35mm film low light performance vs. digital? - Page 2

Sure it can. Imagination runs deeper with a respect and knowledge of traditional imaging potential.

This is why photographers use film; Fuji Provia 400X film, up-rated to ISO 1600 and shot with a f1.0 lens. With the superior film latitude compared to the limited digital sensor DMax - you didn't need to rely on pushing another 2 1/2 stops to get the kind of detail. No fake photoshop vignette required either

I shoot in my mini studio, preferably. Good lighting always beats low lighting..

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs51/i/20...weredragon.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...n/EF2/ef21.jpg

Sacasm aside, are you saying everyone on the planet who shoot digital are not photographers?

I dunno about you, I find that this purist approach towards film is a bit like audiphile stuck in the 19th century on vinyls. How is one not as legit as the other is beyond me, both needs to be translated by our senses, eyes and ears and as long it looks or sound good, (and pardon my french here) who gives a FLYING monkies what format it is in? Really? More importantly, if we do shoot with film, unless everyone on here comes to your house to look at your print, you are still going to have to make a digital copy (by scanning) to share it with people, and it'll end up being a digital copy that people are looking at anyway...ironic? NO?

Also, implying that people who uses digital are not photographers are just simply arrogant. Implying that film is better is fighting a losing battle against technology. Do you watch analogue TV still with a CRT tube? Digital is here to stay, look at the new Canon 1DMK IV, that thing can practically see in the dark.

As for Provia shooting at 1600 with a F/1.0 lens....right, how much does that lens cost? and where can i get one eh? a 5Dii can shoot with a $100 50mm/1.8 lens can shoot at 4000 ISO with ease and CLEAN.

Well, lets not forget the medium format flim camera.

Professionals use that a lot, for things like marketing, billboards, etc.

This is medium format, and film (not my picture): http://www.egopimp.com/images/200905...on-harbour.jpg

It reminds me why medium film is just so awesome!

egopimp? I know him, he shoots a D3 primarily and base in Edinburgh!

EDIT - in fact, i might ask him to drop by here

Lol. That's some deep seated digital insecurity!

I'm simply implying the answer to this arrogant comment:

That's all. If you wish to start a new thread about the economics and ecological wastes of digital imaging versus traditional film imaging, fire ahead

Sure, go ahead, he says in his page he used Film for that pic, Medium Format.

EgoPimp - Love Me

I wasn't doubting you whether it was a MF or not, i just wanted his comments on the Digital vs Film comments. I said "primarily", i never said "Solely".

As for this...

yes, i stand by it, show me a COLOUR film that can shoot at ISO 4000, REAL ISO 4000, not push, not at ISO 1600 and with F/1.0. ISO 4000 at F/2.8 then I will stand corrected. It is not arrogant, it is simply a question whether film can do it. Feel free to prove me wrong, I'd love to learn.

Putting in MF in the question just add variables, the pixel density changes, the COST changes, and the flexibility of the camera in terms of size and the environment it is used changes. I am sticking to 35mm.

Also, the heading of this topic is about film for digital in low light situations, by your statement alone, the fact that you need to use a F/1.0 lens it means film just can't match digital in low light. Give both the same aperture, shooting in the same situation, then that's fair. None of this Medium Format marlaky, or F/1.0 lens.

Also, anything to say about implying people who shoot digital not photographers?

I'm personally a digitial photographer. No need to spend money on film.

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs44/f/20...weredragon.jpg
http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/i/20...weredragon.jpg
http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs50/f/20...weredragon.jpg

I'm what you would call, a low ISO shooter. I don't use high ISO. Though I use a dSLR, mine can't handle high ISO too well. At 3200 ISO, it starts to look like a childs toy camera. At 100 to 280, it's flawless.

A few salient points here:

The newer DSLR sensors are champions at high-ISO performance. Nikon's D700 and D3 series yields very impressive performance at ISO 1600. Older DSLR's could not match this performance in my experience.

Film is expensive. 400X more so, and medium format more so. Film is expensive to process, and pushing film tends to require a good understanding of what happens to the curves and colors, not to mention a consistent lab to accomplish this (which are becoming sadly more and more scarce these days. Film is expensive to print or get good scans made from. With film you are dealing with a latent image that you will not know what you have until it's too late to shoot it again (given the OP's desire to shoot at concerts). That said, if you were choosing film to shoot fast color, 400X would be a very good choice.

Medium format is definitely not the best camera format to shoot concerts or fast moving action with. Lenses focus slower (either in manual or auto-focus) and the cameras are larger, heavier, and much more expensive (though great deals can be had on film cameras). The medium format digital options are extremely expensive and are not great at dealing with fast moving subjects. I've been using a Phase P65+ for a project recently and tried using it for some hand-held fast-moving subjects. Bad choice. Very slow. I could get far better results in terms of capturing critical moments with my D700. Of course it will not have the image quality of the Phase, but not many people need that unless you are constantly blowing up to poster-size.

Shooting with a 1.0 lens is a valid suggestion if you happen to have the $ to buy one. Why not go for the Leica Noctilux f 0.95 at around $10K from B&H? What will this accomplish? At 1.0 you have virtually no depth of field at all. If your focusing is not spot-on you have a series of soft images with lovely bokeh. Using a DSLR the faster lens allows you to see a clearer image in lower light through your DSLR finder, for whatever that gets you. You still need to be able to focus it dead-on to take advantage of its widest opening (which, by the way, does not yield optimum sharpness or consistency across the image from corner to corner). You can produce some very beautiful effects with it. Certainly it is an advantage for shooting in low-light, but a very expensive one at that level. A 1.4 lens would be a fine choice too and some of those are quite good at their widest opening...still, no depth of field at all at the widest openings.

If you are seriously into shooting concert images, a much better investment than a 1.0 lens (and a bit more affordable) would be a good VR lens, like Nikon's excellent 70-200 2.8 VR zoom. The vibration reduction feature is very effective and will get you great results for use in low light (you can hand hold at around 2-stops slower than you would otherwise normally be able to). BTW, the only 1.0 lenses I know of are 50mm. For concert photography, unless you are standing on the stage, your images would be rather limited with such a lens shooting from the audience.

Good luck!

I'd say the new full frame sensors like the D700, D3, and also not quite as good, but 5d mkii etc are better than film.

It's a complicated question though really, because what do you mean by better? You mean which looks better, and since film and digital produce different kinds of artifacts at high iso, it's subjective. Film pushed to high iso yields grain, and digital yields noise. Most people prefer a very grainy image to a very noisy image, so film has the advantage because if you could somehow compare a digital and film print with the same amount of artifacts (grain/noise) then film would look better. So digital has to produce less high iso artifacts to look about the same, I would say.

I don't think your 40D will produce better looking high iso images than film because of this but it's really a personal preference. The first time I've been happy with digital high iso was with my D3.

In all honesty, when I shoot in the dark, it's a bulb shot with low ISO. I prefer a noiseless/grainless picture.