[Robert N]

These are just some thoughts on the performance comparison of SLR film cameras to the modern DSLRs. Reading general articles on the resolution performance between 35mm film and APSC sensors is that sensors surpassed film (good quality ASA 50 film) at about 16MP. I appreciate there are a number of variables to take into account (and accepting the comparison is like comparing apples to oranges), but however from a purely subjective point of view, the typical lab prints I received in the days I used a consumer grade SLR are no match for the output resolution quality from my K-3, paired with an excellent Pentax lens. I presume film users would argue film dynamic range is greater than a DSLR, but is there much difference these days? It would be interesting to get the views on the film/DSLR comparison from seasoned professionals, well versed in both mediums. Also from the excellent photographic flexibility the latest DSLRs offer, are some professionals still tempted to stick with 35mm film.

[SharkyCA]

These are just some thoughts on the performance comparison of SLR film cameras to the modern DSLRs. Reading general articles on the resolution performance between 35mm film and APSC sensors is that sensors surpassed film (good quality ASA 50 film) at about 16MP. I appreciate there are a number of variables to take into account (and accepting the comparison is like comparing apples to oranges), but however from a purely subjective point of view, the typical lab prints I received in the days I used a consumer grade SLR are no match for the output resolution quality from my K-3, paired with an excellent Pentax lens. I presume film users would argue film dynamic range is greater than a DSLR, but is there much difference these days? It would be interesting to get the views on the film/DSLR comparison from seasoned professionals, well versed in both mediums. Also from the excellent photographic flexibility the latest DSLRs offer, are some professionals still tempted to stick with 35mm film.

OK, I took the bait! Although I am not a Pro by any means I do have some experience with both mediums, I will leave the expert opinions up to the experts and just comment on my experience. The first camera I used as a kid belonged to my parents, a Kodak Brownie if anyone remembers those, a little box type camera with pop out flash bulbs that crackled after they had been fired, due I guess to the fact they used what looked like steel wool inside a plastic bulb enclosure! My first, paid for with my own money was a Kodak Instamatic ($54.00) if I remember correctly, followed by my first 35mm Pentax SP1000 42mm lens mount, well that was awhile ago!

Now shooting since retiring in 2016 with a Pentax K-70, not only instant results but a lot cheaper in the long run if you forget about the "GAS" attacks, whoops I forgot about the Polaroid I had, the fact that what ever you shoot it is nice to have the almost instant review!

Here is a link to our friends at B&H with an expert opinion on the pros and con of "Film vs Digital"! The Pros and Cons of Film vs Digital Photography For Beginners | B&H Explora

These are just some thoughts on the performance comparison of SLR film cameras to the modern DSLRs. Reading general articles on the resolution performance between 35mm film and APSC sensors is that sensors surpassed film (good quality ASA 50 film) at about 16MP. I appreciate there are a number of variables to take into account (and accepting the comparison is like comparing apples to oranges), but however from a purely subjective point of view, the typical lab prints I received in the days I used a consumer grade SLR are no match for the output resolution quality from my K-3, paired with an excellent Pentax lens. I presume film users would argue film dynamic range is greater than a DSLR, but is there much difference these days? It would be interesting to get the views on the film/DSLR comparison from seasoned professionals, well versed in both mediums. Also from the excellent photographic flexibility the latest DSLRs offer, are some professionals still tempted to stick with 35mm film.

This question is like showing a Fiat 500 Twinair and an Abarth 500 and asking the mechanics to compare the engines and why people return to the 500 Twinair after driving a while with the Abarth. You should not have asked the mechanics, but the drivers.

[aslyfox]

for me

the attraction of SLR Bodies is that they are SLR bodies

with the advantages and disadvantages that implies

I don't compare them with modern DSLR bodies

any more than I would compare a Model T to a 2020 Ford

[Alex645]

These are just some thoughts on the performance comparison of SLR film cameras to the modern DSLRs. I presume film users would argue film dynamic range is greater than a DSLR, but is there much difference these days? It would be interesting to get the views on the film/DSLR comparison from seasoned professionals, well versed in both mediums. Also from the excellent photographic flexibility the latest DSLRs offer, are some professionals still tempted to stick with 35mm film.

In terms of resolution, dynamic range, and ISO range, in 2020 the digital sensor has matched and in most cases surpassed film emulsion.....but there is a subjective difference in both process and results.

a) All digital images are made from the same columns and rows of pixels. No two pieces of emulsion, even from one analog frame to the next, are identical. As an artist, it's the sort of philosophical mindset of hand painting an original on canvas vs. creating a digital painting. Even if both look the same at the non-micro level, the perception of its value is not equal.

b) Although where and when and how you shoot makes a huge difference, there is only one sensor and one processor on a DSLR. With a FSLR you have many options for film emulsions and how to process them BEFORE post. Each emulsion is unique and is another opportunity for the photographer to make a stylistic choice.

c) The process is not the same. When I buy the film, I have to make a conscious choice of color or B&W. I have to have, what Ansel Adams called 'pre-vision' of how the film will translate color or tonal values. I am also hyper aware of the finite number of images I can capture and my intent and care is inherently greater. Film slows the entire process down, and in doing so, forces or encourages the photographer to slow down.

