When did digital become good enough for you?

[woof woof]

The giving up film and digital mp threads got me thinking about when digital became good enough.

I had a 35mm compact camera and a Nikon SLR when I got my first digital camera, a Fuji S602 pro zoom. The image quality from that was good enough but with a question mark over dynamic range. The camera was also let down by the focus system which seemed very slow so it went and was replaced by a Canon 300D, then a 20D and then a 5D. These Canon's were better than the Fuji and the focus ability was a move forward but my expectations went up too as I was doing more post capture processing and was disappointed by blown highlights (this was an issue with film at times too) and if I protected the highlights and raised the shadows I got a lot of noise. The 5D came very close and at one point I thought I'd never need a better camera but there was still a question mark over noise plus I was never really happy with the bulk and weight of these DSLR's, they were bigger and heavier than my Nikon SLR and lens.

When mirrorless came along in the form of the Panasonic GF1 I bought one but it was quickly replaced with the similar but with an EVF G1. At this point I was the happiest I'd been since going digital as I had a compact camera and lens package which was about the same size and weight as my SLR set up, the image quality was mostly ok and I could protect the highlights and lift the shadows more without the noise I was getting with the Canon's. When the FF Sony A7 came out I was an early adopter and this camera is a definite step up from anything else I've had.

So, for me I think the image quality from digital was mostly good enough from the day I bought the Fuji except for DR and from that day I was never going to go back to film but my expectations grew and I wanted more DR and to be able to lift the shadows without ugly noise and I wanted this in a smaller and lighter package than a DSLR. The Panasonic G1 convinced me that mirrorless was the future for me but there were still some question marks over DR and low light performance but at least the shadows could be lifted to some extent without showing the noise that my Canon files showed.

So really for me the Sony A7 was the camera which was the real turning point. It answered the complaints I had about DR, lifting the shadows and low light performance, the focus is good enough and with a compact lens it's a compact package. Everything else before the A7 had a question mark or more over focus ability or DR / low light performance and shadow lifting but as some of my disappointment with previous cameras was down to raised expectations I'll say that the digital camera which was good enough for me was the Panasonic G1.

How about you? Assuming you have given up film, at what point did you decide digital was good enough?

 

[nandbytes]

How about you? Assuming you have given up film, at what point did you decide digital was good enough?

As soon as I realised I wasn't limited by 36shots, didn't have to keep buying 36 more shots, mess around with chemicals or alternatively wait forever to see the images I took.... Sorry I could be here all day telling you why I don't like, will never like and don't care for film.....

TL;DR I much rather use my phone from 15 years ago than use another film camera.

 

[woof woof]

You realising you could take more than 36 shots reminded me how daft I was when I 1st went digital. I did zero research and I was surprised that 28mm on my Canon DSLR didn't seem like 28mm. The answer was that the early Canon DSLR's were APS-C and 28mm ended up as looking like 45mm. I went to Jessops and asked the assistant if he had anything wider than 28mm and he said "Not really. Once you get wider you're getting into fisheye." So, I don't suppose he knew either.

Also I used to set my ISO and go out for the day and it never occurred to me that I could change ISO from shot to shot.

 

[NCV]

I took a break from photography, for a few years after doing it semi professionally, and suffering photographic burnout. When I came back I bought a little Olympus compact that was fun but suffered a shutter lag measures it seemed in seconds!

I think the film processing got to me in the end. I was doing performing arts photography for our local theatre. I also worked with Italy's leading dance company. After a show or dress rehearsals, I would often work long into the night developing the films, and printing out contact prints or press release handouts. After a few years the long hours spent in the darkroom, it looses its charm, and seeing an image emerge from a black sheet of paper is not magic anymore.

My camera dealer convinced me to buy a D70, rather than another compact. I think the Nikon D70 was the camera that convinced me, that for me, film was a thing of the past. In fact I bought a F100, that I used for one film, before realising, I had no desire to spend long hours in the darkroom, and that I could print colour at home easily. Also getting supplies for the darkroom became a problem when our local professional dealer closed.

