As someone who could do the whole process from start to finish... Im not buying it. How was the film processed? How was it scanned? What were the printer settings? What was the printer? How was the digital processed?.... I find personally that for digital to equal film in "quality", an ambiguous definition, it needs to be 16-20mpx at iso 400 and 30mpx at iso100...
they're shot both at ASA, or ISO, 400. Would have been cool to seen them both shot at ASA/ISO 100; Put Fuji Provia 100 in the f5 vs. the D700 at ASA 100 and THEN see the results!
It also depends WHAT kind of film you are using. Plus point for digital is that you can correct the chromatic aberration (green line) in Photoshop where nothing in the film photography accept if you scan the negative. It doesn't matter what camera in the Nikon range you are using, F5 or F1 against each other and use the EXACT same lens by changing it to each other.... It is only the little black box with a lens on where you can adjust the F-stop, ISO, Shutter speed and adjust the metering.
Resolution wise digital is now capable of much better resolutions than film. Of course the film itself will capture more detail but once you scan them, the detail is lost.Not sure about using a dark room to develop though.. Don't think anyone does that anymore.
Even when you transfer to a photographic print or slide, the detail is lost. So digitizing is the best way to capture the details of a negative, which is why we are seeing old movies in much higher detail than we ever did when they originally showed them at the cinema.
Yup. A fairer test would have been with a D3x with both cameras set at ISO 100 . I'd also like to know of any enhancements they did to the film when it was digitized - if not then this is just a test of the picture controls on the D700 really.
@PimpMyFahrrad Thanks for the advise! It's the high iso capabilities and full frame format that attract me to the d700. I am aware that the 'd800' will probably come out later this year but it will probably be out of my price range, so I am waiting for that to come out and it will hopefully push the second hand price of the d700 down.
@ElliottMascart Also they are using 12MP camera which isnt the highest so if you are alooking to blow p photos they could have used a larger megapixel sensor to make it more fair.
@robinfoote I would wait a bit with d700 - it is a pretty old camera (summer 2008), in fact their oldest one currently available. They will update it anytime soon - then you could go for the new one for the same price, or this one for much less. As for the comparison - something is not right here, with 12MP the D700 just doesn't have the theoretical resolution of 35mm film. But who cares about resolution - I would rather see dynamic range differences - this is where film really shines.
WAIT a second. Nikon D700 WAS DESIGNED to work with very high ISOs. The Nikon F5 WASN'T DESGINED to use high ISOs. This test wasn't fair, and the only conclusion we can get is that the D700 works better with higher ISOs. A fair test would have been to use both cameras at ISO 100, like everyone else is saying.
@PimpMyFahrrad You are of course completely right about that. Indeed, i am looking to get a d700 soon as it is such an awesome camera, however i thought the spirit of the video was trying to demonstrate that digital is better than film, which not necessarily the case, most of the audience of the gadget show will come away thinking that, but it is really not that simple.
dslr keep getting better all the time. Now 100% coverage viewfinders are getting common in dslr`s and the iso and autofocus are much, much better than early models. They do have big bad points as well though. Cost of good dslr like a d810 and the high quality lenses/flash will be about the same as a deposit for a house.
When the PC computer came out on the market, then the typewriter was obsolete. But in my opinion the analog cameras are not obsolete. They can be used parallel to the digital cameras. Let us say 95% use digital and 5% use analog cameras - or a combination of digital and analog cameras. And thank you Kodak for the past years, you have done a lot to us who love photograph. Does Kodak still produce, offer, film for analog cameras? Hope that Fuji will continue. Thank you Fuji. Have a nice F5 =great
Completely unfair test. They should have shot the F5 with ISO 100 slide film. Furthermore, the film image was no doubt scanned, so it actually wasn't an analog image when printed.
Something was up with the test doesn't it take 25mp to rep film ? I have to admit that the 400iso film I have used was pretty grainy maybe it would have been a better idear to push an iso 100 to 400. And if the scanner was only 72 dpi then isn't it more about tone rather than quality ?
@robinfoote but then again, you will eventually waste thousands of dollars on film rolls and development costs. D700 can do 300 000 clicks for free - that's 75 000 dollars worth of professional film right there.
It's funny, 99% of all digital images never get printed. 99% of all digital and film images would show no difference printed out up to 5x7. Film is dead for the vast majority of professionals, and I can say having shot hundreds of events and 200K+ images there is nothing cheap about digital. Most people are doing themselves a disservice not owning the F5. Breakeven would be 200 to 300 rolls of film bought and souped and printed. More than 99% will ever shoot over a 3 year period.
This is stupid. Its a comparison between a consumer camera and a professional. The d700 will never go where the f5 can. Compare professional digital against professional film dummy.
I have an F5 and the autofocus is sublime. I have tried nothing like it since. It´s a beast.
As someone who could do the whole process from start to finish... Im not buying it. How was the film processed? How was it scanned? What were the printer settings? What was the printer? How was the digital processed?.... I find personally that for digital to equal film in "quality", an ambiguous definition, it needs to be 16-20mpx at iso 400 and 30mpx at iso100...
I would looove to see the d700 try to take on my Mamiya RZ67.
they're shot both at ASA, or ISO, 400. Would have been cool to seen them both shot at ASA/ISO 100; Put Fuji Provia 100 in the f5 vs. the D700 at ASA 100 and THEN see the results!
