Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Which has a better quality picture: 35m SLR or Nikon D80?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Which has a better quality picture: 35m SLR or Nikon D80?

post #1 of 30
4/21/08 at 4:07pm
Thread Starter 
I have been shooting with my Nikon 35mm SLR, and scanning the negatives into the computer and editing them at home. Is the D80 quality good enough to replace 35mm film?

I mention in passing, that I know digital has a far better convenience factor, but I'm looking to switch only if the quality is there as well.

Jon.
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 30
4/21/08 at 4:32pm
Professional photographer once told me that he would switch to digital completely when they introduce 60 Megapixel cameras. According to his rough calculation that would equal the fill rate of a 35mm film.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 30
4/21/08 at 5:03pm
Compared to ISO 100 film I would say 16-18MP should be sufficient to reproduce an identical image, provided the digital camera's sensor has sufficient dynamic range and noise reduction capabilities. Do you have any stores that rent DSLRs in your area? That would be the best way to go.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 30
4/21/08 at 5:35pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmax View Post
Compared to ISO 100 film I would say 16-18MP should be sufficient to reproduce an identical image, provided the digital camera's sensor has sufficient dynamic range and noise reduction capabilities.

Do you have any stores that rent DSLRs in your area? That would be the best way to go.

How much would it cost to rent an SLR for the day? (like a Nikon D3 or D300).

Jon.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 30
4/21/08 at 6:08pm
It's going to be well over $200 a day to rent those cameras. As for the picture quality of the film camera vs. digital camera, it depends very much on what you want to do with them.

--Andre
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 30
4/21/08 at 6:37pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Yew View Post
It's going to be well over $200 a day to rent those cameras. As for the picture quality of the film camera vs. digital camera, it depends very much on what you want to do with them.

--Andre

I currently photograph models (trade for print).

Jon.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 30
4/21/08 at 7:12pm
The D3 is a beast, is 5k, and from everything i've read and seen come out of it, absolutely worth the money. If you're doing professional work, you absolutely cannot go wrong with it imo. What you need to do is ask whoever prints if they have resolution requirements. I like olympus myself, and I think you should an unbiased look at their e-3, which i would personally go with over the d300.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 30
4/21/08 at 7:24pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQgeek View Post
The D3 is a beast, is 5k, and from everything i've read and seen come out of it, absolutely worth the money. If you're doing professional work, you absolutely cannot go wrong with it imo. What you need to do is ask whoever prints if they have resolution requirements. I like olympus myself, and I think you should an unbiased look at their e-3, which i would personally go with over the d300.

I can't afford a D3. Or maybe I should restate that: I can't justify spending that much on a camera. At the same time, I can justify buying a D80, IF the quality is there.

Jon.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 30
4/22/08 at 1:26am
If you're shooting models as TFP deals, then the D80 is a good choice. I'm a die-hard film lover, but you can't beat the learning possiblities of digital. In one shoot, you can take hundreds rather than dozens of photos. And practice is the only way to get good at shooting people. My advice is to get the D80 or a Canon Equivalent (30D) for your everyday shooter. And then pick up a used film camera on Ebay or a used site like KEH.com. I love the old manual focus ones. A Nikon FG or Canon AE-1 should only set you back about $100, with a basic 50mm lens. When you're doing your digital shoot, load up the film camera with Fuji Provia slides and take a few frames of each setup - after you've worked out the lighting and such with your digital. You'll be amazed at how good they look.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 30
4/22/08 at 1:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by imageWIS View Post
I have been shooting with my Nikon 35mm SLR, and scanning the negatives into the computer and editing them at home. Is the D80 quality good enough to replace 35mm film?

I mention in passing, that I know digital has a far better convenience factor, but I'm looking to switch only if the quality is there as well.