I sometimes think about how much easier it would be today to do performing arts photography with digital with just a download to the computer and a Dropbox transfer to the client.

That D70 was a faithful companion on many adventures, including a time spent for work in Mexico, long day hikes in the Italian Apennines and many holidays. I reprocessed some pictures I shot with this camera in modern software and I was amazed how software has improved too.

A cheap second hand D700, convinced me after using M43 for a while, that FF was the place to be, and all my old lenses had the angle of view that I grew up with. Im now on a Z7 - D850 setup.

 

[Gav.]

What is film???

 

[KIPAX]

Because I am a certain age people often say..... how i must be enjoying digital it as its better than film...... duh.. never had a film camera apart from the ones you take to the chemist aftre your hols

 

[woof woof]

What is film???

Awww. Bless. Too young

 

[artyman]

My first digital was a 4mp of unknown origin, but it took reasonably decent shots, I was still using my Olympus OM1n back then. The Canon 350D was what i consider my first real digital camera, I still have and use it, this was superceded by a 7D

 

[Nod]

For snaps, when there were enough pixies for a good enprint - 3MP was enough for me and a print from that blew a 35mm (Nikon) compact's prints out of the water! Stuck with 35mm for a few years after that, until 6MP DSLRs became affordable which for me was just after the D70s was released - plain D70 dropped in price and came with a couple of hundred quid's worth of vouchers. I'd seen A4 prints from a D70 and they were good enough for me.

 

[Ed Sutton]

My days days of sending slides to magazine editors only to get them back months later covered in filth were over when this pic was used as a double page spread in an angling magazine.

3.1mp Fuji S5000 bridge camera in Program mode with pop-up flash.

 

[Stephen L]

Think it was around 1999 with a 1megapixel Fuji of some sort. But I really started getting into it with the Olympus C2020. I still use fim occasionally, not because of any difference in quality, more for the feel and fun of an old mechanical machine.

 

[Abdichoudxyz]

I had a ‘hiatus’ from photography for a few years, after leaving education and having no access to a darkroom (I did have my own at home for a while, then moved to another flat where it just wasn’t feasible) etc. I bought a digital compact in around 2005, but tbh it wasn’t great. I kind of lost interest as a result. I didn’t consider DSLRs to be of the level of quality and performance to warrant the relatively extremely high entry cost, and it wasn’t until 2012 that I decided to return. I started off with a s/h Nikon D200 but quickly moved onto a D600 as it became apparent that the D200 was quite limited (the APS-C format annoyed me for starters). I considered that the point at which ‘proper’ photography, in digital form, became ‘accessible’ to more people, as such cameras weren’t several thousand pounds. For me, it was the point at which full frame digital had matured to match or exceed film in terms of IQ. Cameras like the Nikon D3, D700 and Canon EOS 5D had brought full frame into the digital arena, but the D600 was the first one I could afford. It was a revelation. Decent low light performance down to ISO 6400, decent AF, great handling. Wonderful camera (I still have it, 10 years on!).

 

[woof woof]

I reprocessed some pictures I shot with this camera in modern software and I was amazed how software has improved too.

A cheap second hand D700, convinced me after using M43 for a while, that FF was the place to be, and all my old lenses had the angle of view that I grew up with. Im now on a Z7 - D850 setup.

Yes to both these things.

I too have been pleased with software developments and I've been reprocessing pictures going back to the Canon DSLR's and the Panasonic GF1 and G1. I'm also please that 35mm is 35mm again with FF.

 

[Abdichoudxyz]

Yes to both these things.

I too have been pleased with software developments and I've been reprocessing pictures going back to the Canon DSLR's and the Panasonic GF1 and G1. I'm also please that 35mm is 35mm again with FF.

Sames. I really couldn’t get on with the fact my D200 couldn’t do wide angle (I had a bunch of old Nikon lenses, the widest being 24mm which was only 36mm equivalent on DX), which is why I quickly switched to FX. Never looked back. I can appreciate that people who’ve come to photography in the digital era might be comfortable with smaller formats though. But some of us are a bit old school.

