Digital cameras can't shoot good time exposures?

[WP 3020]

My photo gear was stolen, some time back, and haven't been able to replace it yet. But when I do, I'm still leaning twards film. (not set in stone) One thing I heard bad about digital (even on the high end ones) is that when shooting time exposures they make alot of "noise".(pixle crud) Is this true? If I were to go to digital gear I'd want at least 5meg or more with a zoom compareable to 200mm or more. It would be nice not to have to change lenses, but would like the option. 99.99% of my shots are with 100 slide film.

[zardoz]

Digital is more convenient and cheaper (in the long run-no film or developing cost).  However, if you are serious about hi-res images, film is still is by far the best.  Perhaps if you can afford one of the new 20MP cameras available you could compete with film, but today's 6-8MP cameras are no match for film.

What you plan to do with your images is, for me, the determining factor on media choice.  I do not plan on enlarging any of my images beyond 11x14 with digital...maybe 16x20 if I have an exceptional shot.  Up to 11x14, a good 6-8MP camera will be sufficient if you shoot at the maximum size, highest quality, and lowest ISO.  If you just want to submit photos to web sites, or view them on your computer, then any decent 5+MP camera would be more than sufficient.  So when I go out to shoot trains, I use my (Nikon D70) digital.  When I go out to shoot nature (my 'pro' stuff), I use my film (Nikon F100) camera and use only either Kodak VS100 or Fugi Provia 100film.

I read once on a pro photographer site that in order to match the image quality of today's best 35mm films, you would need at least a 30MP digital image.  Of course, in digital as well as film, the image quality of the image will be dependent on the quality of the equipment you have.  If you go with Nikon or Cannon, you will have excellent stuff.  Hasselblad has a 39MP camera, but to get one you need to shell out $29, 995 (body only).

In order to not have to change lenses, you would need a zoom lens with a large magnification range.  While convenient, these lenses suffer from having many elements inside, causing a theoretical degradation of image quality.  In this case, buy the best single lens you can afford, and stay away from the off-brands like Tamron or Tokina.  Nikon just came out with a nifty 18-200 vibration-reducing zoon lens. And it is selling for "only" $900.

Of course, with all the above having been said, the most important piece of equipment in photography is the photographer's eye.  A well-composed, correctly-exposed, unique image made on adequate equipment will always be better than a less-than-ideal composed image made on a $8000 camera.

Regarding your question about 'noise' on time exposures, without knowing what duration you are considering, I cannot help.  A minute or two should not be a problem, but longer durations might be a bit noisy.  A nice thing about digital cameras is that you can change ISO settings for each image.  You can experiment with different settings at nearly zero cost, and decent equipment will have all your exposure specs imbedded in the image, so when you do a comparison, you can immediately see what settings you were using for each shot. 

[WP 3020]

Thanks! Before my loss, I was shooting an average of 1 roll a week per year. I know if I had digital I'd be shooting more. I don't think I can ever get away from film so I would be having both. I know one thing's for sure. my camera bags won't be so nice looking or not look like camera bags at all. Right now I'm using (not very often) an Olympus OM2S with a standard 50mm lens. Boy, I miss my old 80-200 zoom. (I'm thinking, meth tweakers are almost the lowest lifeform on earth.) I had a regular Olympus OM2 (worked good enough for me) and compared to the S model its batterys lasted longer.

[Anonymous]

Thanks! Before my loss, I was shooting an average of 1 roll a week per year. I know if I had digital I'd be shooting more. I don't think I can ever get away from film so I would be having both. I know one thing's for sure. my camera bags won't be so nice looking or not look like camera bags at all. Right now I'm using (not very often) an Olympus OM2S with a standard 50mm lens. Boy, I miss my old 80-200 zoom. (I'm thinking, meth tweakers are almost the lowest lifeform on earth.) I had a regular Olympus OM2 (worked good enough for me) and compared to the S model its batterys lasted longer.

Don't forget to get an extra storage card for your Digital camera to store more Photos.

