Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/08/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jonathan, There is no question that a digital SLR, not even full frame, is superior to film in the situation you describe. My Canon 20D produces images in dim light, with the ISO set at 1600, that are comparable if not better than 400-speed film. There is no doubt that a slow film like Fuji Acros, carefully exposed and developed, can produce a better image than my Canon. But when the light dims and the speeds go up to 800, 1600, or 3200, then there is no contest--digital wins hands down. This is one of the reasons why I switched. Nathan Jonathan Borden wrote: > What might be an interesting comparison would be the quality of candle > light photos taken with the Nocti vs. say a full frame digital sensor. > Having used high speed B&W film, I find that I prefer to use slower, > but higher quality film (e.g. ASA 100) and accept whatever blur might > occur with a partially moving target e.g. a hand gesture as someone is > talking. On the other hand, a digital sensor might be able to produce > less golfball sized grain and better shadow detail than a 3200 speed > film at a lower IS0 (?) > > Jonathan > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > -- Nathan Wajsman Almere, The Netherlands General photography: http://www.nathanfoto.com Seville photography: http://www.fotosevilla.com Stock photography: http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=wajsman http://myloupe.com/home/found_photographer.php?photographer=507 Prints for sale: http://www.photodeluge.com