 

[Phil V]

When I bought the 300d - frankly the high st processing I was getting for 35mm by then was utterly atrocious.

So the answer is 'as soon as I had a semi competent DSLR.

My results with the R6 are incomparable to what I could achieve with 35mm film in every way possible. One day I'll try a 30" print from the R6 and be able to tell you whether IQ is better than my Bronica ETRS (I suspect it might be)

 

[lindsay]

I was using what to me then was the zenith of film SLR's, a Pentax MZ-3 (I was always a Pentax person, never wanted to join the herd with Canikons), and a Bronica ETRSi. I then took a break from photography after separating and then divorcing, too much else going on, but in 2009 jumped with both feet into the digital world by buying a Nikon D300, which I thought was amazing, and I've gone on from there with gusto. I've never given up on film though, as I've been able to acquire a number of the film cameras I used to lust after in earlier years. So I guess I was a late adopter really, and stayed with film rather beyond it's sell-by date some may say.

 

[realspeed]

My first digital camera was the The KODAK EASYSHARE CX4200 (2mp camera) .Came from a Voightlander Vito CL 35mm film camera (still got it and still like new) Bought it to see what all this digital thingy was all about but not wanting to go expensive. Soon discovered its limitations although a good camera at the time . I went on to getting into the Nikon range.


Warwick Castle

Extrct from exif data Date stamp may be incorrect as not programmed in back then by me and a couple of yeas later on?

Standard Information
Make: EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
Model: KODAK CX4200 DIGITAL CAMERA
Software: Version 1.0100
ImageSize: 1632x1232
ComponentsConfiguration: Y, Cb, Cr, -
CreateDate: 2002:01:01 00:12:07
DateTimeOriginal: 2002:01:01 00:12:07
ExposureTime: 1/73"
Aperture: F4.5
MaxAperture: F4.5

ISO: 100

ShutterSpeed: 1/73

 

[Deleted member 68495]

2005, Coolpix 880 (see Megapixel thread for details). It was a wrench having to sell my Nikon FM2n and all my [manual focus] lenses but it was just too much trouble light-proofing a room and having smelly chemicals that went off. That Nikon was a lovely camera and these days I regret no longer having it as even though I wouldn't use it, it was just nice to hold.

I have my last camera now, a D850, I'll not buy another one at my age. It's quite a concern really, I own my last house, my last motorbike, my last camera and my last wife (I hope). I couldn't responsibly buy a puppy as it would outlive me (probably); it's all a bit sad really, but as was said in The Shawshank Redemption, "get busy living or get busy dying".

 

[ancient_mariner]

I'm not sure digital has become good enough yet, but I still use it.

First compact that wasn't complete poo was a Samsung S850 with a 1/1.7" 8mp sensor and ISO 50.

 

[Plain Nev]

Not sure what year it was, but I bought a Canon A640, I think it was. It was 10 MP, and miles better than my film cameras. That did me for a good few years. I've still got it somewhere. If only I could find the bloody thing!

 

[woof woof]

When I bought the 300d - frankly the high st processing I was getting for 35mm by then was utterly atrocious.

So the answer is 'as soon as I had a semi competent DSLR.

My results with the R6 are incomparable to what I could achieve with 35mm film in every way possible. One day I'll try a 30" print from the R6 and be able to tell you whether IQ is better than my Bronica ETRS (I suspect it might be)

This is what pushed me to buy my first digital camera. Batch after batch of films were coming back looking poor and with marks and hairs on them and the last straw was when I asked for some to be processed for the third time and they came back the same accompanied by a snotty note telling me it was important to keep negatives clean and in good condition. I'd never taken them out of their sleeves. I assumed at the time that they'd cut costs to compete with digital and that this was the reason for the poor quality and QC.

Do you know why quality seemed to go down?

 

[woof woof]

I'm not sure digital has become good enough yet, but I still use it.

