From: Floyd L. Davidson on
"Rutger" <nospam(a)please.com> wrote:
>"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> schreef in bericht
>news:070320070812162004%nospam(a)nospam.invalid...
>> In article <pan.2007.03.07.15.53.05.559375(a)zianet.com>, ray
>> <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
>>> film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
>>> what is available with film.
>>
>> digital is *much* better than film at high iso.
>
>That is *very much* dependand by brand.

There is no brand of film that is better than all brands of
digital cameras.

The question was not if there is a given digital camera that is
not as good as some type of film. Of course there is. The question
is which is best at its best; and the answer is digital.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: ASAAR on
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:58:03 GMT, Paul Furman wrote:

> I think he will need a wider lens for groups of people in a kitchen
> unless it's a huge kitchen. I initially only saw the $1000 budget but
> with $1500 he could get a Nikon D50, Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and 18-70mm
> lenses. I don't know the Canon options as well.

It depends on the kitchen. Mine might need an ultra-wide. :)
For many, 18mm is probably wide enough. A turkey in a pan isn't
going to be as quick as a toddler in the living room or a frisky
pet, and if the rest of the shot is sharp, the slight blur of a
stirring spoon might even be desirable. If the kitchen is small and
dim, then the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 might be a good addition, but I'd
hold off on it for at least long enough to find out if the 18-70mm
lens's aperture is too small. A bigger problem in cramped quarters
will be dealing with harsh and very uneven lighting if a flash has
to be used, but dealing with that can come later, as I don't think
that the solutions would be effected very much by the choices of
DSLR body and lenses, as long as there's enough left in the budget.

From: ray on
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:21:09 -0800, nospam wrote:

> In article <pan.2007.03.07.18.44.00.473793(a)zianet.com>, ray
> <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote:
>
>> >>I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
>> >>film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
>> >>what is available with film.
>> >
>> > Digital is significantly better at higher ISOs.
>>
>> I see. I don't suppose you'd have a reference to a definitive analysis?
>
> <http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html>
>
> basically, unless one is using fine grain film, pretty much any digital
> slr is going to be better, especially at higher iso.

I certainly was not referring to cheapie film off the wall at Walgreen's.
I plan to delve into some of the references above, but I'd still be
surprised if a DSLR will out perform high quality, high speed film at low
light levels.

From: ray on
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:47:20 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:13:36 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>>> ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 04:03:00 -0800, ipy2006 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
>>>>> best DSLR for this purpose?
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Yip
>>>>
>>>>I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
>>>>film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
>>>>what is available with film.
>>>
>>> Digital is significantly better at higher ISOs.
>>
>>I see. I don't suppose you'd have a reference to a definitive analysis?
>
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
> http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
> http://photo.net/learn/optics/digitaloptics/
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d60/d60.shtml
>
> The controversy seems to be whether that has only been recently
> true, or whether in fact the Nikon D1 (1999) out performed film
> at high ISOs.

Interesting references. Only problem is that they seem to be addressing
what might be achieved under optimal conditions rather than addressing
high ISO - low light action shots. I'm still not convinced.

From: David Dyer-Bennet on
ray wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:21:09 -0800, nospam wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2007.03.07.18.44.00.473793(a)zianet.com>, ray
>> <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
>>>>> film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
>>>>> what is available with film.
>>>> Digital is significantly better at higher ISOs.
>>> I see. I don't suppose you'd have a reference to a definitive analysis?
>> <http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html>
>>
>> basically, unless one is using fine grain film, pretty much any digital
>> slr is going to be better, especially at higher iso.
>
> I certainly was not referring to cheapie film off the wall at Walgreen's.
> I plan to delve into some of the references above, but I'd still be
> surprised if a DSLR will out perform high quality, high speed film at low
> light levels.

Several of us who've played with high-speed film for multiple decades,
and digital for somewhat less, have told you that in our experience
digital is *much* better than film at high ISO. This is also a truism
repeated in nearly any introductory discussion of digital photography
aimed at people used to film (the fact that you can use ISO at least a
stop faster than you're used to for the same quality results).

Skepticism is healthy in a broad sort of way, but I'd suggest that this
sort of widespread consensus contrary to your beliefs should be at least
pushing you to doubt yourself, and to be actively seeking to run your
own comparison tests.

If you in fact care, of course; you may have strong opinions but not
actually *use* high ISO so you don't really care. In which case it
might be better to just drop the discussion.