Of course, someone's ceiling is another's floor and what may be a pro for a film photographer is going to be a con for a digital photographer. Flexibility can be a good thing and it can be a bad thing...it all depends on the mindset.
Personally, I love both and use a DSLR when I don't want to worry about mediocre light levels, don't want to spend money on film and chems/lab, don't want to spend time in the darkroom or scanning. But when I'm not feeling....lazy....I will commit to shooting medium format film and embrace the process. Although I can simulate shallow depth of field from an Ilford XP2+ medium format from a 75mm 645A onto a 16x20 gelatin silver print, it simply is not the same aesthetically from a DSLR on inkjet paper; technical superiority is favored by marketing to sell products.

[gofour3]

film SLR to DSLR comparisons

No point in comparing. Both are different and one is not better than the other. Same as comparing a CD to a vinyl LP. It's whatever "you" like the best that counts!

Phil.

[Alex645]

No point in comparing. Both are different and one is not better than the other. Same as comparing a CD to a vinyl LP. It's whatever "you" like the best that counts!

Phil.

True, but we now live in a world where most "photographers" only experience with film may have been a disposable camera or a Fujifilm Instax.

I think comparisons can be helpful to inform those that have never shot film why you would want to consider using a media that may be technically inferior.

[stevebrot]

Reading general articles on the resolution performance between 35mm film and APSC sensors is that sensors surpassed film (good quality ASA 50 film) at about 16MP.

Those numbers are commonly quoted,* but have little basis in fact. MTF values for the better B&W emulsions are pretty impressive such that it is apparent that the lenses are the limited factor. I am a bit limited in that I can only scan to 4000dpi, so my limit, pixel-wise, is about 24Mpx with 35mm.

...the typical lab prints I received in the days I used a consumer grade SLR are no match for the output resolution quality from my K-3, paired with an excellent Pentax lens.

That is a real shame that your film gear and processing provided little basis for comparison. FWIW, I print the same size (13x19 on a Pixma Pro-100) from both my K-3 work and my film scans. Back in the day, 16x20 wet prints were no problem.

Now...back to the real world...

I shoot both and don't bother doing comparisons. The capture technology is different as is the shooting experience. Quite simply...film has no pixels. Another maxim...while my K-3 is a pleasure to use, so are the cameras in my film quiver and I get about the same percentage of keepers...moreso with the 4x5 work.

One may note that artists that use paint don't waste a lot of time discussing equivalence of oils vs. acrylic vs. watercolor vs. mixed media. Can you imagine a post on a painting forum bragging about 6 canvasses per day vs. only 4 with paint A vs. paint B?


Steve

* Where did they originate from...Peta Pixel?

[aslyfox]

True, but we now live in a world where most "photographers" only experience with film may have been a disposable camera or a Fujifilm Instax.

I think comparisons can be helpful to inform those that have never shot film why you would want to consider using a media that may be technically inferior.

I'm easily confused

one part of your post seems to indicate a desire to help someone choose an appropriate SLR camera body

while the other seems to argue not to use an SLR camera body at all ?

as to the first issue, this area of the forums might be useful to review:

Pentax Autofocus Film SLRs - Pentax Pentax Film Cameras - Pentax Camera Reviews and Specifications

Pentax Manual Focus Film SLRs - Pentax Pentax Film Cameras - Pentax Camera Reviews and Specifications

Pentax M37 Screwmount SLRs - Pentax Pentax Film Cameras - Pentax Camera Reviews and Specifications

Pentax Film SLR Discussion - PentaxForums.com

What's the best Pentax film SLR to purchase? - Page 5 - PentaxForums.com

[ modified after the following comment by Alex645 ]

[Alex645]

I'm easily confused

one part of your post seems to indicate a desire to help someone choose an appropriate SLR camera body

while the other seems to argue not to use an SLR camera body at all ?

I don't see where I'm suggesting help on choosing a SLR. And where am I arguing to not use an SLR?
Personally, SLR/DSLRs are my camera type of choice. My intent was to consider the pros and cons of film emulsion vs. digital sensors....technical, aesthetic, experiential.

In other words: Although film may be technically inferior, there are still excellent reasons to shoot film that are superior in other aspects.

[aslyfox]

I don't see where I'm suggesting help on choosing a SLR. And where am I arguing to not use an SLR?
Personally, SLR/DSLRs are my camera type of choice. My intent was to consider the pros and cons of film emulsion vs. digital sensors....technical, aesthetic, experiential.

In other words: Although film may be technically inferior, there are still excellent reasons to shoot film that are superior in other aspects.

sorry I misunderstood

[tuco]

I'd argue that - today - talking about resolution and sharpness and which medium is better is so ... yesterday! Anybody still shooting film has their reasons no doubt. And I further guess that you'd be right more than you are wrong to say people shooting film also shoot a digital camera too.

