Welcome to my Photo Blog!
Sony A7R - Is It Really Better?
I am well vested in Canon camera and lens gear which obviously makes it hard to consider another brand for photography. But times have changed after Sony released a novel class of mirrorless cameras equipped with latest in technology Exmor full frame sensor - the A7 and A7R. Especially the A7R kept my interest since it offers 36 MP of resolution with high dynamic range without the usage of a low-pass filter. Another advantage of mirrorless cameras is their ability to use all kind of lenses ranging from rangefinder to SLR and DSLR lenses with suitable adapters on them. Since I own a few older Canon FD and some M42 lenses, this was an additional plus. I decided not to purchase an A7R camera instantly after it was released end of 2013 but to wait a few months to read reviews and find out more about its potential drawbacks.
A few weeks ago, I finally grabbed a decent deal for the Sony A7R camera. I am still keeping both of my Canon 5D MkII DSLRs - one is for IR light anyway, the other one would function as second camera body in addition to the A7R later. I also bought the Metabones III Sony camera E-mount to Canon EF lens mount adapter. This adapter is not cheap (unfortunately $399) but the best option currently on the market to allow to use Canon EF lenses with AF or MF together with the A7 camera series.
Sony's A7 cameras arrive in a box with (very short!) USB cable to connect to a PC or Mac, and also to charge the battery plugged into the camera with the included USB plugin charger. Unfortunately Sony decided NOT to include a battery charger in the package - many complain about this in my opinion rightfully. Would it hurt Sony to include a new $50 battery charger for a camera around $2300? (A7R list price - Update: prices have come down, now in 06/2014 you can get the A7R for about $1800 or less). I don't think so. So I still need to get the Sony battery charger plus one additional battery - both items are currently back-ordered at most online retailers. Also interesting that you won't be able to use any transparent cellphone cover to protect the OLED display of the A7 series camera - it simply wouldn't stick. You are better off purchasing additionally for $14 the Sony screen protect semi hard sheet. Counting all of this - plus Metabones adapter, charger, additional battery, you will be paying about $2800. For this price, you can buy easily a Canon 5D MkIII camera or - if you intend to switch - the Nikon D800. So is it really worth it to go with Sony? Here is my summary and subjective impression:
PROS:
1. Weight&Size: amazing! The whole camera body fits by its length into my hand. It is very light-weight which makes it a perfect travel camera. The size fits in a small camera bag.
2. Operations: Some criticize that the buttons of the A7 series are too small or to cumbersome to use. I find it the opposite - I never had a camera which made it so easy to change aperture, exposure time, ISO, magnification, and exposure settings all in one hand and by looking through the viewfinder while doing all the changes! Other than the bit cumbersome C2 function button, the camera's button and wheel locations are well thought of and designed. I am a big fan of the EVF in the A7R - the display is bright and the functions can all be seen very well to make changes. Much better than in any Canon DSLR which I operated so far. The EVF is 100% field of view coverage! After a photo is taken, I also prefer to review it through the viewfinder - I can see details better in the EVF viewfinder than on the display especially when shooting outside.
3. Focus Peak Area: Part of camera operations, but I find it so important that I created a separate bullet point. It is one of the "must use" features for me in this camera. It makes MF a pleasure to use quickly and accurately. The outline of objects in focus is enhanced with a specific color (can be customized, I use red) when focusing manually. This can be combined with the MF Assist function which displays an up to 14x enlarged image. It is hard to miss a manual focus even at wide open fast apertures when applying those two functions.
4. LCD Display and OLED EVF: very crisp and clear LCD display which can be tilted according to the user's position to the camera. The OLED based electronic viewfinder is superb in resolution and reveals very well photo details.
5. Sensor: the heart of every digital camera - the Exmor CMOS sensor without optical low pass filter leads to a very high resolution with low noise and rich tonal range.
6. Image processor: BIONZ X image processor allows fast recording speed with 14-bit RAW for high detail and tonal range processing.
7. Wireless connectivity: comes with pros and cons, but overall it is a good thing to have. So far I used it rarely and rather prefer to download the RAW image files from the SD card directly through card reader to my PC.
