Comments on: Film Camera Vs. Digital Camera

By: Robert

Robert — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:45:25 +0000

The Nikon scanner is a good amateur scanner, but not close to a drum scanner at all. At my work we have a Imacon scanner and the difference to a Nikon is substantial. I can’t remember how many tests i have seen about film vs digital, that are really amateur scanners vs digital camera LOL.

By: Jan

Jan — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:59:36 +0000

What scanner did he use to scan the film?
In most casses you need a pro drum scanner, npot a home amateur scanner. In my experience a 6×6 or 6×7 has a higher resolution than even a 16mp camera. However the scanning most be done at a professional scanner.

By: mark

mark — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:09:52 +0000

You see this comparison is too weak… nothing really helpful. the lens u are using on these photos has to be revealed. also, Theres way too many factors for an image to be blurred, not using right focus etc. Also how was the films cropped? what scanner was he using, was it cropped through a high resolution scanner or was it cropped on photoshop with only regular setting?

I still dont believed on digital beating hasselblad or other large format films. 5d is only a full frame of 35mm film even with the newest mark III… come on! And yes resolution counts… you cant really compare images in a cellphone size pictures… LETS BLOW UP PRINTS 50 x 50 hasselblad and 5d and see the difference!

My computer crashes when I go scan film beyond 20″ x 20″ 600 dpi. How come raw 5d doesnt crash my computer? hmm…

In general I think digital has its on use on commercial images cus, ****BUSINESSES LIKE THEM BECAUSE OF FASTER TURN AROUND TIME IN ACCEPTABLE QUALITY*****. But for my personal quality ones ill use film. It is sad people cant get quality photos with film because they cant use it well the judge it that its not good. I have so many digital shooter friends who dont know what a “stop” is.

By: Lou Welke

Lou Welke — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:05:20 +0000

This has been an old story on comparing film to digital and several years ago it was said that it would take at least 18 megapixels on a digital camera to equal what 35mm film could do.
All of this has been changed because of other improvements in digital technology and especially in the digital cameras themselves.
Now even 6 megapixel digital slr cameras can create very good pictures exceeding even 35mm film.

By: Peter E

Peter E — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:13:27 +0000

This was a poorly written article. Ken Rockwell does a great job of explaining the roll of film and digital. At the end of the day, digital is more about convenience and flexibility. Check out kenrockwell.com.

By: ovidiu morgos

ovidiu morgos — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:04:30 +0000

it’s not about the film or camera… it’s all abput the lenses! both work good and are for completely different uses! film for passion… digital for work!

By: ST

ST — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:16:12 +0000

all these are compare apple to oranges, and using 12.8milllion pixel to compare to 35mm

Hasselblad is medium format which is soemthing like D5 level.

35 mm film is like a stamp size and 6 X 6 is 6cm leh like palm size liao
sure pic quality different after enlargemnt.

Digital using pixel to determine the quality of pictures, but the film is using lens to capture the picture and the chemical reaction of film towards sunlight and also processing with chemicals
otally different thing

Canon although is sharp, but the colour and tone already being distorted.

Nikon FT# clour is more vivid as VILVA is a slide fujifilm which famous for bright colours, and Nikon famous for the colour balnce.

Hasselblad colour are more soft and natural which is the characteristic of German maker.