Jon.

jon, as you may know, i am a purist when it comes to many things, and i held out of using digital for a long time. however, dslr is definitely the way to go now. and once you switch, you won't want to go back, you'll wish you had switched sooner.

not only is digital infinitley more convenient, especially if you like to make enlargemants, but the quality is there.

in l.a. the nikon d80 rents for about $80 for the whole weekend (that's less than what it would cost to buy, process, and print 3 rolls of film). rent it, shoot a couple of models, thank me later.

if you want i'll e-mail you a couple of pics i shot with the d80 at iso 1600. i have 8x10 prints of them and they look better than what i would have gotten from 35mm film at iso 800--no noise to speak of with the naked eye.

film is still king if you're using medium format, but for me, 35mm is obsolete.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 30
4/22/08 at 5:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by imageWIS View Post
I have been shooting with my Nikon 35mm SLR, and scanning the negatives into the computer and editing them at home. Is the D80 quality good enough to replace 35mm film?

I mention in passing, that I know digital has a far better convenience factor, but I'm looking to switch only if the quality is there as well.

Jon.

You are already two steps (1. negative, 2. scanned image) away from the original. And at this point the image that you have depends more on the scanner than the camera: how well is the scanner calibrated? What is the dpi resolution of the scanner.

Absolutely the D80 is good enough to replace film.

As for the pro's comment about a 60MP camera before switching to digital... it depends on WHICH ISO film he is talking about.. certainly not 800 or even 400, maybe 50 or 100. The density of the silver grains on the slower film will give a higher resolution, but how many regular shooters use it due to it's slowness?
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 30
4/22/08 at 11:42am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by T4phage View Post
You are already two steps (1. negative, 2. scanned image) away from the original. And at this point the image that you have depends more on the scanner than the camera: how well is the scanner calibrated? What is the dpi resolution of the scanner.

Absolutely the D80 is good enough to replace film.

As for the pro's comment about a 60MP camera before switching to digital... it depends on WHICH ISO film he is talking about.. certainly not 800 or even 400, maybe 50 or 100. The density of the silver grains on the slower film will give a higher resolution, but how many regular shooters use it due to it's slowness?

I'm using the pro scanner at school (I'm friends with the head of the photography department), I'm scanning at 4000 dpi.

My friend who is a photographer in the biz said than anything less than the D2X is not good enough, but said that for model work, digital is a must (he uses both a digital Canon {no idea which model} and a Hasselblad 6x6). However, he said that the D80 isn't up to the level of 35mm...so I'm torn.

Jon.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 30
4/22/08 at 12:13pm
The same pro photographer said that for commercial prints in a studio with controlled light environment digital is the way to go.
For art photography he would never use digital.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 30
4/22/08 at 12:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by imageWIS View Post
I'm using the pro scanner at school (I'm friends with the head of the photography department), I'm scanning at 4000 dpi.

My friend who is a photographer in the biz said than anything less than the D2X is not good enough, but said that for model work, digital is a must (he uses both a digital Canon {no idea which model} and a Hasselblad 6x6). However, he said that the D80 isn't up to the level of 35mm...so I'm torn.

Jon.

Well, it depends. Resolution on the D80 is fine - you can make a sharp 14" print without a problem. Although some would disagree, I don't think that the D80 or any prosumer DSLR is up to the color depth and tones of film - even with a lot of photoshopping. I own a Canon 5D (full frame) and the pictures look good, but don't have the feeling of slide film shot through my Contax G1.

Digital is not a must for model photography, it just makes things cheaper and easier. And allows you to learn and experiment more. I wouldn't say that it's better. Every legendary fashion photographer used film. If it worked for Helmut Newton, it will work for you.

That said, the argument for the D2X or a digital Hasselblad over a D80 is silly. I've seen very professional shots coming out of a D80 or Canon 30D. It's absolutely strong enough for your needs.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 30
4/22/08 at 1:22pm
jon, scratch what i said earlier about shooting at iso 1600. i looked at the pics and i have a few at 800, but didn't have not used 1600 at all.

still, 8x10 prints of these are sharper than 8x10 for iso 400 35mm film. i'm sending you one.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Which has a better quality picture: 35m SLR or Nikon D80?