8. Third party lenses: ideal camera for this. It even allows to use cropped sensor lenses and jumps then automatically into the APS-C size capture of the full frame sensor (similar function has the Nikon D800(E) series). The A7 series works will all kind of photo lenses most ideally made for 35 mm full frame. This opens a broad field of lens accessory which can be used with the A7(R) camera. The camera's mirrorless design allows not only use of SLR but also of rangefinder lenses with fewer lens elements which are smaller and often better in quality.
9. Camera body built: the A7R has a magnesium alloy body which is more resistant than the plastic body of the A7 model.
10. Camera balance: no issues so far - I am mostly using the Metabones adapter tripod mount or the lens tripod mount instead of attaching the tripod plate directly underneath the A7R camera.
CONS:
1. Manual: it simply sucks and develops into a patience test to learn about the camera. It just provides you with a very quick overview about its main functions but does not tell you how to operate the camera or which custom settings are best to apply. It took me a few days to dig through the menus and functions plus settings. I found most of my questions answered by googling it - I found that everything was already at least once asked in one of the many photo forums out there. Sony definitely needs to improve there. I wouldn't be surprised if people are unsatisfied with this camera because they don't understand the functions or how to use them.
2. Charging: without external battery charger, you need to rely on the charging of the battery inside the camera through USB cable. It takes 310 minutes to fully charge an empty battery this way. Also, the battery arrives uncharged in the box, so you need to wait about five hours(!) before you are able to use the camera fully charged. Again, Sony could have avoided this by adding the external battery charger into the package.
3. Battery consumption: is high. Because display or EVF view is always turned on, it drains the small battery rather quickly. Currently I only have one battery, but fully charged it lasted me for a day trip of photography so far. But it is better to have at least one spare fully charged battery with you.
4. Menu structure: needs to be improved. Some functions are hidden in sub-menus where you don't expect them to be. HDR is one example - the manual HDR option is conveniently located in the display view where you can select up to 5 photos taken in a row with a given range of under- and overexposure stops. This works fine with RAW files. There is another Auto HDR mode in the settings menu which only works with JPG files in the camera. I personally find this option rather useless. I am not convinced that users of this professional A7 series camera need in-camera JPG files anyway.
5. Remote Control: Oh well, Sony. You got me badly with this one - I tried for hours to get it to work with my Samsung Galaxy S3 Android cell phone via wireless or NFC connection. It didn't work. It is one of the worst documented features in the manual, too. I had no trouble connecting the A7R to my wireless router, and I also was able to directly connect my cell phone to the wireless transmitter of the camera. But Sony relies on the "PlayMemories Mobile" cell phone app to use the smartphone as remote control of the camera. When opening this app on the phone, it will disconnect any wireless connection first, but is then in my case unable to connect to the camera (it goes in an endless connection trial loop). NFC did not work at all either even my smartphone has this function. Currently I am hoping that a firmware update will fix this issue.
Update: I solved the issue to connect my cellphone to the camera. The mobile data plan of the cell phone has to be turned off first, and all old former DIRECT-tcE0:ILCE-7R wireless connection memorized in the smartphone WiFi log have to be erased in case you experience problems. This is more an Android issue with the connection than it has to do with the camera. When the connection between camera and cellphone is established through the PlayMemories Mobile app, it works really fine.
6. Commercial in-camera Apps: principally a good idea to have apps for specific camera functions similar to apps on a smartphone. Some apps come for free, and Sony allows you to download them through their support website either through your connected PC/Mac or directly through wireless connection of the camera (that's what I did). But the better apps cost you something - I really like the multiple exposure app for this camera since I enjoyed doing double exposures with film. What I didn't like here is that the "Multiple Exposure" app only allows me to take two exposures (no multiple as the name says!). I had to pay $5 for it. There are other useful apps e. g. for time lapse photography for the same price. Again Sony tries to squeeze out more bucks from you after you already purchased this camera plus Sony accessories. Those functions are included as standard in a more professional Canon camera like the 5D MkIII.
7. Light Leak: A7 camera series users described that light leaks through micro gaps between E-mount and attached lens or adapter in 4, 8, and 12 o'clock positions at very long exposure times. So far I did not experience this issue on my A7R camera. Nevertheless, I found a very simple and efficient solution to resolve this potential issue: I used a rubber band which USPS uses to wrap up stored mail when I am traveling. This white/yellowish 6 mm wide rubber band exactly covers the gap between orange colored mount on the A7(R) and adapter or lens attached.