[tree68]

Thanks! Before my loss, I was shooting an average of 1 roll a week per year. I know if I had digital I'd be shooting more. I don't think I can ever get away from film so I would be having both. I know one thing's for sure. my camera bags won't be so nice looking or not look like camera bags at all. Right now I'm using (not very often) an Olympus OM2S with a standard 50mm lens. Boy, I miss my old 80-200 zoom. (I'm thinking, meth tweakers are almost the lowest lifeform on earth.) I had a regular Olympus OM2 (worked good enough for me) and compared to the S model its batterys lasted longer.

Don't forget to get an extra storage card for your Digital camera to store more Photos.

And make sure you've got a reader for those cards.  I find it much easier to pop the card out and slide it into a reader - it's just like adding another drive to your computer.

Don't forget extra batteries, too, especially if your camera has a unique battery. 

I have three batteries and two 1 Gig cards for my Digital Rebel.  If I shoot best quality JPGs, I can get over 500 images before I run out of room....  Shooting RAW (for the true pros) knocks that down to just 120 images on the two cards, but oh, the editing you can do...

[WP 3020]

I held a digital Rebel a while back and wasn't sure what to think of it. It felt really light as if the linses are made of plastic. Or am I just too used to 35mm stuff?

[CopCarSS]

As to your original question, the answer is going to be "It depends." Some cameras deal with noise in long exposures better than others. It's roughly similar to noise issues in relation to ISO used. Some cameras are better than others. It has a lot to do with the sensor used (CMOS sensors are much better than CCD's, larger sensors with larger individual photosites are better than smaller sensors with smaller pixel pitches). I routinely shoot up to 30 second exposures with my humble D60. They generally turn out looking like this:

All were shot at ISO 100, and there is no apparent noise in any (if you want 100% crops I can get those to you). As I said, these were all shot with a D60, which is ancient in digital terms. Canon's improved their CMOS sensors so much since then that if you got a 5D or a 30D, I'd doubt you'd have any problems with noise, even if the shutter was open for 30 minutes. Additionally, many new cameras feature noise reduction for long exposures. The camera will shoot the scene for whatever length you've determined, and then shoot another short exposure to compare existing conditions.

The original Rebel, while a capable picture taker, was a bit on the flimsy side, and was also feature limited. The Rebel XT is a much nicer camera, and one that I have absolutely no reservations about recommending (except perhaps that's it's almost too small...but I like big cameras...they balance large lenses better).

As for Zardoz's comments on film and digital, I'm not sure I personally buy into the 6-8MP not being equal to film. I've blown this shot up to 20x20 (which would be 20x30 if it wasn't a square crop):

Granted, that was with a $3800 lens on the front, but it's still something I could'nt have done in 35mm film (at least not as well as I did with the digital image). There's a lot of argument about how much resolution film really is. While resolution is great, there are other factors that come into play. In this image, there is absolutely no noise visible. In a film blow-up of the same size, grain would have started being visible in such a large blow-up. Additionally, digital allows a user to fine tune exposures on site. I can't stress how important that is to me. Even a good spot or incindence meter can't match a histogram for accuracy (which is why it amazes me that handheld meters are still being sold).

I plan to go to the Canon 5D next, or it's succesor (see the next paragraph). Based on my experiences with other FF cameras (rented or borrowed 1Ds and 1Ds MK II), the 13MP FF sensor should be able to keep up to Medium Format film fairly well. The noise control is currently the tops in Canon's line-up (though S/N ratio is about equal to the 20D/30D). If I'm careful, and use good glass, I'm thinking that 40x60 enlargements shouldn't be too hard.

Before you invest in any digital technology, I'd think I'd wait for all the pre-Photokina announcements. Photokina occurs every 2 years in Cologne, Germany in September and is THE place to bring out new technology. There should be a lot of announcements. I'd expect to see a new Canon pro body (probably a 22 MP FF camera, capable of 8 FPS...so the 1D and 1Ds lines will merge) as well as a new Rebel. I'm hoping for a 5D replacement, but I'm not sure about that. There should be some good lens announcements, though. By the end of August, we should know what will be released in the near future.