It also depends WHAT kind of film you are using. Plus point for digital is that you can correct the chromatic aberration (green line) in Photoshop where nothing in the film photography accept if you scan the negative.
It doesn't matter what camera in the Nikon range you are using, F5 or F1 against each other and use the EXACT same lens by changing it to each other....
It is only the little black box with a lens on where you can adjust the F-stop, ISO, Shutter speed and adjust the metering.
I don't know their background in photography but it takes more than two people to determine which is better.
Um, that output device operates at 72 dpi so it isn't a good measure of image quality.
Resolution wise digital is now capable of much better resolutions than film. Of course the film itself will capture more detail but once you scan them, the detail is lost.Not sure about using a dark room to develop though.. Don't think anyone does that anymore.
Even when you transfer to a photographic print or slide, the detail is lost. So digitizing is the best way to capture the details of a negative, which is why we are seeing old movies in much higher detail than we ever did when they originally showed them at the cinema.
No mention of cost? For the price of a d700 you could get a secondhand film hasselblad.
Yup. A fairer test would have been with a D3x with both cameras set at ISO 100 . I'd also like to know of any enhancements they did to the film when it was digitized - if not then this is just a test of the picture controls on the D700 really.
@PimpMyFahrrad Thanks for the advise! It's the high iso capabilities and full frame format that attract me to the d700. I am aware that the 'd800' will probably come out later this year but it will probably be out of my price range, so I am waiting for that to come out and it will hopefully push the second hand price of the d700 down.
@ElliottMascart Also they are using 12MP camera which isnt the highest so if you are alooking to blow p photos they could have used a larger megapixel sensor to make it more fair.
@robinfoote I would wait a bit with d700 - it is a pretty old camera (summer 2008), in fact their oldest one currently available. They will update it anytime soon - then you could go for the new one for the same price, or this one for much less.
As for the comparison - something is not right here, with 12MP the D700 just doesn't have the theoretical resolution of 35mm film. But who cares about resolution - I would rather see dynamic range differences - this is where film really shines.
WAIT a second. Nikon D700 WAS DESIGNED to work with very high ISOs. The Nikon F5 WASN'T DESGINED to use high ISOs. This test wasn't fair, and the only conclusion we can get is that the D700 works better with higher ISOs. A fair test would have been to use both cameras at ISO 100, like everyone else is saying.
@PimpMyFahrrad You are of course completely right about that. Indeed, i am looking to get a d700 soon as it is such an awesome camera, however i thought the spirit of the video was trying to demonstrate that digital is better than film, which not necessarily the case, most of the audience of the gadget show will come away thinking that, but it is really not that simple.
Nikon cameras are the best in the world. How much was spent on getting the large print ?
dslr keep getting better all the time. Now 100% coverage viewfinders are getting common in dslr`s and the iso and autofocus are much, much better than early models. They do have big bad points as well though. Cost of good dslr like a d810 and the high quality lenses/flash will be about the same as a deposit for a house.
When the PC computer came out on the market, then the typewriter was obsolete. But in my opinion the analog cameras are not obsolete. They can be used parallel to the digital cameras. Let us say 95% use digital and 5% use analog cameras - or a combination of digital and analog cameras. And thank you Kodak for the past years, you have done a lot to us who love photograph. Does Kodak still produce, offer, film for analog cameras? Hope that Fuji will continue. Thank you Fuji. Have a nice F5 =great
they should have done nikon f5 vs nikon D3s or F100 vs D700..
Completely unfair test. They should have shot the F5 with ISO 100 slide film. Furthermore, the film image was no doubt scanned, so it actually wasn't an analog image when printed.
The video failed to show the difference between film and digital. It only proved that those who did it had nothing else better to do.
Pro DSLRs don't stand a chance against Large or even Medium Format film, 35mm is just an amateur format.
bottom line, which was the better picture!!! :) D700 is a beast
It would seem, you'd need a giant eye to visibly see the photo quality???
Something was up with the test doesn't it take 25mp to rep film ? I have to admit that the 400iso film I have used was pretty grainy maybe it would have been a better idear to push an iso 100 to 400. And if the scanner was only 72 dpi then isn't it more about tone rather than quality ?
ISO 400 in a studio?
@robinfoote but then again, you will eventually waste thousands of dollars on film rolls and development costs. D700 can do 300 000 clicks for free - that's 75 000 dollars worth of professional film right there.
R.I.P. wet printing :(
forget about scanning guys, shoot slides instead
film will always be better than digital
Next week they'll test a Ferrari vs Yogo. Result: Yogo wins because it can seat four.
REAL photographs are not meant to be viewed on a computer screen. Optical prints or slide projector is how it is meant to be.
Printed = digital vs digital
@donttrustany1 I agree
TechPan...
It's funny, 99% of all digital images never get printed. 99% of all digital and film images would show no difference printed out up to 5x7. Film is dead for the vast majority of professionals, and I can say having shot hundreds of events and 200K+ images there is nothing cheap about digital. Most people are doing themselves a disservice not owning the F5. Breakeven would be 200 to 300 rolls of film bought and souped and printed. More than 99% will ever shoot over a 3 year period.
Shit tests anyway they didn't use 100iso which is studio standard if you were to blow up shots soo it's not a fair test at all
This is stupid. Its a comparison between a consumer camera and a professional. The d700 will never go where the f5 can. Compare professional digital against professional film dummy.