First compact that wasn't complete poo was a Samsung S850 with a 1/1.7" 8mp sensor and ISO 50.

I remember using a Canon compact at work. The quality was good enough for what I needed at work but it just ate batteries in minutes.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I remember using a Canon compact at work. The quality was good enough for what I needed at work but it just ate batteries in minutes.

The S850 was really good for the time, and I didn't appreciate how good it was until comparing it with others years later. I used NiMH cells and could get several hundred shots from a set.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

When did digital become good enough for you?

...from the first pictures I took with a Coolpix 990.

3.1MP may not seem much but having the shot there and then, with nothing more to pay, fired my enthusiasm...

 

[Nikon photographer]

Back in 2004 after I'd bought my Nikon D70, before that I had a Fuji which came free with a new computer, 1.3 mb, it was terrible, eat through batteries, it was only useful to taking photos for my eBay shop, after that a friend who worked in a local computer store got me a Kodak 5mb camera, which to be fair was pretty good, but it was only used for holiday snaps, but the D70 was the one that made me change from film to digital.

 

[Topsy]

Around 2002 when I got a Nikon D100.

 

[woof woof]

My first digital compact was a credit card sized Medion and I still have it. It's an all metal thing and is quite lovely really but there's just the back screen, no evf, and the colours can be all over the place, I think it's actually better as a B&W camera.

This is it in the front.



This is a picture I took in Scotland. I printed it out to fill an A4 and the print went in a box and I didn't look at it for years. When I found it again I was quite shocked at how good it looked.



This is a picture I took in Whitby. I converted it to mono and printed it to fill an A4 and it's now framed and on the wall together with another picture I took with this camera on the same day.



Both these pictures were taken in 2006.

 

[Stephen L]

This was taken in 2001 on Staffa with an Olympus C2020Z. Uncropped, reprocessed in Lightroom.

Puffins on Staffa by Stephen Lee, on Flickr

 

[LCPete]

As soon as I bought my first digital DSLR a Canon 350D it was a revelation and I haven’t bought a film since
The quality was excellent and my opinion at least the Canon 40D that I bought next was better quality than I was getting from film

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I would agree that my 40d was my first fully capable digital camera. It's main shortcoming was limited iso capability before noise became an issue. But up to iso400 it was no worse than film.

 

[Garry Edwards]

As a professional, my requirements may not be typical, but here goes.

I think that the first usable DSLR was a Canon, in 2000 - very expensive and very limited. My first decent digital DSLR was the Fuji S3 in about 2004/5, quickly replaced by the Fuji S5 a year or two later. These cameras completely replaced my 35mm film cameras, the noise levels were terrible at anything over 400 ISO but 35mm was also terrible at higher ISO.

I think it was when I bought my Nikon D3 in about 2007 that I found that I no longer needed my medium format (Mamiya RZ67) film camera.

As for large format, there's still no replacement. Digital backs are available but the costs didn't justify the change.

 

[woof woof]

Some pictures I remember taking with my Canon 300D. All were jpegs and all reprocessed with modern software.

I've always taken pictures at Saltburn. I remember taking this picture with my Sigma 28-300mm. I was stood on a wall, ISO 1,600, f6.3 and 1/100.



I used to have an A4 print of that pier shot on the notice board in my office at work.

This one was also ISO 1,600 but at 1/1,000. I have no idea why.



These were taken on holiday. I used to use small apertures in those days. I suppose I never really understood what I was doing with APS-C DSLR's.





Looking back at that camera and the 10D, 20D and 5D that followed I was mostly happy with the IQ but there were issues with blown highlights and noise and I was never happy with the bulk and weight.

