"VS"

35mm Film vs. Digital

When doing film vs. digital comparison, I prefer to compare like to like, and compare larger formats of film, as shot by most pros, to the DSLRs used by most pros. 35mm film is an amateur format, so I've never bothered to compare.

I was shooting a 1956 Kodak Retina IIIc on Friday, and out of curiosity had some automated 5,035 x 3,339 pixel scans made at the local minilab. Just for laughs, since these scans looked so good, I shot the same thing with my D3 to compare.

The 1956 camera, with its fixed 50mm f/2 Schneider Retina-Xenar on Fuji Velvia 50 and a good automated scan, has better resolution than Nikon's state-of-the-art digital.

Hee hee! One day I'll have to shoot a modern camera and have a real scan made from 35mm, which will be much better, and maybe I'll even compare to the curent state-of the-art in 35mm digital, which is Canon, and is also better than Nikon.

Digital is easier and cleaner, but even 35mm film shot on a 52-year-old camera still has more sharpness and resolution. The Retina camera and its meter both work without batteries.

The Retina camera cost me $75, complete with working meter. So it goes. Film: The Immortal Medium of the Masters. Digital: Profit center for large foreign corporations.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm