which itself now has something to the equivalent
to a 3G out now. Can we expect serious competition between the two?
Strangely, I think so. Why? The Minolta camera company was founded in
1928, they led the way with many innovations that companies like Canon
and Nikon had later followed (eg: Auto focus, detachable lenses, and so
on). So now, a little history about the film camera to be used. The Seagull
(company founded in Shanghai, in 1958) is known for its TLR, and large
format cameras, though this 35mm manual camera, was produced under licence
from Minolta by Seagull in the 1990's. Apparently, Seagull still
produces Minolta manual format cameras today.
|
 |
* waiting for the film to get
developed |
| The 35mm Seagull |
The digital Konica
Minolta Alpha Sweet |
The lenses
Below are details of the lenses used. The lenses are
an important factor in considering image quality.
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Seagull's 50mm kit
lens, with Cokin P160 and P152. |
Soligor's 90-230mm
(for Seagull / Minolta) |
Konica-Minolta 18-70
mm DT kit lens |
Konica Minolta
75-300mm DT kit lens |
Sigma 75-300mm (for
Minolta film) |
First test shots: Handheld
At F22, 1/125, 400iso
|
no's. 0 or 1 |
 |
| From Seagull: F22,
1/125, 400iso, 50mm lens. |
From KM: F22, 1/125,
400iso, using 18-70mm DT lens (Top at 50mm,
bottom at 35mm) |
Below are very large files, some are almost 4mb.
With Cokin P160 linear polariser
F16, 1/60, on tripod
|
no. 5 |
 |
| From Seagul |
From KM |
Zoom lenses
At F9, 1/125, 400iso, on tripod
|
no.9 |
 |
|
|
From Seagull with Soligor 90-230mm
lens at 230mm, focused close to infinity |
KM 75-300mm DT
Impossible, it would have been way
over exposed. |
Sigma 75-300mm
Impossible, it would
have been way over exposed. |
Zooms continue
|
no.
10, 11, 12 |
 |
 |
| Seagull: F11, 1/250,
Soligor at 230mm |
KM: F9, 1/250,
400iso. 75-300mm at 75mm, focused close to infinity. |
KM: F18,
1/250, 400iso. Sigma 75-300mm at 75mm, handheld |
|
|
 |
 |
| Seagull:
F11, 1/250, Soligor at 230mm |
KM: F11, 1/800,
400iso. 75-300mm DT at 75mm. |
KM: F9, 1/250,
100iso. Sigma 75-300mm at 75mm |
|
|
 |
 |
| |
KM: F20, 1/250,
400iso. 75-300mm DT at 75mm. |
KM: F6.3, 1/250,
100iso. Sigma 75-300mm at 90mm, handheld with Cokin P160
polariser |
|
|
 |
 |
| |
KM: F11, 1/250, 100iso.
75-300mm DT at 300mm |
KM: F6.3, 1/250, 100iso. Sigma
75-300mm at 300mm, handheld with Cokin P160 polariser |
Comments
Conditions on the day:
This day was bright with an intense light, characteristic of Japan. Also, humidity was over 60%, and that explains the
hazy
conditions.
File sizes:
These were kept at maximum for close inspection. If you cannot see at
100%, click on the picture again and your browser should then allow you
to see the details at 100%
Post processing:
All these files were not altered except for adding copyright information
and protection.
Settings:
The KM colour settings were set to 'Natural +', and White Balance was
set to 'Sunny'. The KM camera produced both RAW (mrw) and Jpeg (8 bit)
files, and the pictures above were taken directly from the camera. The
FujiFilm Super has it's own colour sensitivity and white balance which I
can have little control over, except for calculated use of specialised
filters (which I don't have).
The verdict
The more, the
better: With no surprise
at all, digital comes out on top. Why? On this day,
in this trip alone, I took 87 photos with the digital camera, where as I
took only 15 with the film camera. From either camera, I won't use all
the pictures, but most of the ones I will use come from digital.
Money Talks:
Also, taking one digital photo cost me so little in storage space, that it
comes out at perhaps 1/100th of a cent per megabyte. Compare that to
buying a roll of film, having it developed, scanned, and put onto CD
(prints not included, as print costs are the same, anyway).
Time is money:
Also, this page you're reading now, was first published with only
pictures from the digital camera. We are waiting to finish the roll
before taking it in for
developing; there is that delay. Also, with
digital, you get instant results appearing at the back of your camera,
crucial for aerial photography,
painting with
light, and other applications.
Flexibility:
The most crucial thing was being able to change iso settings easily. In
a studio, where you only use 100iso, this makes no difference, but for
travel, and other outdoor use, where conditions can vary, the
flexibility of digital wins hands down.
Filters or Lens
problem: Interesting, in the last set of pictures where we've
zoomed right in on the tower, if you see the surveillance camera at the
top, you can see the clearest difference between having a filter on or
not. The only other difference was KM lens to Sigma. If it was the Sigma
under-performing, then we would say there is perhaps less quality in the
lens, and so the KM wins. But more tests are needed.
Quality Controls:
This being the main purpose of enquiry. At this time I don't know, as I
said, I'm still waiting on the film to be developed. Interestingly, the
pictures coming from the Sigma lens look paler in colour than the KM
75-300mm. I've felt a few times before that this Sigma lens give a kind
of washed-out look, that is, polariser or no-polariser attached.
Your Comments
Share them here on the
Photography & Art forums.
|
|
| |
We proudly support:
|
