About
Anti-Digital? No, but not my first choice.
Although I shoot film in all formats my transition to digital capture is limited to 135 format - DSLR, rangefinder and point and shoot.
Put simply, the recent significant imaging quality improvements allow the types of photography I shoot in 135 format to benefit from digital capture - its instant results, functional flexibility, sharing and convenience.
My film photography benefits greatly from digital imaging technology through scanning and computer-based image adjustment and sharing - all of which are critically linked to digital capture technology.
But, while I am certainly not anti-digital, film still dominates my preferred types of photography that is done with medium format systems - giving me detailed rich images in larger prints that is just not matched by 135 digital systems.
I resisted digital capture until recently for cost / benefit and performance reasons - image quality and practical reasons.
It's the "digital darkroom" that most meets my needs today and delivers my photography great benefits. But, alas for me the disadvantages of digital capture can outweigh the benefits of speed of image availability and lower cost of image processing.
A definite advantage I've gained as an indirect result of the "digital revolution" has been the new availability of iconic premium quality equipment, especially in the medium and large formats - lenses and accessories. Others I know have taken this new opportunity to enter medium and large format photography, which a few years ago was definitely out of their financial reach.
However, what has held me back from digital capture is primarily a very fundamental issue. Unlike professionals who make a living from speed of delivery such as sports journalists, I don't need such an advantage. Likewise unlike wedding photographers who critically benefit from instant image review, I don't.
While digital capture quality has dramatically improved and reached "near" film performance, there are caveats to consider.
My views of the caverats/disadvantages of digital capture technology are:
1. Less is not more: The long history of film has shown that image media size is critical to image quality - the bigger the film frame, the better the image quality (all other things being equal, of course). Hence the failure of 110 and APS as substitutes for 35mm even in low -end consumer segments. 35mm remained the optimal "small format". Likewise hence the development of larger photographic formats.
Technical experts confirm that the same concept applies to digital capture, despite how comparatively well sensor developers have developed that technology - you can only squeeze so many pixels into a sensor area. Yes, there are many clever and good quality "cropped sensor" products available today. But, their image quality is limited to relatively small prints and then a discerning eye may still remain dissatisfied with the result - "horses for courses", where happy snappers can be well satisfied with the result.
But, for me a full frame sensor in 35mm format cameras was not negotiable - as in the case of film cameras, anything smaller will not meet my quality expectations. But technology continues to advance. And by 135 format SLR photography involved more "normal" and long lens angles of view.
Interestingly today, some manufacturers (e.g. Canon) are saying that they may have reached the resolution limits of cropped sensors - any more pixels added to these sensor will not improve, and may degrade the final image; so the law of diminishing returns applies.
* The above image in a full resolution print shows remarkable resolution of super-fine detail right out to the edges - a mix of slower film and superb optical resolution.
But, the cost of a full-frame DSLR equivalent of my Canon 1vHS is just prohibitive to me and again, I just don't have the "immediacy" needs to justify that cost. Further thought made me realise that a true good quality "cropped-sensor" would suit my 135 SLR photography well.
The CanonEOS 50D offered the best compromise for my 135 SLR shooting.
In medium format digital technology there are no full frame sensors (and some say there may never be), but clearly, some cropped frame sensors produce remarkable if not film equivalent images. However, these (e.g. Imacon) come at a stratospheric cost and other hidden computer procesing costs.
2. Resolution quality: Certainly the transition to digital capture has involved many steps backward to achieve some steps forward. Sensor size is just one major step backward. Added to this is the also critical issue of image resolution. Resolution quality is not just a function of pixel volume, but also an issue of pixel quality as well as the effects of other elements such as firmware and software that control them.
Just as optical companies have achieved their pinnacle with resolution capabilities beyond the human eye's ability to resolve fine details, film manufacturers achieve remarkable resolution capabilities too, which have come close to matching the very best optical resolution. The result has been images of superbly resolved super-fine detail adding to the images' appeal.
As these achievements matured the digital sensor arrived, but did so with well inferior resolving power - so much so that images had noticeably questionable appeal. However, every month or so significant improvements have been made in that resolution quality.
Digital capture's rather exponential improvements in resolving power (number and quality of pixels in a frame) has been limited by sensor size (law of diminishing returns referred to above). Arguably Canon's current 17MP full frame sensor is the 35mm DSLR benchmark.
But, all of this comes at the cost of other capture and physical issues - storage needs, battery dependency and the need for high quality post processing.
To my eyes there is also a certain "plasticity" (albeit constantly improving) in 35mm DSLR maximum resolution digital images - an image quality that dos not appeal to my eyes. To me, it's a similar issue to viewing a celluloid made movie versus a digitally captured movie - to my eyes a step backwards rather than a step forward.
Here the Leica M8 digital rangefinder camera offered an excellent solution, especially after the release of the M9 amde it an affordable proposition.
And today, the very best (and excellent at that) maximum resolution digital images also come at too high a financial cost even after considering post processing cost advantages.
