Digital vs film

[jambo101]

Having a debate at work as to how many megapixels it would take to equal regular film,
We are in the 5megapixel to 100 megapixel range and its apparent that no one really knows what they are talking about.Any words of wisdom to us noobs would be appreciated...

[Photo-John]

It's not apples to apples. People have come up with numbers. But since pixels and film grain behave differently, it's never really a fruitful argument. If you really did want the numbers you'd have to do a test for resolving power. I am very confident that current digital SLRs are far better than 35mm film in regards to resolution. When I bought my first digital SLR, a 4-megapixel Canon EOS 1D, I kept my EOS 3 35mm SLR because I thought I'd need it for "serious" work. I never used a 35mm SLR again.

There's something else you need to know. All pixels are not created equal. The pixels in a digital SLR sensor are much larger and capture much better information than the pixels in compact digital cameras. For that reason, you can't fairly talk about pixels as the main measure of image quality. My 4-megapixel EOS 1D has much better image quality than most compact digital cameras. And as compact digital cameras pack more pixels onto the same size sensor, they have to make those pixels smaller. At some point the quality will start to decline. I'm guessing it's at about 7 or 8 million pixels. Of course, the camera companies keep improvig sensor technology. But my point is - more pixels does not equal better quality. It could even mean worse quality.

How's that for a non-answer?

[jambo101]

How's that for a non-answer?

So i guess as an analogy its like asking "how fast will a car go"

[drg]

It is probably more like comparing a Model T to a Ford Explorer. They both take you from point A to Point B, but that's where the comparison ends.

Current Digital Single Lens Reflex (DSLR's) cameras surpass 35mm film easily. There is a limit on how much information you can extract from film and low cost scanners achieved that many years ago. The remaining arguments are rather academic unless you have some real specific purpose. I have an acquaintance who took his film camera into the Amazon basin simply because of the lack of power. He did not want to haul a lot of batteries for several weeks. He still shot digital until he ran out of batteries.

If you absolutely must have a number, my experience was that anything beyond a 6 megapixel image from 35mm film (3000x2000) usually results in looking at chunks of film substrate, pepper (a slide film phenomena), or other grain features. Over scanning and drum imaging can improve color depth up to 70+Megabytes with some films, but it is still a 6+ megapixel image.

Larger format film cameras themselves are being surpassed because of quality issues. A digital image is repeatable (no variation in film or processing) and infinitely adjustable compared to its film counterpart. Slower and initially more costly, but you save on the backend. Those numbers are still being evaluated and comparisons at that scale are very time consuming.

There are some professionals who are using quite a bit of film still, and even some who have returned to film as they can not easily duplicate certain effects, yet.

A 4x5 film camera, or larger, with all the movements for landscapes, architecture, large people groupings and a few very special settings is hard to beat. The time is not far off though when sensors in this size are going to be far more practical. Or a decent alternative. The time's are a changing faster than I can type!

[booper]

im looking to buy a slr digital camera i take alot of fast action pictures in a gym what the best. i was told to get a image stabilzation lens.

[Franglais]

im looking to buy a slr digital camera i take alot of fast action pictures in a gym what the best. i was told to get a image stabilzation lens.

Are you sure this question is in the right thread? To answer the original question I think that a 6Mpix DSLR is at least as good as 24x36 film and a 10Mpix DSLR is about the same as 6x6 film, at least in my hands.

Anyway - for fast action pictures an image stabiliser is not the best solution. You need a telephoto lens (at least 100mm in film terms) to allow you to zoom in on the action but you also need a fast shutter speed to freeze the action (at least 1/125s). Typically this means you are working at 1600 ISO, 1/250s which means you need a lens opening to f2.8. Most IS lenses only open to f5.6 at the tele end (i.e. 4 times less light getting through). The IS is useful to avoid camera shake with slow shutter speeds but it can't do anything for movig subjects.

Charles

[Photo-John]

im looking to buy a slr digital camera i take alot of fast action pictures in a gym what the best. i was told to get a image stabilzation lens.

Franglais is right. You should repost this in either the Digital SLRs or the Sports and Action forum. I would recommend the sports forum:

Sports and Action Photography Forum >>