Help: Pentax Spotmatic versus Nikon 4300 digital?

Can someone here help me compare the quality of pictures taken
with my old 35mm Pentax with a modern digital camera, which I
haven't used in years, to a modern digital camera.

Unfortunately I can't easily arrange to view the results of both
camera taking pictures of on similar scenes.

The details of what I am trying to compare are below and my
question to you specialists here is ... which of these two cameras
is likely to give the best pictures?

Thank you for any advice.

Bill

++++++++

I am an amateur "picture taker". ("Photographer" is too grand a
word to describe me.) I take "general" pictures - people,
buildings and streetscapes. The prints I would like are in colour
and would be about 7x5 inches with maybe a rare enlargement to 9x7
inches.

35 MM CAMERA ---- My Pentax is Spotmatic model SP with a 55 mm
f/1.8 Super Takumar lens. I have an old 75-150 Tamron zoom lens.
These are 42mm screw-thread lenses. Today I guess I would use
Fuji 35 mm 200 ASA negative film.

DIGITAL CAMERA ---- A friend has a modern Nikon 4300 digital
camera which has a 4 Megapixel capability and is about a year old.
Looking through his pictures they seem better than I had expected.
I'm assuming that the Nikon 4300 is a reasonably good choice out
of the digital cameras at its price.

++++++++

 

You are in real danger of starting the film v digital debate again here, but
as a former Pentax SLR user, and now 99% digital user I think I can be a
little helpful.

As with any photogtaphy the lens is key, so if you go digital get a camera
with a good lens. I started off with a Canon A40, now I have the
300D/Digital Rebel SLR.

The Canon A40 was only a 2Mp camera, that is 1600x1200 pixels. Printing
at 7x5 this would give a printed resolution of 228dpi x 240 dpi which is
quite adequate when printed at a lab or on a modern photographic Ink Jet.
There is no point going above 300dpi printed resolution as you will see no
difference. So if you plan to print 9x7, ie 2700x2100 then 5.5Mp would
be as much as you would ever need. Modern digital cameras have wider colour
range than film and apply a degree of sharpening in software, both of these
make for a more satisfying printed result. (Film fans please note...I said
satisfying, which is subjective, and we are talking "amateur picture
taker". )
I have done direct comparisons and nearly everyone prefered the digital
pictures to the film versions of the same scenes.

Aside from the quality of the lens with a digital camera you need to look at
the compression applied to the pictures when they are saved as JPG, and the
noise from the sensor. I was talking to a "Pro" in a retail outlet at the
weekend and he reported that they are getting unhappy users coming in saying
they "upgraded" their 2Mp camera to a 5Mp camera and that the prints are no
better or even worse. It seems the higher resolution chips, which are the
same size, are in some cases suffering from more "noise" than the lower
resolution chips. Also to get a reasonable number of pictures on a emory
card they run a higher default compression ratio when creating JPGs.

I strongly recommend that you take a few shots with any camera you plan to
buy and then get them printed. If you like the results whether they are
"better" or "worse" than something else really doesn't matter.

In my opinion if you go for a 4Mp digital with a quality lens and a minimal
file compression option you will be very pleased with the results.

 

Resolution, contrast, and elimination of flare will be much better with any
semi-decent digital camera these days - BEFORE you drop either camera on the
ground. Don't count on any non-SLR digital camera (of ANY make or model) to
stand up to the same type of beating that an old Spotmatic, pre-plastic
K1000, Nikon F or Leica will take. I have gone through 3 new digital cameras
in less than one year, while the USED Nikon FM-2 I purchased while in the
military in Japan lasted for 18 years.

 

My opinion : they have different pro's.

Your pentax will take the highest resolution 'pictures', especially if you
use slide film, colour neg 100, or 400 (don't use 200 - it's a poor
compromise, generally). However, to the average eye, the digital camera's
photo will often look better in every way - they appear noise-free
(clean-looking), bright, clear colours, and also even look sharper than the
equivalent in film. Due to the decreased latitude of digital, there will be
less noise than colour negative, especially in the shadows.

