Film Compact Vs Digital Compact.

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by, Oct 16, 2005.

  1. Guest

    I sick of seeing all these film Vs Digital pages on the net comparing
    film and digital SLRs. For a start no matter what result they get
    (either in favour of film or digital) its nearly always inacurate since
    they are comparing the images rather than prints and the film images
    are rarly Drum scanned and even if they were they are still 3rd party
    images, I am bored of them and no longer bother.

    What I would like to see is a Film Compact Vs Digital Compact test, Ill
    be putting my Fuji F10 up against my Olypus XA soon. Ill then get the
    results printed at 9x6 and then scan the prints, Pointless I know, but
    its really to settle an argument I got into and to be honist at ISO 400
    (witch the test will be caried out at) I think the result is a forgone

    Are there any other links to Film P&S Vs Digital P&S tests.
, Oct 16, 2005
    1. Advertisements


    ian lincoln Guest

    Been shooting since i was 11. 21 years. The digitals win. Best contestant
    was the powershot 105. It was enormous. Didn't always focus on what i
    thought it should but did a mostly good job. Sharpest lens going.
    ian lincoln, Oct 17, 2005
    1. Advertisements


    Mr.Happy Guest

    "Didn't always focus on what i
    thought it should but did a mostly good job."

    and thats the problem with digital P&S.
    If you dont focus thru the LCD, but thru the viewer, you
    dont see the focus marks, and as a result your subject might
    be out of focus.
    That really pisses me off.
    Why are there no focus marks in digital P&S view hole as there are in
    film P&S?!
    Mr.Happy, Oct 17, 2005

    Mark² Guest

    Perhaps because it would only be an approximation anyway...due to it not
    being a through-the-lens viewfinder...which leads to varying focus points
    depending on distance, zoom, etc.

    With an SLR, there is no question as to focus points, because you're looking
    through the lens and the focus mechanism stays consitently placed in
    relation to its appearance in teh viewfinder. This isn't the case with the
    optical viewfinder in most point&shoots.
    Mark², Oct 17, 2005
  5. That's right. This is the great advantage of slr's, whether film or digital.
    William Graham, Oct 17, 2005
  6. Guest

    I seriously Doubt the digital will win this test, not because its
    digital but because they have sensors smaller than that of Minox
    cameras, I am not say a Minox Would beat a Digital P&S I am saying I
    think the XA will, Especially Concidering the fact the size difference
    is greater than that of between 35mm and 4x5.
, Oct 17, 2005

    ian lincoln Guest

    1.Yes there are focus marks on digital. At least there is on my hpR707.

    2. Apologies ofr not making myself clear but, i should have said "The
    digitals win. Best FILM contestant was the powershot 105. It was enormous
    Didn't always focus on what i
    thought it should but did a mostly good job. Sharpest lens going. Gave
    my A1 and FD 70-210mm a run for its money. The shutter delay on the
    powershot was as bad or as worse as any digital camera.
    ian lincoln, Oct 17, 2005

    Paul Bielec Guest

    But the small sensor size is a big advantage as it is much easier and
    cheaper to manufacture a small lens.
    Paul Bielec, Oct 17, 2005

    Gordon Moat Guest

    The Fuji F10 has a much smaller sensor size than 35 mm film frame. In a
    practical sense, that will mean more apparent depth of field in any
    settings matching your Olympus XA. So basically any images with lots of
    background detail might actually seem sharper from the Fuji F10. Of
    course, at 9" by 6" there will be very little difference between the two
    cameras. Maybe you should try out a larger print.
    Gordon Moat, Oct 18, 2005

    Colin D Guest

    If you use 400 ISO film the digital will produce a cleaner image than
    the film. Most tests use 50 or 100 ISO transparency film, and even then
    the digital will be cleaner. It seems that photogs who stay with film
    claim that they like the colors and gradation of film over digital, and
    that they like the appearance of grain which to them makes the
    photograph. To each his own.

    The physical size of the sensor is less important than the pixel count.
    Most compact sensors are about 6x8 millimetres and about 5 megapixels.
    If you want an absolute comparison, enlarge a 6x8 mm section of a film
    image to your 9x6 and compare that to the digital. The digi will p***
    all over the film, from a great height.

    Drum scanning is not a goer for ordinary shooting, as the costs are very
    high, $60 and up for one frame, so 'tests' of digital against drum scans
    are not representative of reality for the average amateur.

    The final nail in film's coffin is cost. Every film you buy and have
    processed costs in NZ dollars about $25 - $7 for the film and $18 for
    good processing. Then you have 24 prints, of which you might keep 5 or
    6, if you are selective. So each print has cost you about $4 each.

    Weighing it all up, image quality, cost, etc., digital wins hands down.

    Colin D.
    Colin D, Oct 19, 2005
  11. Guest

    I am aware of what cropping the film will do but I don't have to do
    that. As for use of ISO 400 unlike Digital SLRs, which I have a lot
    more respect for, high ISOs is what film is good at compared to

    I will shoot at a lower ISO on the film as well.
    With the cost it depends how much you print as I print a lot from
    digital (or at least I did when I used to shoot all digital) the cost
    of film (about £1 a roll) and printing isn't that much to me, of
    course in digital you don't have to print all pictures and you can
    delete some, I don't find that too much of a problem as MY SLR is
    WYSIWYG and I don't take that many uless shots, or at least I try not
    The reason why I leave my Digital camera at home and carry a small film
    P&S is because I am worrid about loosing it or getting it stolen, the
    XA2 was the camera I took to work ETC before I lost it, Didn't need to
    cry. I am trying to get a new one right now.
, Oct 20, 2005

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Let's see... you're saying an enormously large and heavy digicam,
    though it often doesn't focus correctly and has a long shutter delay,
    and has a lens that doesn't go wider than 38mm, is better than one of
    the bestter film P&S cameras? Especially compared to a manual SLR?!?

    Seems like you're saying just the opposite of what you mean.

    Let's for example take the Minolta FZE/Riva 28-75. It accepts
    ISO 400-800 film that is 2-3 stops faster than most digicams.
    It almost always produces in-focus pictures, especially if you
    know how to use it. The shutter lag is less than 1/4 second,
    and it can take one picture per second for up to 37-38 frames
    (the "buffer" of film).

    Sometimes my friends produce excellent pictures with their digicams.
    In good lighting, with the sun at their backs, they can take photos
    that are technically superior to what my Minolta FZE produces. But
    in all other conditions, no. Especially flash portraits.

    The Yashica T4*Zoom is similar to the FZE and still available.
    Bill Tuthill, Oct 20, 2005

    ian lincoln Guest

    no i'm saying an enormously large and heavy FILM CAM (just as i put in
    capitals above) was the closest i got to a decent film contestant to my
    digital point and shoots.
    ian lincoln, Oct 20, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.