The only film I shoot regularly now is my 4x5 camera, and my Kodak No. 2 Box Brownie (for a vinatge look). I'll run a roll through some 35mm film cameras that I keep for sentimental reasons, but that's really only to keep the lubricants from getting hard and crusty. If it were me, I'd buy a nice digital and never look back. YMMV of course, and a lot of people will tell you otherwise. It really comes down to what you want, and what suits your style of photography.

[Hugh Jampton]

Well there is that old saying about a good lens on a cheap camera being better than a cheap lens on a good camera.

[Joe the Photog]

I'm actually shooting with an "ancient" 300D, the first Digital Rebel. I routinely shoot 30 second exposures and they come out looking crisp and clean. The 30D and 5D will, of course, do even better. As for enlargements, I get great results up to 20X30 inch poster size prints, one of which is prominently displayed above the desk in my living room. There is no reason why the current crop of digital SLRs from Canon and Nikon can't compete with equivalent film cameras..... and win in most cases.

Joe H.

Lancaster, SC

 

[arbfbe]

Oh pooh.  Digital cameras can take outstanding night photos.  Just not the really cheap ones.  I will match my Fuji S3 against any of the time exposures taken with my Nikon F4.  My Epson R2400 ink jet means I can do this all at home, get it right the first time and not have to deal with sending out anything smaller than 13"x19".  Far mor convenient to me than sending film out and hoping they get it right the first time.

The comment about needing 30mpix to match 35mm film quality was a theoretical number.  The reality is that up to about 16"x20" a good 6 mpix camera with a quality lens will do just as good or even better.  Digital just prints differently than film and digital wins.  The 10mpix to 16mpix digital cameras will exceed 35mm film quality at about any print size you can come up with.

The only thing holding digital back for the moment is the lack of digital projectors that are affordable and can project images in the 5000+ pixel width.  When that product becomes affordable digital will beat out 35mm in about all markets.

Check out the camera reviews at www.dpreview.com before you buy into digital. 

[CopCarSS]

arbfbe,

What are your experiences with the S3? Have you noticed a big improvement in dynamic range like Fuji advertised? And if you shoot RAW, do you notice better performance using different convertors as Phil at DPReview did when he tested the camera?

Thanks in advance.

[eastside]

I guess you're referring to CCD dark current noise, which is manifested in long exposures.  By long exposure how long?  If it's for only several seconds, most people would hardly notice in digital nowadays, whereas film suffers from reciprocity error, especially color film.  I'd say, from my experience, the latter is much, much worse.  Maybe long exposures with digital cameras did have a lot of noise a few years ago, but the CCDs and analog to digital circuitry have improved a lot since then.

Astronomers, who take exposures requiring minutes to hours, on the other hand, employ Peltier cooling on the CCDs to reduce dark current noise.  You might Google on that.

[miniwyo]

I am constantly shooting timed sxposures usually at 30 seconds and unless I forget to reset my ISO they look Excellent with my 20D. Always pretty clean until I start to mess with them in photoshop :p

Some of my stuff. (You guys have probably seen them)

[CopCarSS]

Miniwyo,

The more I see the stuff coming out of that 20D, the more I'm impressed. You've really learned how to use that thing since you picked it up!

[chad thomas]

Those are some really great shots RJ.

[arbfbe]

Chris,

Yes, the improved dynamic range is real with the S3.  It shows up in the clouds in railfan shots though you can still blow out the highlights there with the S3 trying to keep the shadows from blocking out.  I tend to use the Fuji Hyperview Utility to convert from RAW to tiff and then do most of the editing in Photoshop CS2 since I am pretty comfortable with the PSCS2 workflow.  Some users on the dpreview.com Fuji DSLR forum like the S7RAW program and I do not hear much about Bibble these days over there.

 

I like the camera but would not recommend it to everyone.  If you have experience with medium format or view cameras then you will be at home with the S3.  If you like 35mm motordrive movies or lots of jpeg action sequences from a D70 or DRebel you will find the S3 'limiting'.  The S3 is no longer in production and is being closed out for about $1200 and is in limited supply.  Try, of all places, Radio Shack.com.  The new S4 rumors are slowly being confirmed by sales reps and may be available in early to mid 2007.  Specs are all conjecture for now but it is certain to be another Super CCD sensor, either a phase II, phase III or maybe even a phase IV.  Perhaps a Nikon F100 based body like the D200.  I think I will stick with the S3 and see how the new model works out.  I may upgrade later and keep the S3 as a back up body or one with a second lens attached.

