35mm film vs. 5D

Chris L

Chris L

Messages
931
Name
Christian
Edit My Images
No
I've been wondering about buying a film camera for a little while now for a couple of reasons. The first is the look of a film image, both the grain and the increased tonal range. The second is because I believe that if you were to enlarge a 35mm neg it will retain more detail than an image taken from a 5D enlarged to the same size.

Whilst I'd love to try a decent MF camera I already have an excellent FF digital camera and lenses that would work really well with something like an Eos 3 rather than purchasing a completely different system that would only see occasional use at this stage.

Can anyone confirm if my suggestion regarding the quality of enlarged 35mm images compared to a 5D image?

If this is correct then how much larger an image could I get from a 35mm film neg scanned on something like a Plustek 7500 film scanner compared to the 5D whilst showing comparable levels of detail?

If on the other hand this is not the case or if the difference is marginal unless one goes to MF then can anyone suggest some good sources for processing digital images to try obtain an authentic looking "film" image from a digital RAW?

Cheers,

Chris
 
A plustek scanner is not going to be able to compete with a 5D, that is essentially the comparison.
I think only drum scanners could create a worthy scan to compare.
You could try a 5D v a projected slide, but you'd need to figure out a way to convert a 5D to a projection, in the same way we force film on to digital.
Generally its accepted that some 35mm films generate an image equivalent to 25mp, but its all about the scanner, and like comparing apples and oranges.:)
I don't think even the most ardent fan of 35mm, shoots it for improved quality over digital these days.
 
For what it's worth, I use a 5D and film - 35mm & MF............The 5D has come out of hiding only once in 6 months because of the difference - the 35mm prints I get from my Xpan (even more so from my MF) are far superior (5D prints are from an Epson R2880). This is just one take on the question though, plus there's one 'biggy' I've not mentioned in that I develop direct from the negatives/slides - not digitised!
Don't know much about scanning negatives but I suspect that if you don't scan to a bigger file than the 12.1MP file of the 5D then there can't be an improvement.
 
you sir sound like you need a 5dmkII, why not but a film camera and try, they are so cheap second hand these days and you'll then have a definate answer.
 
One major difference is that when you scan 35mm slides, no matter how good the scanner, when you look at them at 100% the grain looks appalling.

I had some scanned slides rejected by Alamy probably for this reason.

I loved using 35mm Velvia, and it has been a massive learning curve for me to get into digital. Having said that I recently started using a 5D and on screen the images look fabulous.

I can't quite understand why you would want to get the film "look" from digital. There's no doubt that film had its limitations and you can overcome many of these using Digital.

Another point is that each film had its own "look", which was at the same time its main selling point and its main disadvantage. With digital you can use various tweaks to overcome the inherent limitations of any particular type of emulsion. If you can cope with all the technology, that is.

I agree that the EOS3 would be a good film camera to use and you can probably get them for peanuts now.
 
a1ex2001 said:
you sir sound like you need a 5dmkII,
Click to expand...

Erm no...:D I'd *like* a 1DsMkII but I'm not comfortable spending so much of my hard earned in the current climate as I may well have a need for those savings later this year.

Thanks very much to everyone for their advice, very useful :)

Based on the comments in this thread and having checked the price of drum scanners I think I'll skip the idea of scanning 35mm negs :D

I really liked the idea of being able to digitally edit some shots if I fancied but not at the expense of final print quality. Is it the same situation with scanning MF negs too?

I still like the idea of picking up an EOS 3 and having a play with some B&W film (probably even more tbh) but as I really don't have the space (or knowledge!) to do my own processing I'll no doubt be back later asking for advice on the best labs for processing (y)

Thanks again guys :)
 
Chris L said:
Based on the comments in this thread and having checked the price of drum scanners I think I'll skip the idea of scanning 35mm negs :D
Click to expand...

I don't think any one will go and buy the drum scanner - those need large room and a special trained operators to produce best quality scans. So instead of prices of the scanners you should really check the prices of the lab that does the scans on drum scanners ;)
 
dalex_257 said:
I don't think any one will go and buy the drum scanner - those need large room and a special trained operators to produce best quality scans. So instead of prices of the scanners you should really check the prices of the lab that does the scans on drum scanners ;)
Click to expand...

Links? :D
 
first one on a googly

http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/services/scan/wciscans.htm


I'm not sure if CCimaging do drum scans or not, I can't get on their website, which is really unusual...:cautious:


humm, I'm going to cry my eyes out if they've gone wotsit


3142exk.gif



*edit*.......right that's it, a link to a site in the US, its clearly bedtime :bang:
 
Well i've been there, i've bought successive Canon digital SLRs til i reached my current 5d. But the lure of a featured film camera for next to no money was too much - so ebay turned up an EOS30 and battery grip - OK its not on a par with the EOS 3, but the different feel and handling are a nice change from digital. Addthe fact you have that sense of anxiety as the negs/prints come back. Buy some C-41 process B&W film and you can use the cheap high street developers too !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top