However, many of these advantages are mostly due to the ability to process
the image from the CCD (all images need to be, even RAW files). What is
wrong with that? For your friends who look at the photos, it's only a good
thing. But actually, you'll notice that distant objects disappear (due to
lower resolution), near objects often have halo's due to
slight-oversharpening, and textured objects end up looking like they're made
out of plastic with scattered sand (this is very noticeable with grass in
the distance). Also, while we may not be able to easily see see artefacts
now, a few years down the line and we might be quite averse to these
artefacts, and the photos may compare poorly with photos taken with film
around the same time. Particularly in terms of realism.

There's no real way of improving the apparent quality of photos taken on
film, because the grain is completely random, and doesn't neatly fit into
pixels (computing being the most sensible way of editing them). This means
no proper noise reduction, and sharpening is not as effective, either
(sharpening the grain is easy, sharpening the form is much harder). Colour
and contrast can be adjusted quite easily in photoshop. With film you've
only really got the one chance to get the sharpness and grain under control,
and that is before you take the shot.

Conclusion : You'll have a harder time with Pentax, because film is less
forgiving, but the Nikon will have these artefacts I mentioned (all digital
cameras have), which may grate with you after a while, particularly as you
realise that it reduces the realism of your photos. With film you'll know
that it's captured more detail, and if you can ignore the grain, you'll have
pictures that are more true to life.

In my opinion.

Duncan.
P.S. I'm ignoring all the other obvious benefits of digital, which are not
related directly to quality.

 

A compact zoom lens on a 4mp P&S digital camera having more resolution,
contrast and elimination of flare than a 55 mm f/1.8 Super Takumar lens?!?
Really now!

 

I will concede that I should have compared zooms with zooms, and fixed
lenses with fixed lenses. However, as good as the Takumars were for their
days, newer glasses with better homogeneity do have better curvature, and
aspheric lenses reduce chromatic abberation. In addition, the coating
technology has improved greatly, and flare is better controlled than in the
past. What is lost with the fixed lenses is better control of distortion, as
well as overall sturdiness - most of the newer lenses won't take the
abuse...

 

Which newer glasses? Top line (and extremely expensive) lenses in many
cases might be better than older models, but that isn't the type of
equipment the OP seemed to be asking about.
Many lenses of not extreme aperture or length (not talking about zooms
here) WERE better in the past: A lot of supposedly "improved" modern
glasses are simply cheapened.
So which modern prime lenses actually do control flare better than
decades old Pentax SMC, Zeiss T* or Rollei HFT? Also, lens geometry
plays an important role in flare reduction.

Comparing a zoom equipped 4mp digital P&S with a good Pentax + original
lens (even if vintage) is a no-brainer (at least quality-wise)

All that said, the OP's requirements, "7x5 inches with maybe a rare
enlargement to 9x7", can be met by just about any decent camera, 4mp
digital or not...


___________________________________
"Daddy! Daddy!! A nice man at the market took our old Leicaflex and
180mm Apo-Telyt and gave me a MAGICAL camera with 20x digital zoom and
anti red-eye function!!!"
"Well done Jack! YeeeHaw!! Now we can take some really good pikkers!!!"

 

If both cameras are working properly and operated properly, you'll see
sharper, better exposed images from the Pentax.

However, for the proposed print sizes and uses, you won't actually see
much of a difference.

 

You can use your M42 lenses on just about any digital SLR, with an
adaptor. If you can afford a DSLR body, that's the way to go.

 

Either should do fine for your purposes. I'm a film
person, but you should use whatever you feel more
comfortable with.

I've got a Pentax s3 with an SMC Takumar 55/1.8, and it is
about as good as 35mm cameras come. There's no reason to
expect anything less than first class results.

This should probably be ok, though I would be surprised
if it were anywhere near as good as you super-takumar.

Film, exposure, developing and printing are big variables
in quality you can do something about.