 

  Alan   

[eastside]

Miniwyo's images illustrate my point: noise in digital imaging, for all practical purposes, not a problem.  If not visible, it is present and detectable through enhancement, however:


You would start to see noise if your image requires substantial adjustment in your image editor.

Notes: this is not a criticism!  Since I don't have access to the source, some of the "noise" may be JPG artifacts.

[CopCarSS]

Miniwyo's images illustrate my point: noise in digital imaging, for all practical purposes, not a problem.  If not visible, it is present and detectable through enhancement, however:


You would start to see noise if your image requires substantial adjustment in your image editor.

Notes: this is not a criticism!  Since I don't have access to the source, some of the "noise" may be JPG artifacts.

Egads...talk about a sensor torture test! By their nature, sensors don't do well in darker areas. This is actually visible in shadow areas of a a regular shot as well. This is why Michael Reichmann wrote his article on "exposing to the right" (towards the highlight end of one's histogram). A night shot is usually comprised of a lot of shadow areas, so it's naturally going to have a lot of background noise, if it's pushed in post-processing as you've done here.

I've never been a fan of "exposing to the right." While the results are better (look at the highlight areas in this image...even when brought out more dramatically than one ever would in PP, the highlights and mid-tones are essentially clean), I find it too easy to miss the mark and over-expose. And, like slide film, once high-lights are blown, they're gone.

Instead I try to get as much information as possible from a scene, and try not to clip either side of the histogram (erring on the shadow side if I need to clip sue to excessive Dynamic Range). Shooting in RAW helps too, and I've found that another 1-2 stops of DR can be had with good RAW processing.

When it comes to long exposures, I'm still a fan of digital to keep good exposures. With film, it would have taken a lot of bracketing to get this right.

[miniwyo]

Thankks Guys!

The Raw image does infact have just about this much noise, Some of it though is Jpg degredation. I think it may have been that I shot it at 3200 ISO, as I hadn't had the camera long and was experimenting, this is the one that happened to come out the best in my opinion. Also it was the way I was taught when I had my film photo classes, He told us that if you want to shoot night, that you should use the highest ISO that you can. I have since changed my thinking on this one, and I still use a low ISO now. I have a picture (althought I have added some filters on it just to mess around and experiment) that show the regular occouring noise very well.


 
This was Literally  a shot in the dark. Couldnt see it at all.

I love to play with light, so I am usually willing to sacrifice Quality over a good learning experience. Although I am getting better at getting both

Try this one on for size...



That is one of those moving searchlights. Actually got stopped and had my Driver's Liscence ran becaseu we were stopped off the side of the road in an area where they are planning to build.

[ben10ben]

Some of the shots posted here really have me impressed with what newer cameras and dSLRs can do with regard to noise.

My only digital is a several year old point and shoot Toshiba that gets used mostly for Ebay shots, quick forum posts, and the like. The last few days, I've been setting up some Ebay auctions, and currently have it stuck on a tripod.

Although I hate on-camera flash, there isn't a way to get enough light inside to satisfy the camera. What I've had to resort to doing is gelling the flash for tungsten, and then adding tungten lights to fill in the shadows, and using the camera in "night" mode since it lacks any real manual controls. Anyway, doing so, it fires the flash and defaults to its lowest timed shutter speed of 1/4 second. At its native ISO of 100 with speeds this low, I still can't tolerate the noise and have to use a full strength noise reduction in CS2 just to get results that don't look like they were taken with a cell phone camera. ISO 400 is unusable under any circumstances.

It can also do a "bulb" exposure of either 1 or 2 seconds. After using the healing brush to spot out the hot pixels, I often still try to do a noise reduction. This usually ends up looking like I've done a gausian blur because there's so much noise.

Until I can afford a dSLR(or win the Trains.com sweepstakes :) ), I have quite a sizeable collection of Canon FD equipment which I've picked up cheaply off of Ebay and from KEH. At the moment, I have 6 bodies and 13 lenses. What they've cost me wouldn't have bought a Digital Rebel, and I have some pretty darn nice stuff too, from ultrawide to fairly long telephoto to superfast to macro.

