Popular Photography says that Canon's 16 megapixel EOS 1Ds Mark II digital SLR edges out film

It's all over for film. Well, it's not really all over, but it's the beginning of the end now that Popular Photography, which isn't exactly an apologist for digital, has conceded that in tests Canon's new 16 megapixel EOS 1Ds Mark II took better pictures than a regular SLR camera (Canon's EOS 3) shooting high quality ISO 100 film. They'd predicted a few years ago that digital cameras would have to get up to at least 24 or 30 megapixels before they'd start to rival film cameras in quality, but now they're saying that the better color and lower noise of the EOS 1Ds Mark II gives digital the edge.

[Via Photography Blog]

[yeoz @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

One would hope that an eight-thousand dollar digital camera would outperform a sub-thousand dollar film camera.

I mean, seriously, WTF? The comparision doesn't make sense.

[Cullen @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

i didnt read it, but if they really did that...this isnt news. :p stick it against a medium format hasselblad or something, this just seems stupid. now im going to go read the article and feel stupider when they justify it :p
a 16mp digital camera is not a 'regular' digital slr, if that was what they were comparing theyd have chosen a rebel, right? right...?

[Brian @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

yeoz: The point is, the capability is there, and sooner than expected. Before, that wasn't true, and no digital camera had yet been proven to rival conventional film photographs.

[Scott @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

Yeah, comparing image quality is a lousy idea in photograph.

[Steve @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

You know, some people have been saying that digital SLRs have been exceeding the photo quality (resolution, noise/grain, dynamic range) of 35mm film for a few years now, and as someone who's been shooting digital SLRs for four years now, I'm inclined to agree.

[Scott @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

Yeah, comparing image quality is a lousy idea in photograph.

[10D owner @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

#1, it's not about dollars. The comparison makes sense if you disregard the cost of the different technologies. All they are trying to determine is the picture quality of film vs. digital on a fairly high end camera.

The price will come down once high end camera makers like Canon and Nikon figure out more megapixels is no longer going to make photo pros and deep pocket hobbyists keep buying an upgraded camera every 18 months.

[J1000 @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

Wow didn't expect to see ruffled feathers in these comments. They're just making a comparison, don't take offense. For someone who shoots 35mm film for a living, the price difference (although huge) would be totally worth it if it meant being able to shoot more pictures with no film canisters to haul around, instant photo review, and a faster post-processing time. In a few years that technology is going to cost sub-$1,000 anyway.

[Jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

Well, and the other reason cost doesn't matter is we're talking pro photography here, which means two things:

a) Cost is really no object to begin with, but perhaps more importantly,

b) Over the span of a few years, a pro photographer can *easily* spend $7,000 on film and processing. In fact, more prolific photographers could probably *save money* on an $8,000 digital camera vs. a $1,000 film camera.

This is a pretty big deal. Lots of photographers still stick with film because they're convinced the quality of digital is not there. This is the first real test I've seen in a mainstream mag (it's not the first anywhere; I've seen a few on the net) that pretty definitively shows that a 16mp camera beats even high-quality, well-processed professional film.

It's not really valid to say "we all knew it was going to happen, so therefore this is no big deal." It's one thing to know it's going to happen sometime, it's another to say THIS IS THE MOMENT when it actually happens.

And btw, comparing medium format to 35mm is not a valid comparo either, to answer someone else... this comparo in Pop Photo is apples to apples. 35mm sensor vs. 35mm film.

[carson @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

Jeff has a valid point on 35mm sensor vs. 35mm film. And although you can"save" money using digital your going to spend a quite a bit of time on digital management and conversion, white balance and color correction sharpening and etc. These are the things I have to explain to clients when they compare film to digital prices. One of the biggest arguements will also be longevity of film to digital. (You should know that outcome by now.)

[James @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

Aren't most medium format cameras digital now anyways what with the phaseone digital backs and all? They're rocking like 22 megapixels im sure that beats film?

[Seth @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

Perhaps most relevantly they're comparing to ASA 100 print film as opposed to Velvia 50 or E100VS which would explain the color and noise gripes. I shoot 6x7 as well as 35 and I have no compelling reason to switch to digital... yet. However, between The 1DSII and the new Mamiya, the horizon keeps getting closer and closer... and me, a Nikon/Pentax man!

[Adam @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

The 1Ds mkII also happened to drop right around the same time that Sony and Panavision bequeathed the Genesis to the world:

http://www.panavision.com/product_detail.php?maincat=1&cat=36&id=338&node=c0,c202,c203

Cinema 35mm sized sensor, over- and under-cranking, 12.4mpx sensor with NO BAYER INTERPOLATION (!), 12 stops of exposure latitude, and completely uncompressed 4:4:4 RGB output. Best of all, it mounts all of Panavisions 35mm film lenses. This thing isn't quite doing to cinema film what the 1DsII is doing to still film, but the time draws nigh.