Films are uniformly pretty good, but it is worth trying
out some of the fancier colour negative films such as
Fuji Reala 100, and Kodak High-definition 200.

Colour negative films all show finer grain when exposed
a little more than the meter reading at the ISO speed.
This is particularly true for the faster films. You
might try setting the meter to 125 for 200 speed films,
or to 250 for 400 speed films. You should do your own
experiments, but you may be surprised at the difference
it can make. (The speed rating system for colour negative
films hasn't changed much since ASA 80 was fast for
a colour negative film. The higher speed and greater
overexposure latitude of modern C-41 films makes it a good
idea to derate them by about 2/3 of a stop or so.)

Some D&P places will do a much better job at printing
your pictures than others. This doesn't always bear
a strong relationship to the prices they charge: it just
requires someone running the machine who knows and cares
about doing a good job. It is very much worthwhile trying
out different places to have your developing and printing
done.

Peter.

 

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]

Dear God no. (Nothing personal.)

Since your performance requirements are modest, I suggest that you
go for the camera that you most enjoy lugging around with you and using.

 

There's plenty of currently produced lenses with coating that is less good
than the oldest version of SMC, including from the 'big players'. Current
SMC remains at the top, especially in its ghostless incarnation, with T* and
Fujinon EBC probably the closest rivals, and the oldest SMC is still
entirely competitive with the best now produced.

I'd be extremely surprised to find a P&S digital with a significantly better
coated lens than an SMC Takumar, and still more so to find any with better
overall flare performance and contrast, given the wide range zooms they
stick on these things.

That's not to say that it couldn't be done, just that no one seems to be
doing it currently - maybe the little Contax digital with the fixed lens
might be in the running here, but that's hardly a mainstream product: cost
is the issue. The digital P&S market is simply not sufficiently quality
conscious to for such things to be economic.


Peter

 

FYI: The average 35mm film camera using 100 speed film is roughly
equivalent to a 22 megapixel digital camera. But rarely is the full
resolution of a film camera used. A good 4 to 6 MP digital will
deliver 8x10 prints that are almost indistinguishable from those made
with film.

 

I think I agree - I've heard that Pentax SMC's coating on compact cameras is
not meant to be as good as on their K mount lenses. Also, I compared a
Pentax Espio SMC zoom compact versus a Pentax SMC-A 35-70mm zoom against a
sunset in Hong Kong. The results were completely different, with more flare
and less contrast in the compact. However, it wasn't a fair test, as the
multisegment metering of the compact resulted in a more exposed photo than
from the centre-weighted of my SLR.

Duncan.

 

On Mon 11 Apr 2005 17:46:43, Chris Loffredo wrote:

I am the Op and I am not, as you suggest, comparing my old Pentax SMC
55mm lens with a lens from a modern digital SLR.

Instead I would like to compare the old lens with something like a
Nikon Coolpix 4300 which I think was very recently discontinued but
which ended up at approx $250 in the US and about £200 in the UK.

The Nikon Coolpix 4300 has a 3x zoom lens with 8-24mm coverage
(equivalent to 38-114mm in 35mm).

Is anyone familiar with the Nikon 4300?

-- snip --

Ah, not quite. I was recently browsing some supermarket specials
which included a Vivitar (2 Megapixel??) at a very reduced price from
an original £100 plus. However I later found that the results were
widely thought of on the Net as being utter crap and opinion
suggested that this Vivitar be firmly placed in the domain of toy
cameras.

The problem I have with reading a review of the Nikon 4300 is that I
have no comparative yardstick except for my old Pentax. So a review
saying it is a "great camera" means very little to me. Great for
whom?

When I briefly saw the results of my friends Nikon 4300 I was more
amazed that it took half decent picture at all. I didn't think to
compare it to the results I used to get on my Pentax. For me, it was
a bit like observing the dog in the saying which is walking on its
hind legs: It may not be done well but you are surprised to find it
can be done at all. Similarly with the Nikon. I have been out of
photography for so long that I was amazed that the fairly cheap Nikon
4300 didn't take awful smudgy foggy blurry pictures.