[Jack_S]

Before investing money in new film cameras, consider this.

I read that Fuji was closing down several film development facilities.  So, before investing in a new lens for my old film camera (Auto-exposure but manual focus), I talked to an expert at a local independent photo shop.

In his opinion in 5 to 10 years it will be impossible to get film developed since all the commercial firms that do it will be gone.  I then suggested that only hobbyists who did their own development would be developing film.  He said no, because film and the chemicals would likely be unavailable.  He said that environmental considerations were driving this change, also.

Since I am just a moderately serious photo taker I concluded that spending serious money on upgrading my film camera was a waste.

Jack

[ben10ben]

Sorry, but I don't see film going anywhere anytime soon.

For one thing, there's always large format. Many of the people seriously shooting large format are finding that digital can't equal the resolution or the range of movements that 4x5 and larger cameras offer. The only digital options available in large format are scanning backs, which are bulky and have to be tethered to a computer. They're fine for studio use, but not for landscape or architectural use, two of the biggest areas where large format is used almost exclusively.

Second, there's medium format. Many hobbiests are now discovering that the can pick up great medium format gear for less than they could have ever imagined. I'm confident that I could get a basic used Hasselblad outfit for $500 or less. Lesser known and used medium format SLR systems, such as Bronica and Mamiya, are selling for even less. I can guarantee that the people buying these cameras aren't going to let them gather dust.

Third, there's Hollywood. The last I heard, they were still consuming millions of feet of 35mm movie film every year. Digital cameras haven't yet taken hold in a big way. Even if originals are made on digital, they will still be printed to film for distribution to theaters. As far as I know, there isn't a digital  projector in existance that will match the quality of a 35mm projector. Even if there is, it will be a while  before they're at the price point that the average theater can afford.

Fourth, plenty of people go on vacation and forget to take a camera. Although digital disposables now exist, it will be a while before they get to be as cheap as film disposables. Around here at least, disposables are hot sellers. I recall one evening standing in line to drop off some film at Walmart and seeing the person in front of me drop off 15 of these things for processing. I've known plenty of people who think nothing of going through five or six in a vacation. The consumer market is enough to make C41 film profitable for a while. The film lab at Walmart around here is often busy enough that one hour becomes four hours or sometimes even next day.

I'm lucky enough to have a pro lab within a half hour of me that does E6 in two hours, as well as C41 and black and white next day. Talking to them, they indicate that they still get a fair volume of E6 on a daily basis, enough to make continuous service from 10:00 to 3:30 five days a week profitable. I've been doing my fair share to keep them busy, although I certainly don't give them enough to keep them in business if it wasn't coming from somewhere.

Film continues to be developed. Just this spring, Fuji introduced two improved emulsions, and Kodak one. There have also been plenty of niche makers of black and white products pop up in the last several years.

For that matter, black and white is easy enough to develop at home. It's not even that difficult to brew your own chemistry using readily available chemicals and sometimes even things you may already have lying around the house. It's fairly common for serious black and white photographers to mix up their own batch of a developer that's no longer commercially available, such as Rodinal. It's entirely possible to develop using a mixture of instant coffee and washing soda. You can then stop in acetic acid(distilled white vinegar) and fix in salt water. Granted the whole thing takes a while(20 minutes to develop, 45 minutes or so to fix), but it can still be done. I once even looked into brewing my own emulsion more as a curiosity than anything, and it's not even all that difficult.

As long as there are people interested in film photography, and believe me there are still plenty, I don't see it going anywhere any time soon.

[CopCarSS]

Before investing money in new film cameras, consider this.

I read that Fuji was closing down several film development facilities.  So, before investing in a new lens for my old film camera (Auto-exposure but manual focus), I talked to an expert at a local independent photo shop.

In his opinion in 5 to 10 years it will be impossible to get film developed since all the commercial firms that do it will be gone.  I then suggested that only hobbyists who did their own development would be developing film.  He said no, because film and the chemicals would likely be unavailable.  He said that environmental considerations were driving this change, also.

