Maybe film on a medium or large format camera. My Nikon D3s puts out better files than film. I've gone back and scanned B&W negs, color negs, and slides including Kodachrome. The current digital files are better. Film does look different, but is it better, I don't think so especially if you compare a higher iso film to higher iso files.
I wish, I'm hoping to get the D4s soon, a few friends have them and they are very very nice. But then again they should be for 6K. Of course to me it's just a tool, I'd wear out most prosumer cameras in a year, two at most. Need to break out the 4X5, I haven't shot it in a long time.
Then again, you have to consider the optics, film types, and processing to make a fair assessment. Digital is convenient, but nothing beats a well-processed roll. Film has better dynamic range, handles highlight transitions better, and handles long exposures much better than digital. I think both have their respective drawbacks, but under certain conditions film will produce a better file. Same could be said for certain conditions that digital is better, especially in low light situations. In the end I think it's a matter of preference and/or application. No denying that digital is taking over, and every year the technology gets better. Film will be around for a while, unless someone can produce a medium format digital rig that won't cost a small fortune. The buy-in for film rigs in most formats is relatively inexpensive.......well, until you start developing large batches.
I don't think he meant it as a side x side comparison as much as a 'flavor' preference. For some reason a lot of people seem to hang onto that film brings 'richness' bs into discussions. I remember reading awhile back that your best film 35mm is no more than equal to a high quality 4MP DSLR. I don't know how accurate that is cuz the photo's from my original 1D seem to be pretty awesome when compared to my old 35MM.
A bad, OOF shot would probably render at or less that 4MP. A good shot (with good glass& good film) can squeeze about 24MP tho. This for 35mm film.
I don't think that is true anymore. I started shooting digital in 2001, it wasn't that great, but for newspaper work like I do it was fine. 13 years later and I don't have a problem saying digital is better than film. Except maybe for long exposures which I seldom do so I can't comment on it. Comparing 35mm film with a full frame sensor dslr digital is better in all the other categories you mentioned. I don't think it's even close anymore. Like I said, I've gone back and compared B&W, color neg, and slide film, including kodachrome. Digital is better than film now. Granted I don't shoot with a P&S, I use a Nikon D3s and shoot 99% of the time with a 24-70 and 20-200 2.8 lenses. But that is also a 4 year old camera that isn't made anymore. The D4s and D800 are both better than the D3s.
Sorry but that has more to do with the scanner than the film, there isn't that much resolution in film, I've got thousands of slides and negs to compare. And do you know the best way to scan those film images? Shoot them with a digital camera.
I have noticed the quality of even prosumer rigs going up, could be the case nowadays. I'm currently shooting a lot of 120 film and although not a fair comparison, my FF rigs can't keep up. It is interesting to see the boundaries broken every year. Pretty soon you'll need a 32g card for your iPhone. LOL BTW, why is the file size for the D800 so fucking huge? gaddamn
There's that point about the scanner. I'm not sure I would line up and shoot negatives with a digital rig, tho I've heard that before. edit: I just spent more time than I really wanted watching folks shooting negatives. To hell with that.
I'm still working, who knows how much longer the way things are in the news biz though. I actually don't shoot much when I'm not working. Too busy doing other things usually and after carrying a camera the other five days of the week it's nice to set it down. I got started by shooting sports, back when you had to manual focus. I shoot a bit of everything like a news shooter would. Portraits, wildlife, motorcycle races...... I like location lighting, it's a nice challenge and it's fun to manipulate the light. If you set up an enlarger film holder to shoot film it isn't so bad, a couple small flashes and a 105 macro lens and it's pretty easy. Though every spring I say I'm going to get my 4x5 out and shoot it. I've got a tripod for it that will hold me. D800 is 36Mp that's why the files are so huge, also why a lot of people are using it instead of 120. Sold all my 120 stuff years ago. Gotta go to work.....
Without getting into the debate regarding film and digitial, as a back-up camera for a DSLR, depending on how budget sensitive you are: - a simple, small, basic point-and-shoot like a Canon S100, S110 or whatever the current version of that camera is. In good light, the results will please you and be good enough to allow you to make nice enlargements. In bad light, it will start to show its limitations to a degree, but if your photos are intended for web use, review on electronic devices or for enlargements smaller than 8-inches wide, it will be plenty good. Your cheapest option here, and still very good. - a "fancy" point-and-shoot like a Sony RX100 II, but it will cost four times as much as the former, and the quality, while very good, is not "4 times better". Again, if the intended use is mostly web, electronic devices and smaller prints, I don't see a reason to spend that much more to get this instead of the simple Canon S100, as the results would only show up on larger prints. - there are nice mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras available, at a higher price still, that produce outstanding results, if you pick your optics right. There are several models from both Olympus and Fuji that can take tremendously good snaps, if you use good optics (17mm 1.8 on the Olympus models, for example), but this is pricier still and closer in capability to your DSLR. In my view, if your phone camera doesn't cut it, but only just, go with an S100 or whatever it is called these days. You'll be happy and won't break the bank.