 

On Tue 12 Apr 2005 04:42:22, Stefan Patric wrote:

That is a useful rule of thumb. Thanks.

But what about the lens on a modern convenience-oriented digital
camera? How good are they? It is clear to me they are not all crap
but when I see the size of the lens in the Nikon Coolpix 4300 then it
almost seems amazing it can take pictures at all!

And yet its results seems half-decent.

Is there any more objective (or well-observed subjective) view on the
Pentax Spotmatic + Super Takumar 55mm f/1.8 and the Nikon Coolpix
4300?

 

On Mon 11 Apr 2005 22:20:49, Ben Rosengart wrote:

Heh! I think you are right about my requirments and that is why I
am not looking at some super-duper digital SLR.

However what surprised me more than a little was the very low
prices my old Spotmatic + lens is fetching on eBay.

I had fondly thought I might have sold the Spotmatic + lens and
been able to buy a Nikon Coolpix with the income. However I see
that the selling price of the Spotmatic is lower than the
secondhand price of Nikon 4300s!

It hardly seems worth selling the Spotmatic but in truth I use it
very little but I would use a digital camera a lot (mainly to load
pictures onto my PC).






["Followup-To:" header reset]

 

Sad to say that film camera prices have dropped through the floor recently.
I bought my Pentax ME in 1981 for £115.00. For almost the next 20 years I
could have sold it again for about the same money. I actually bought a
second body myself about 7 or 8 years ago so that I had a home for my lenses
if the old body died.
I just looked on eBay and ME Supers are going for about £25.
This shows just how far prices have dropped. Until recently just about every
photography student in the UK had was told to get the ME Super or the manual
equivalent (ME has aperture priority Auto in addition to manual) as their
first camera.

Dream of a camera to use.. ahem...

Just looked at Spotmatic prices... just a bit more than the cost of a
roll of film.. Suggest we hang on to our kit for 50 years then try selling
to a museum.

 

I realised that, and mentioned that you probably weren't interested in
the top line & expensive lenses.

Which is also what I said; it is very unlikely that a compact zoom on a
4mp P&S digital will do better than you 55mm lens.

If you want speed and convenience, go for the digital. If you want
maximum quality, stick with the pentax (and maybe get a good lens or two
for it).

Since you mention that you probably won't exceed 9x7 inches in your
prints, the quality advantage of the Pentax is very unlikely to show
itself - excepts in extreme (i.e. against the light or time exposures)
situations.
The Coolpix 4300 is certainly not a toy. Up to 9x7 inches in most
conditions, you'll probably find the results good or even very good.
The Pentax has the edge on posters and dodgy light situations.
YMMV!

 

55mm lens with a lens from a modern digital SLR.


I realised that, and mentioned that you probably weren't interested in
the top line & expensive lenses.

Nikon Coolpix 4300 which I think was very recently discontinued but
which ended up at approx $250 in the US and about £200 in the UK.


Which is also what I said; it is very unlikely that a compact zoom on a
4mp P&S digital will do better than you 55mm lens.

If you want speed and convenience, go for the digital. If you want
maximum quality, stick with the pentax (and maybe get a good lens or two
for it).

Since you mention that you probably won't exceed 9x7 inches in your
prints, the quality advantage of the Pentax is very unlikely to show
itself - excepts in extreme (i.e. against the light or time exposures)
situations.
The Coolpix 4300 is certainly not a toy. Up to 9x7 inches in most
conditions, you'll probably find the results good or even very good.
The Pentax has the edge on posters and dodgy light situations.
YMMV!



___________________________________
"Daddy! Daddy!! A nice man at the market took our old Leicaflex and
180mm Apo-Telyt and gave me a MAGICAL camera with 20x digital zoom and
anti red-eye function!!!"
"Well done Jack! YeeeHaw!! Now we can take some really good pikkers!!!"