Since I am just a moderately serious photo taker I concluded that spending serious money on upgrading my film camera was a waste.

Jack

There are still guys shooting Daguerreotypes out there. Considering that that particular process uses mercury vapor (fairly toxic stuff) in developing it's images, I'd doubt we'll see most of the film processes disappear completely. The only film I really see disappearing is Kodachrome which is kind of ancient stuff anyways. (Although it has proven itself adept at lasting a VERY long time...I've seen shots from the 40's that ,apart from the changes 60 years will bring, look like they were taken yesterday).

I think film will always be around, but it'll become a niche, speciality thing. Sort of like the practioners of daguerreotypes and the various wet plate processes. It'll become more and more expensive as the world in general moves to digital. Developing will ultimately have to be the responsibility of the photographer. And you'll see it being practiced at historical gatherings (kind of like wet plate photogs. at Civil War Re-enactments).

[ben10ben]

"The only film I really see disappearing is Kodachrome which is kind of ancient stuff anyways. (Although it has proven itself adept at lasting a VERY long time...I've seen shots from the 40's that ,apart from the changes 60 years will bring, look like they were taken yesterday)."

The newest Velvia, just introduced a year or two ago, is supposed to have a dark storage life of 300 years, which is longer than Kodachrome has ever claimed to have. Also, Kodachrome has an archival life of 75 years when dark stored, but it goes bad pretty quickly if it's projected. Although projection isn't great for E6 films, they're much, much more stable under repeat and extended projection. I don't project a whole lot anymore, but when I do, its nice to know that E6 films aren't going to mind it too much. By the way, I've found it very common to get a jaw-dropping reaction when projecting an original Velvia slide to someone who's only ever seen low-quality dupes of artwork and that sort of thing in a classroom.

The only Kodachrome I really cared for was K25. I only was able to shoot one roll of it, as it was discontinued before I ever had an interest in shooting slide film. K64 is nasty looking stuff to my eyes and K200 is way to grainy to be to my liking. Kodak discontinued the best of them, and people now pay crazy prices for K25 on Ebay.

I've found that I much prefer E6 process films to anything I've ever seen from K14, plus having a good 2 hour processor that's cheaper than one hour C41 processing is a definite bonus. I love E100G and E100GX, which, in my opinion, are some of the best things to ever come off of the Kodak line. I also really like Velvia 50. I haven't had a chance yet to try 100, although I'm sure I will need to, as people are now starting to pay the same crazy prices for 50 as they do for K25. My local store has some fresh in-date stock that they now want $11 a roll for.

[CopCarSS]

The newest Velvia, just introduced a year or two ago, is supposed to have a dark storage life of 300 years, which is longer than Kodachrome has ever claimed to have.

I'm not sure how old you are, Ben, but I remember my dad talking about the same claims that E4 made when it first came out. Sadly, much of the E4 stuff my dad shot is color shifting something fierce. I've got them in a dry cool place, but I'm starting to wonder if I'm going to need to keep it in a freezer to avoid further color shift.

I'm sure the E6's are better than that, and I have yet to see any color shift in all of my E6 stuff (some of which dates back to about 1991 when I first switched to slides). I just know that Kodachrome lasts a long time, because as I said, I've seen shots from the 40's that look incredible.

Of late, when I shoot my 4x5 and occasional roll of 35mm, I shoot Provia 100F. I was never a fan of Velvia. The colors are saturated, but not necessarily accurate to my eye. This is especially true for green to me. I'll look at a shot of a green field, or a nice green lawn, and the colors almost look like something one would see leaking from the nuclear plant in The Simpsons. Provia had nice bit of saturation, the colors are accurate and it's really fine grained. On those rare occasions when I feel the need for a little more saturation, I'll get some E100VS, or E100SW (usually the former, though I like the latter for fall colors).

Part of the reason I like my D60 so much is that it acts a lot like Provia. The saturation and colors are very much to my liking. Only rarely do I feel the need to dial in a lot of saturation. Something like this shot:

That's almost cartoonish, but at least the colors are accurate (apart from the surreal saturation of course). If I had to pick a film look, I'd say it's a cross between Velvia and Provia.