[popeye cahn @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

For one thing I can view my chromes in daylight as long as my eyesight (or anyone's...) is working. No lack of file compatibilty issues there... but alas one must feel gravity's pull and be sucked into the time/space continum of the digital convergence.

Long live HP5+ and Tri-X!

[Nate MC @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

I loved film until I realized I spent on film and developing every year that I could buy a DSLR, so I did. Sold all my AF film bodies but kept the manual bodies. Sometimes you just need film to get a certain shot but for everything else my D70 works great.

Adam... I want that Panavision rig :P

[fod @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

#2, it makes no sense to compare a 35mm to medium format. medium format uses a much larger sensor/film area, which is why the digital backs for them can be so much higher res.

IMO, comparing the eos 1Ds mkII to the EOS3 is fine; as it really is a good camera, and since they are comparing image quality, the lens used will make a much bigger difference than the body (and i trust they used L glass)

i personally can't wait for the 20d-type camera ranges to have 35mm sensors.l i'll be dumping my 300d then :D

[GLN @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

What ever happened to considering the "magic" that film offers?
In my opinion as a professional I feel that it's near impossible to get that inherant quality of let's say what Kodachrome can offer or Fuji 800 with it's almost "powdery" feel or a poetic and grainy Ilford 3200 BW film (pushed 2 stops in process), this is what photography is or can be, it's so much more about what you want to communicate with the medium. The whole low-light thing with digital is dreadful or when people say 'add grain' in post then it's not even a consideration as it also looks dreadful. Backlit shots are no good either, the sensor cannot handle the bounce and refraction that happens (magic on film). Digital is the new chrome - clean, sharp and sterile or at least that's what it does best and far outperforms it's same format on film in that regard. However, there is so much work to do post capture in order to get a remotely usable image.
I am in no way opposed to the Canon, in fact I have one on order as we speak. If you're opposed to the digital medium as a pro at this point then your kidding yourself and should seriously get at least a knowledge of the capabilities.
Just use the right equipment for the job you need to shoot.

[JTD @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

"CD vs. Vinal"

"Tubes vs. Solid State"

[darx @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

*looks down at 3mp digital camera*

"I still love you!"

[Ernie @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

Getting to sound like the CD vs. phonograph record thing, which sounds better?

[Claes Nilsson @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

I can understand people without arms using their feet to paint. But people that have arms and still paint with their feet are just stupid.

Clinging to film is to neglect technology and live in the old ages. Digital is here to stay, wether you are using a simple P&S-camera or ha Phase one P25 with Hasselblad H1, the advantages over film are huge.

[XiozTzu @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

@GLN I would be interested in what your thoughts are after you got your new Canon. Maybe the Engadget crew will let you post a review?

[Fred Burkin @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

Film is dead!

[gary @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

Like any other tools....there is a time and a place for both!
I like many elements of digital photography but have recently started carrying my film cameras as well.
Best of both worlds!

[gary @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

Like any other tools....there is a time and a place for both!
I like many elements of digital photography but have recently started carrying my film cameras as well.
Best of both worlds!

[gary @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

Like any other tools....there is a time and a place for both!
I like many elements of digital photography but have recently started carrying my film cameras as well.
Best of both worlds!

[Andrew Neale @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

film is alive and kicking, and is just as good and still better than digital.

ansel adams would have rolled around in his grave if he read this blog.

what about large format? anyone anyone? or have you forgotten your roots?

digital has a long way to go before it can produce a file as clean and large as the kind of stuff ansel adams did without any interpolation. and don't forget the work that went into his early photographs before he hired a lab hand.

he would spend days in the lab "editing" his photos, so don't pull that; disadvantage of digital is the post processing,

if you call yourself a photographer you will respect the great medium of film and welcome the new medium of digital and put an end to this lazy debate.

there is one simple answer to all of this.
each medium and make and model has its up's and downs and it's push and pulls. each is paced for diffrent styles and workflows. and each will find a home to a photographer who has a vision he/she wants to depict from her/his own unique angles.

there is no right or wrong answer.

but the mark ii is a nice camera, and ansel adams might have tryed it out if he were alive today.

drew neale
photo drew professional portrait and wedding photography

1723 west olive street
suite 100
stillwater mn, 55082

[Jeff Acme @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

"The challenge to the photographer is to command the medium, to use whatever current equipment and technology furthers his creative objectives, without sacrificing the ability to make his own decisions."

Ansel Adams intro to the Camera 1980

Digital is here to stay and if your not shooting it, your missing the revolution.

[Sam @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

What, Drew Neale, you want me to drop by and come over or something?

Why the hell would you post your address?

n00b.

[Joe @ Dec 19th 2005 12:14AM]

Use your brain mate ;)

He put his address in case anyone needs a wedding photographer...

And my 2c, film vs digital is not a competition. It's like trying to argue whether oils or watercolours are better for painting...

The interesting thing about what has happened is that digital is undeniably better for *some types* of photos, whereas for quite some time it was inferior in every way (except convenience and maybe cost per picture.)