In the medium format sphere the issue for me is different - to my eyes the best backs produce (or even exceed in some aspects) film's quality and attributes, clearly resulting from a much larger sensor area than full frame 35mm sensors and obviously better and more expensive technologies built into the pixels themselves; processing firmware / software as well as a greater number of pixels. Today's best maximum 39MP sensors and even the entry level latest 16MP sensors produce beautiful high quality images of film quality with some outstanding attributes such as dynamic range.
But alas, in the medium format sphere, these come at an even higher and essentially "commercial use only" cost.
And again even the medium format sensor technology includes what are for me some steps backward associated with a cropped sensor:
3. Application: Added to the above issues, any best 35mm or medium format digital sensor (capable of producing images that I feel are the equal of film today) that is cropped brings about application issues that for me, are disadvantages.
The cropped sensor means that image circles thrown by lenses exceed the sensor's surface area thus leading to a cropped image. So, a sensor cropped to 1.5 will produce an image angle of view from a 50mm lens equal to the angle of view from a 75mm lens.
This cropping factor leads to two problematic factors in my use, which are unacceptable:
1. changed relationship between angle of view and depth of field. When I shoot a longer focal length I am expecting to work with that focal length's depth of field characteristics. I want a 75mm lens' angle of view to come with its narrower depth of field.
This issue is compounded as one works with wider angle of view lenses to achieve a more normal angle of view from the cropped sensor. Some higher cropping factors lead to excessive depth of field thus nearly prohibiting subject isolation. Owners of "micro-sensor" point and shoot digi-cams will attest to how it is nearly impossible to achieve narrow depth of field at any focal length due to the extreme wide angle lenses necessary to produce normal angles of view from extremely cropped sensors.
The second issue is one of optical quality and characteristics. With cropped sensors (depending upon the actual crop factor), one can find he is working primarily with very wide angle lenses from say 16mm to 28mm to achieve more moderate wide angle (35mm and normal 50mm) angle of view images.
The issue here I see is that laws of optical physics cause wide, very wide and extremely wide angle lenses to be the most expensive and difficult to design and build to high standards of resolution, distortion and aberration correction.
This means that making a film to digital transition where the sensor is cropped will require an added investment in very expensive optics, which ultimately may not be producing the image characteristics you want and are used to working with. For me this is an important issue.
* The image above shows a huge and challenging dynamic range from deep shadows to bright highlights - but not too difficult to capture on consumer grade negative film together with excellent optical resolution of super-fine detail. Most 35mm format digital cameras would find such an image very challenging to match.
And consider this, while great optical companies like Leica do not offer say a 16mm lens for its rangefinder 35mm film cameras (for reasons of a mix of demand, development and manufacturing costs), it will likely offer such a lens for its forthcoming digital rangefinder (cropped sensor) camera (and still throw a full frame image circle). Does this mean that all of the companies usual design criteria will be met? Will that lens be 100% the optical equal of its brothers? Or, will / can / have corners been cut in its development and manufacturing? Of course, this is as yet unknown territory for Leica. But, certainly in the more general market we have seen very inferior super wide angle lenses hit the streets in recent years. Hopefully Leica will not follow suit.
For me this is simply a territory that I did not need to explore. But, more recently the major quality lens makes such as Leica, Canon and Voigtlander have been designing and releasing lenses that fill these gaps very well.
In the pre-digital capture era, camera manufacturers differentiated their products through user features, their lens mounts (few consumers really understood issues involved in lens mount design and performance quality) and the optical quality of their lenses. But they all had one thing in common - all other things remaining equal, image quality was not a point of difference. That was a given by film common to all camera makers. The reality was that one 35mm camera did not take better photos than another - the buying decision was about users features.
Today, the critical point of differentiation between manufacturers' digital cameras is essentially sensor performance and image characteristics. Sure, user features are promoted by them, but little differentiates them for these features were developed and matured before digital capture. It's this that explains the demise of previously successful manufacturers like Pentax, Konica Minolta, Bronica and Mamiya - they just were not able to efficiently differentiate their hardware are produce the sales volumes they needed.
So, while in the past we did not have to concern ourselves about a new camera's image qualities; today we need to understand the complexities of technology and image quality to enable a good buying decision.
Today buyrs are well advised to initially invest in the best digital camera body/sensor they can afford, then progressively invest in quality lenses as their budgets allow. The logic is simple - no matter how good your lenses are, if the sensor performance is poor, nothing is achieved! This is in total contrast to the best advice given to film camera buyers in the past.
Finally, what I hope to convey in this essay is that when photographers plan a film to digital transition, there are many, varied and complex issues to consider carefully. Unless of course, you're either a "happy snapper" or a professional where that transition is somewhat "forced" upon you - take the best you can find and afford!
It's the development by Panasonic and Leica of the Lumix LX3 that actually attracted me to digital point and shoot convenience. The combination of sensor and optical quality that simply amazed me!