It's all about personal preferences, though.

[Anonymous]

I too am thinking of going digital as I am seeing more and more developed film come back so screwed up that I send it back. I know, I'm not using the most expensive processer but it once was that it was good enough to show and be proud of it. I just have not decided if 8mp is enough. Money is a concen. Phil

[DRBusse]

I have been shooting flim of railroad subjects for more than 30 years...thousands of rolls of K25, K64, K200 and most recently, Provia 100. I switched to autofocus in 1992--swore by it the first time I used it and laughed at the naysayers (until I had a TRAINS cover that was 100 percent auto-everything and the naysayers started to see the light, too).

Now I cannot wait to switch to digital 100 percent.

I'd do it right now, except for the fact that the camera I want to buy is a bit pricey (EOS-5D) with two kids in private college. So the longer I wait, perhaps the price will go down. I am totally impressed by images from the Canon Rebel/10D/20D/30D cameras but haven't pulled the trigger on those because of the smaller chip size and the fact that I like working with wide-angle lenses. But my wife's 10D has been a stellar performer and I've extensively field-tested the 20D and the 5D.

I absolutely hate the wait for film processing. And the automatic cataloging of digital images after downloading is, to me, one of the great advantages of electronic imagery.

In this post-9/11 world, I also hate the hassles of travel with film. When I fly, I'm more inclined to ship film to my destination and FedEx it direct to the lab as I shoot, rather than carrying it on an airplane twice.

But the thing that has sold me on digital most recently is the sharp images...period. I like shooting in all weather conditions at all hours of the day and night, and film just can't hold a candle to what digital can do. I did some side-by-side comparisons on several night shots using open-flash and large flashbulbs...digital won, hands down. And with available light, the results are stunning. Noisy? Maybe, but what do you expect? It's night!

However, if you are going to go with 35mm film, may I strongly suggest top-of-the-line Canon or Nikon gear...it's never been cheaper to buy the good stuff used.

One positive consideration about staying with film--the slides themselves. If you are a good shooter and get tired of the hobby, your original slides may have collecting value...check eBay if you don't believe me, but a friend makes thousands of dollars each month selling original 'chromes of railroad subject matter on eBay. Other friends don't wince at bids of $200-$300 for a single slide for their collections.

May I also suggest making sure your gear is fully insured? I've bveen ripped off twice--not a pleasant experience--but having insurance makes it more palatable (and fun when the new gear arrives).

BTW--an earlier poster from Kentucky might be interested to know that a switch to digital for me will allow me to spend that film and processing money to ship more cases of Ale Eight One from Winchester, Ky., to slake my California thirst on these hot summer days. Drank my last one a few days ago, but I'm told another case is enroute...

[ben10ben]

Chris,
I'm only 18, so no I wouldn't remember when E4 came out. I do have some Ektachromes(not sure what the process was then...E3?) that my dad took in the mid-'60s, though, that look horrible. They were stored probably about as badly as could be possible, with my great-grandmother having possesion of them and projecting quite a bit from then until about 1990, when she passed the projector and all of the slides along to my dad again. From then, they were stored in our relatively cool basement for about 7 year, and then in our temperature-varying garage for about 8 years until I rescued them and began trying to properly store and preserve them. The Kodachromes from that same time frame look really good, even though they were stored just as badly.

The one thing I hate about being as young as I am and only having fairly recently gotten into photography(in the digital age, no less) is that I missed out on a lot of really great films that are no longer available. Things like Kodachrome 25, Tech Pan, and Royal Gold 25.

What you say about films being a personal preference is really true. I never really cared a whole lot for Provia, although I know many do, and I've seen many great images come out of. That's why Fuji makes Astia, Provia, Velvia, and Sensia, and Kodak makes E100G, E100GX, E100VS, E200, and Elite Chrome, and Kodachrome. We can't forget the "straight out of the '70s" Ektachromes, either, like EPN, EPP, EPT, and all the other initials that I can never remember and keep straight.