 

[the black fox]

My very first digi cam was I can’t remember it was 2 mp and had no screen so still hit and miss ,but the shots came out on my p.c .. a host of others followed over the next couple of years think it worked out about £300 for every extra pixel Upgrade , , I then took a mega jump with a Sony 8mp f828 swivel lens bridge camera .. .. the guy in my Local camera shop was stunned by the results , after that it was my first DSLR a canon 40d those two cameras were the start of a expensive hobby as the 40d started me into wildlife the rest is history

 

[garry71]

Can't really say there was a definite point where I thought digital was good enough, but not having processing costs and a 2 week wait to see the pictures was an immediate hit with me. It was a gradual transition from film to digital. I still use both. Only keep my film cameras as they still work(one is 84 years old) and most don't need batteries.

 

[Dryce]

How about you? Assuming you have given up film, at what point did you decide digital was good enough?

For me there were three stages.

For me digital became 'good enough' for general walkabout at around 3Mp. My film usage started top drop off - I'd carry a 3Mp compact. I stopped carry a compact 35mm camera.

After getting my first 6Mp APS-C DSLR then I never looked back. I stopped carrying a film SLR completely. My 35mm film usage finished.

I'd concur with what @woof woof says regarding highlights. I came from using mainly E6 slide film in my SLRs and still found the early smaller sensors a challenge. And even with the larger early 6Mp CCD sensors gave nice colour but the dynamic range was limited compared with the later sensors after the transition to CMOS.

 

[Craikeybaby]

I used a small digital compact - a Canon Ixus v2, from 2003, but it was really the Eos 20D I bought in 2007 that was the full switchover. I still have this image I took with it printed large on my living room wall:


Derwent Water winter scene by Lewis Craik, on Flickr

 

[redhed17]

I'd already given up on film, and photography, at the end of the 90's. Too expensive, and because of that, I was slow to improve, 36 images at a time.

A photography course at the local adult learning service, (where I now work) opened my eyes to digital, and what was possible, after being pretty ignorant of the advances. That was 2003, and a Fuji S602Z Pro soon followed, and then a consuming hobby from there on. Adding a few Photoshop courses matched up perfectly.

I feel I improved more in a couple of months than I had in the previous 10 years. And whereas I did no darkroom stuff with film, just sent the film away, I was now processing the images in Photoshop.

The quality of the Fuji S602Z Pro blew me away, compared to the often mediocre results from film. That was very good for about 2 years, until the lure of the (D)SLR returned after the 'love' for photography being reinvigorated. A Canon 300D was the plan, (and the 350D was about to come be released) until I had the chance to hold one. My knuckles scraped the lens whilst holding it. By contrast, a Nikon D70 felt it was moulded for my hand. So it was the Nikon route from then on.

 

[Harriers9]

My first was a HP 2MP that I won when Staples opened their store in Kidderminster. I had won a £1000 HP voucher so bought that along with a HP PC and a HP printer.

Up until then I had been doing film with my Canon AE1 and AE1 Program. I wasn't impressed with the HP camera (it was rubbish frankly) but still used it until I realised digital was here to stay so bought a Canon A70 but it wasn't until I bought a Canon A640 that I realised how good digital was.

That was a stunning little camera until one day in Barcelona I fell in love with a 450D that the shop owner allowed me to use around the shop for 30 minutes and then printed out a couple of photos from it. Bought it on the spot and smuggled it back home through customs

Had a few more since then and would never go back to film.

 

[woof woof]

The quality of the Fuji S602Z Pro blew me away, compared to the often mediocre results from film. That was very good for about 2 years, until the lure of the (D)SLR returned after the 'love' for photography being reinvigorated. A Canon 300D was the plan, (and the 350D was about to come be released) until I had the chance to hold one. My knuckles scraped the lens whilst holding it. By contrast, a Nikon D70 felt it was moulded for my hand. So it was the Nikon route from then on.

I nearly drop kicked my S602 over a hedge so many times. The focus was IMO next to useless for anything but nailed down static shots. Glad (but amazed) you liked yours but for me this was such a disappointing camera.

 

[droj]

In the light of the thread title it seems slightly odd that all the talk has been about cameras alone, and I haven't noticed anyone mentioning a hybrid workflow. I got a Nikon Coolscan film scanner in 2001 that produced about 9mpx from 35mm, and along with that continued using a film slr until 2012.