Digital vs. SLR...

[Axel]

Are the top models of digital cameras as good as the top SLR's when it comes to the quality of the outcome (the picture quality)?

I see a lot of people having digital cameras here, but have alwys though that SLR's are better... :?

 

[GerryDavid]

Film SLR camera's have a greater latatude than digital slr's. I think the fuji pro 2 has more than other digital slr's, so some prefer them for wedding's. Also with better film slr's you can get more frames per second, wheras the digital one is limited by its buffer and writting speed.

Also with digital slr's ive been told any pictures exposed for longer than 25 minutes or so is garbage due to alot of noise.

 

[Big Mike]

Are the top models of digital cameras as good as the top SLR's when it comes to the quality of the outcome (the picture quality)?

I see a lot of people having digital cameras here, but have alwys though that SLR's are better... :?

Digital & SLR are not mutually exclusive. There are digital SLR cameras...just as there are other types of film cameras besides SLR.

While the top end Point & shoot digital cameras are pretty good...they are nowhere near as good as a digital SLR. The reason is that (most) digital SLR cameras have a sensor that is much larger than the ones they put into the smaller cameras.

Even an 8MP P&S digital is no match for something like the Canon digital Rebel, which is only 6MP but has a larger sensor.

Have a look at dpreview.com they list the sensor size for most digital cameras. You will notice a large size difference between the SLR digitals and the other cameras.

 

[arthurleung]

I am using both for around 6 months. My experience:

SLR: can make you shoot seriously since film cost you a lot for D&P.

DSLR: you can learn shooting by viewing the photo instantly, you can improve shooting skills quickly by try and error.

For photo quality, film always better than digital if you need big output e.g 12 x 12. However, there is no big deal for web posting.

 

[Digital Matt]

For photo quality, film always better than digital if you need big output e.g 12 x 12. However, there is no big deal for web posting.

I wouldn't consider 12z12 real big, considering I have 20x30 prints from my digital rebel that look phenomonal.

 

[tr0gd0o0r]

For photo quality, film always better than digital if you need big output e.g 12 x 12. However, there is no big deal for web posting.

I would question this also. I've gotten wonderful results at 20x30 from my *istD. They were far better than I would have expected from a 35mm negative.

As far as the original post goes tho, overall quality (with my Digital SLR) vs fIlm slr seems to really depend on what i'm doing. At 8x10 (when I take my time and get everything right when developing the film) then there really isn't too much of a quality difference. But i personally think that B&W usually looks a lot better on film.

Also, after about 2 minutes of exposure, digital photos start to do really strange things.

 

[Digital Matt]

I've taken a star trail shot with my 300D that was over 30 minutes and only had a tiny bit of noise in one corner which I easily cloned out. Film is way better for that type of thing though, and I agree that there is a difference in look to a true b&w film print, and a digital print. That's not saying one is better. I think in terms of quality, depending on what you want to do, they are equal. Then it becomes a preference.

 

[ksmattfish]

There are just too many variables to make an overall statement that one is better than the other. They are different and have their strengths and weaknesses, and a lot of qualities that overlap or are unique to one medium or the other. For every plus there are minuses, and how important they are depends on each individual photog.

One thing I would say about your initial question...

Are the top models of digital cameras as good as the top SLR's when it comes to the quality of the outcome (the picture quality)?

is that while you would require the top model DSLR to get top quality digital output, you can buy top quality film, and stick it in an entry level SLR and get top quality film output (I'm saying I can take just as good of pics with my old Pentax Spotmatic (value about $30) as I could with a Nikon F6 (value several thousand dollars)).

 

[tr0gd0o0r]

I've taken a star trail shot with my 300D that was over 30 minutes and only had a tiny bit of noise in one corner which I easily cloned out.

Is that a normal result or a freak accident? Cuz i've had terrible results w/ my *istD. Any suggestions?

 

[Digital Matt]

I don't think it's a freak accident man Canon sensors, what can I say.

 

[GerryDavid]

In my lighting class we were talking about recesioipity *or what ever the spelling is* of film and digital came up, and one guy in my class said that anything over 26 minutes is garbage due to noise, but he is usin a nikon d100 or something like that. Also im not sure what iso he's on.

Matt, when you did hte star trail for 30 minutes, what iso were you on? Have you tested to see how long you can go before it is useless due to noise?

Also does the 300d and/or 10D allow you to lock the mirror up for long exposures with out a release cable or do you have to invest in thier $80 one to do the long exposures with out standing over the camera holding the button down? :0)

 

[Digital Matt]

Gerry, ISO 100 of course I have a cheap remote for mine that costed like $30 which allows me to lock the shutter open. The 10D has mirror lock, but the 300D does not, (Unless you hack the firmware). I haven't tested the limits of noise on long exposures with my 300D. I'll have to find that shot and post it and give you the exact time. There are programs that allow you to stack multiple images which give the effect of a long exposure for star trails. Imagestacker I think is the name of one. You can manage noise with Neatimage pretty well too. There will always be noise in digital long exposures, and I'm not going to print a 300D star trail shot at 20x30, but it's possible to get a good shot.