I mentioned earlier that I really like E100G and E100GX. They're pleasantly saturated, low contrast, and very fine grained, which is all that I really want in a film a lot of times. Velvia is great to give some extra "punch" in a scene where it's needed, although I use it sparingly because of this. It's a great cloudy day film. I like Velvia 50 anytime I'm going to involve moving water in a scene, because it's the lowest speed film on the market and makes it easier to get a slow shutter speed to blur the water. When I use Velvia, I still often find myself boosting the contrast and adding more saturation in Photoshop.

You mention E100SW. That was discontinued sometime last year when Kodak introduced E100G and E100GX. GX is the direct replacement for SW, as it's a bit warmer. Really, I find that GX is closer to neutral, and G a bit cool. Because I generally always prefer things a bit warmer, I generally prefer GX over G.

[CopCarSS]

Hmmm...I guess it just goes to show how much film I shoot. I didn't even realize SW was discontinued. Guess next time I'm looking for fall 4x5 film (how about that alliteration, huh?), I'll have to try some of the GX. Of course, this may be the last autumn for that, as I hope next year to have a full frame digital and at least one T/S lens (the Canon T/S's, or might try a Hartblei Super-Rotator). If I have that, I'm really not sure how much LF I'll shoot. My 4x5 will get exercised once in awhile just like my 35mm film bodies.

It's funny you mentioned the low ISO's. One of the biggest nit-picks I have with digital is that most DSLR's offer comparitively high standard ISO settings. The Canon 1D, Prosumer and Rebel models are ISO 100, the 1Ds and Mk. II are expandable to ISO 50. Nikon's cameras start at ISO 200! The only digital body to offer a good low end is the discontinued Kodak Pro SLR/N and SLR/C (Nikon and Canon bodies). I believe they go down to ISO 6. One of the cameras I'm considering is the SLR/C because of this (I'm finding I'd like a low ISO option more and more). I'll probably wind up getting a 5D or it's replacement and using some ND filters, but then again, since the Kodak is discontinued, if I see one cheap enough, I might grab it as a specialty body.

You may have missed those films, but don't worry too much. K25 was really nice stuff, but hard to use for action shots because of it's speed. Tech-pan wasn't worth the investment, unless you were will to spend the time and money developing it properly (at which point, it really was pretty amazing how much resolution one could squeeze out of a 35mm neg.). Royal gold never impressed me much, but then again, very few print films did (I liked the Fuji pro films, and would occasionally use Reala which really was pretty good stuff for a consumer film).

I think once you make the jump to digital, you'll have a blast, and only maybe occasionally think about the halcyon days of film (and then you'll come to your senses! )

[ben10ben]

Chris,
As I mentioned earlier, I did get to shoot one roll of K25, and really liked it. I've shot several rolls of both K64 and K200, and can't stand either of them(K64 for the colors, and K200 for the grain). Plus, since I scan all of my better stuff, Kodachrome isn't that great of a choice for me no matter how good the original slides look.

I've just recently discovered 400UC, and really like it, especially for those times when a negative film is more apropriate. It's usually the film I take to weddings with me when I even bother to take a camera. It used to be called Portra 400UC, but a year or two ago, they redesigned the packaging and just called it Ultra Color 400 to appeal more to the consumer market. They sell it at Walmart and places like that, although it's still considered a professional film. It's a fine-grained medium contrast highly saturated print film that still has good skin tones. The first time I read that, I thought it sounded too good to be true, but it lives up to all of those claims. It's not at all like 400VC(vivid color), which is really just a higher contrast version of 400NC(natural color). There's also a 100UC, which has finer grain. I prefer the 400 most of the time, since I really don't see much difference in the grain and and I generally desire higher speed anyway those times when I shoot print film.

Since I'll soon be entering the realms of "poor college student", I don't see myself buying a dSLR any time soon. My FD system does everything I could ever want it to do all for less money than a new 30D. I don't really want to give up my 55mm 1.2 lens, for which the autofocus equivalent doesn't exist, and, even if it did, I wouldn't be able to afford it. Also, I just bought 76 expired rolls of Elite Chrome that have been frozen for about $.40 each, so I should be in good shape on film for a while.

But then, maybe, I'll win the Trains.com drawing, and won't have to worry about affording a dSLR