banjonut Loc: Southern Michigan

Too many variables. Lenses play a big part. Make a print from each and examine apples to apples. I'm not sure what the answer is, I just know that in my case, what I get from digital these days, far exceeds what I ever got from film. But......I was never that fond of the processing from the corner drugstore.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Perceptions and memories are always subjective, but then what else is there? If we were objective we would all agree and there would be no art.

home brewer Loc: Fort Wayne, Indiana

My guess is that the glass (lens) had a lot to do with it. My prime Pentax lenses were faster than the much slower auto focusing Nikon lens I own today. Thus for the same shot I was shooting 1 or 2 stops faster.
I miss the split focusing.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Well, you have to admit that 40 years is a long time. Surely you are doing something wrong because modern cameras with their sophisticated AF are excellent when it comes to focusing on the subject for a sharp photograph.
I never used Velvia. I prefer pastel colors and to obtain them my favorite films were Kodachrome 64 or Fuji Provia.
Both had beautiful color palette and the slides were full of details and gorgeous tonalities. Kodachrome was not very good for enlargements because of the grain. I never enlarged Provia.
It has been my understanding that no slide film goes beyond 5-6 stops of dynamic range being 5 stops very realistic. Color negative and b&w film have much more latitude and are more flexible in that respect.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Todays DSLR's focus screens are optimized for AF lenses in AF operation. Try to use an older manual focus lens & nailing focus is difficult. Using the newer AF lenses are a pain as well as they almost all have very short focus "throw" that is intentional in that by having the short focus throw, the camera can obtain focus more quickly. However, any slight change in the focus ring position will throw off the focus. Better to just use AF lenses in AF position (with the possible exception of macro lenses) due to this. As for the internal focus screens, I replaced the screen in my old Nikon D70s with a cut down MF split image screen made by one http://www.focusingscreen.com/ While Nikon said the screen wasn't interchangeable (at least by the end user) I changed mine out & it made a big difference. Of course the old problem of half of the split image blacking out still remained with slower lenses or not looking straight on into the viewfinder. On my later DSLR's, I use a viewfinder magnifier & ,with practice, I have found it to be sufficient to getting proper focus. I do use a number of older manual focus lenses on my cameras...

Jim S Loc: Barrington RI, DC now Hilton Head,

Might the differences be that digital images are made of "dots" while slides are continuous tones?

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

How are you doing the comparison? Slide vs Printout? Slide vs LCD screen? The only way to do a proper comparison is by print. What camera and conditions? OMG, I got sucked into another stupid question. Just disregard. The question cannot be answered.

amyinsparta Loc: White county, TN

Maybe you're getting a tad shaky. just saying... :mrgreen:

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Indi Loc: L. I., NY, Palm Beach Cty when it's cold.

Actually, you can convert your DSLR to a split screen on most models. I remember a few discussions here at UHH on the topic.
Yes, split screen was definitely great.

Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI

Thank you, any idea of the D7000 & D7100? Kindly advise.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Several factors at work here, My father was a Master Machinist/Toolmaker and thus very clever with making things, and he always said, you gain one thing (attribute) you loose another. We are never going back to film... it was a PITA and expensive. Perhaps not too bad when shooting a roll of transparencies... but then you had to have them scanned in to print, or sent out to print- and then someone who cared, or have a darkroom to process and print, your learning curve was 1000 times longer, your turn around weeks longer, your costs 100 times more expensive.

Second, how were you viewing these slides? on the wall? through a loupe? holding them up to the light? I think a digital print at that size (reduced to 35mm )would hold up very well... you are comparing apples and oranges if you think about how you came to this conclusion. Scan in the slide, and then compare at the same percent on screen and I'll bet you might be disappointed.. perhaps not.- but the only fair assessment. It won' be the slides fault, pixels introduced in the scan will depend on the quality of the scanner , etc. etc., no oil and you might see gaussian lines... wher the slide is not flush withthe glass, you'll get distortion, all sorts of l pitfalls! Your digital image will be first generation, your slide is now second or third. I have worked with old 4x5's that have been scanned in on a exceedingly expensive drum-scanner run by top notch professionals, and I prefer a high res digital image I am afraid.

Don't get me wrong, I have many 1000's of 4x5's and 35 mm, 2.25 x2.25 , and other more obscure format chromes that I adore as well... spectacular shots from bellows format cameras made with pro photographers and a troop of assistant's and banks of lights... they are just too expensive to bring to print in all but very special cases... And I still love a slide show.


RE: Digital Backs:
The back that cost $40,000 back to replace film paid for itself or they wouldn't have sold one. That was no doubt a 4x5 PhaseOne or similar and they go for about that price point even now, and pay for themselves in saved processing, turnaround, shipping etc. etc very quickly in a professional environment shooting catalogs and the like. Not if all you do is fire it up once in awhile.

Finally, RE: Split Screen
On Nikons, there is a focus indicator similar in performance to a split screen in lower left of the D800... > • < when the dark circle in center appears, the focus mode you have selected, point , points or many points, is in focus... On the D90 it is a single white (yellowish) dot... I reference it when using my manual lens all the time and it works great!

MW

I recently dug out an old N80 and ran ten rolls through it. Just an exercise in nostalgia to remind me what it was like. Mostly it annoyed me. Even a local pro lab could not develop negatives without dust and scratches. After scanning absurd amount of time is spent in Lightroom cleaning them up.

On the plus side, color can sometimes be really nice though I think digital is more accurate. I haven't found presets or other software that reliably simulates color film colors. That said, the same non-linearity that makes the colors nice can backfire sometimes.

It was interesting, but confirms on my mind that digital is better.

hkatz Loc: Ohio

I agree and refer you to a post I put up a while back:


http://pavelkosenko.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/4x5-kodachromes/

problem child Loc: Kingman AZ

That's why I still shoot film only.... IMHO digital still has a long way to go to compare to film.........