[Leumas]

I don't still shoot 35mm film for resolution, that's for sure.... It's more about the process. I'd say it's about FUN, more than anything. On a technical level Digital surpassed film a long time ago. (6x7 still hard to match with digital)

[PDL]

Here, try this on for SLR/DSLR
Film - every roll is a new sensor Digital - One sensor for the life of the body
Film - Slow winding - even with autowinders. Digital - Even the *ist Ds had three frames per second, my K-3II can do 7 if conditions are right.
Film - Autofocus based on one point (SF-1) Digital - Depending on the brand - 11-500+ and reasonably fast
Film - Manual - you had to learn Digital - Does everything for you - I call it Idiot-Proofed, however if manual is what you want - set it up to be manual.
Film - Movies - are you kidding? Digital - Video - even though some of us could live without it.
Film - Image stabilization - technique, technique Digital - Selectable - usually by brand.
Film - Reciprocity Failure - controlled by sensor Digital - Linear response.
Film - True B&W Digital - For lack of better term "synthetic" B&W except for expensive brands (Leica, Phase One)
Film - ASA/ISO fixed for the most part by the film Digital - Modified at the whim of the user/internal computer.
Film - Shutter speed - Up to 1/2000 on most models Digital - Up to 1/8000 and a bit higher on some models.
Film - Focus screens - mostly split image (for me) Digital - A bit variable, but not as nice as the old days.
Film - System controls - knobs and a few buttons Digital - Knobs and buttons giving real-time feedback through the viewfinder.
Film - Metering - TTL mostly center weighted . Digital - TTL Trinity of metering - Matrix, center weighted or spot - User selectable. (see knobs an buttons above)
Film - Battery - usually easy to obtain and long livedand may not be needed Digital - Proprietary (except for the outdated AA fanatics) and good for about a day or two of heavy shooting.
Film - Flash sync speeds - 1/60 - 1/180 Digital - Depending on brand 1/180 to 1/250 excluding HSS.
Film - External flash - PC cables, hot shoe and SCR Digital - Built in (read lame), hot shoe, wireless (radio and the equivalent of SCR) (Silicon Controlled Rectifier)
Film - Remote shutter - usually a long cable Digital - Infrared, long cable and radio based remote shutter systems.
Film - Usually a high quality mechanical jewel Digital - Certain parts are mechanical/electronic jewels but then there are the plastic things that make you think twice

By no means a complete list. I don't expect anyone to agree with some of my more opinion laden suggestions. Face it, today I am bored.

[Astro-Baby]

Longevity, some of my film bodies are 60 years old, I have never had a digital last longer than 5 apart from a couple whose batteries are no longer obtainable or whose memort cards went out of vogue.

For me as an ex pro digital had its advantages for fast turnaround,especially for a lot of my work which went direct to the web. Product shots etc. Fast to photograph, edit and upload and I would imagine for a lot of pros doing product, weddings, bar mitzvahs its a boon thanks to its speed.

But for me it lacked art and turned my photography into a production line job, press,click, download, edit, upload and start again. It had all the charm of being a robot. I got lazy, let the camera back all the decisions and photography became a treadmill.

These days I own a happy snappy digital for when I just want some snapshots but I aim to be serious with film. Just from the test shots I have been doing I have rediscovered my love of photography because old film bodies have character, tactile feedback. The process forces me to slow down and consider, the cost imposes a criticality to my eye for the subject.

When I pick up one of my film cameras its like meeting an old friend again, a digital always felt like just handling plastic productionised tech. My film cameras dit my hands like a gunslingers favourite .45.

Technically digital may be where its at for resolution but film has a quality all its own and photography in its widest sense is often not about quality reduced to technicalities. Stop and think about some of the outstanding images of the 20th century. Buzz Aldrin on the moon, does anyone say, ‘gosh what a horror, Neil Armstrong cut the feet off and disnt control flare’.The famous pics from the Vietnam war, does anyone look at them and think ‘wow that spherical aberration and coma really ruins the look’. These are extreme examples just used to show that technical quality isnst the be all and end all of photography.

When cameras first came along some people felt painting was dead, I mean why bother spending hours capturing a landscape or a portrait with all that mucking about, getting paint everywhere and then have only the artists impression when yoj coukd take a picture in 30 minutes back then and get it exactly how it looked. The problem is you cant create ‘The Haywaine’ or ‘The fighting Temeraire’ with a camera. You might pull off ‘Girl with a Pearl Earring’ on a good day I suppose but the final product would not excite people because it would be just a portrait.

Thats not to say cameras had no place, Mandy Rice Davies appearing at the Old Bailey is an amazing press pic from the 60s and you would have been hard pressed to capture it with oils.

So its not an either or choice its horses for courses and one doesnt supplant the other.

---------- Post added 03-04-20 at 12:32 AM ----------

Oh and another reason........when I was on holiday last year I came back with 4000 pics in the digital and 72 pics on film. Take a guess whats been looked at.

Yup....the film got looked at as fast as it was processes. The 4000 pics have scarecly been glanced at apart from about 6 which I quickly edited to show people some of the highlights. Just cant be bothered to spend a week poring over the pics in front of a PC.

Back in the day I used to shoot all the holidays and big events to slides and no digital can ever capture the light they way it looks when projected onto a screen and get the brilliant beight skies they way a transparancy can when its projected no matter how high you turn the brightness knob on your monitor