8. Copyright info in RAW files: is missing. Currently there is no simple way to add your name into the saved RAW camera files EXIF extension automatically. I hope Sony will implement it later in one of their freeware software updates for the "Image Data Converter" program or in an in-camera menu option. The software itself works fine but has a some basic look and is much less sophisticated than for example Canon's DPP freeware RAW converter program.
9. Shutter noise: loud. So far no problem for me, I even like the feeling of an old camera shutter noise. But if someone wants to take photos in an unsuspicious way, you can be sure that this shutter will cause attention. It might be an issue for street photography or in concert halls for example.
10. AF: I have no experience with Sony E-mount lenses, they might focus well in AF with the A7R. But third party lenses like Canon EF lenses focus very slowly after being attached to the Metabones III EF adapter. The A7R uses a different AF system than commonly used in DSLRs, too. So far I decided mostly to use MF with EF lenses attached via adapter - I am simply faster by doing this and more accurate by using the focus peak area and the zoom magnification tool to focus. If you rely on fast AF with existing Canon or Nikon lenses, I would not recommend the A7 series to you. You are then better off with a good DSLR of one of the camera manufacturers instead.
Additional Comment after firmware 1.0.2 release: AF speed has improved. Still slower than directly on a Canon DSLR body, but definitely better than before. I still prefer to use my A7R simply in MF through the excellent focus peaking feature!
11. Weather-sealing: somehow questionable especially when using adapters and no Sony lenses. Even lenses and adapters sit tightly, I am not sure how much humidity still can creep in between the mounts. Under wet/rainy/humid conditions I would likely rather use my 5D MkII than the Sony A7R.
12. Compressed RAW files: Sony developed its own compression algorithm for RAW data which supposedly is lossless. It is unclear if still some recorded information could potentially be removed by this compression, but so far nobody including me has seen any disadvantage of this method. Still it might be a good idea at least to offer A7 series users to have files either saved as uncompressed RAW or slightly compressed.
WHO IS THE A7(R) COMPETITION?
Sony started a very interesting approach with the release of the A7 series last year - it is certainly a game changer especially in the full frame camera market. Principally, the A7 series competes with every DSLR manufacturer, but I believe it is mostly Canon which might suffer most of the A7(R) impact. Nikon already uses Sony's Exmor sensor in the D800(E) series - for most Nikon users the A7(R) only makes sense to allow third party lenses to be used or to limit weight and camera size. Canon on the other hand still sells older type of FF (full frame) sensors built into the 1Dx, 5D MkIII, and 6D cameras. Consumers unsatisfied with Canon's current approach to neglect or delay the release of a high MP/high DR sensor definitely will consider the A7R as alternative - I can count myself to this group. I like my Canon lens gear, but Canon does not offer me currently a camera with novel FF sensor in which I could be interested in. People who are shooting wedding/sports/events, or bird photography likely won't be attracted to the A7R due to its slower fps rate and slower AF. The A7R is predominantly made for landscape/architecture/fine art photographers who can make use of the higher sensor resolution and dynamic range by giving up on fast AF especially with existing lens gear other than Sony lenses. I doubt that many buy the A7(R) cameras to use them just with Sony lenses.
Also, the A7(R) competes with the Leica rangefinder market. Leica users can attach many of their existing Leica rangefinder lenses easily on the A7(R). Since those lenses are MF lenses anyway, it is only the camera body which changes (some Leica lenses work better than others on the A7 series due to different lens entrance pupils and thicker glass on top of the A7's sensor). Leica's electronic features in M series cameras are limited compared to what Sony's A7 series offers. Still the MF system between Leica M-series and Sony A7 series is very different. But seeing how quickly and accurately I can focus manually with my A7R, I can imagine that some Leica users think to use an A7 camera as alternative to the rangefinder-based M-series.
You don't need the Sony A7 camera series if:
1. You already have a Nikon D800(E) camera and have no other MF lenses
2. You rely on fast fps (frame per seconds) and AF only
3. You don't like small cameras with smaller-sized buttons
4. You are not interested in manual focusing or in any third party MF lens
5. Especially for A7R with 36 MP photo file size: You dislike having larger RAW and image files in post-processing
WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE US - SUMMARY:
The Sony A7R camera is not for everyone. Beginners will be overwhelmed by its functions, others might find the lack of fast AF and fps in this camera a deal breaker. Street photographers will dislike the loud shutter. I see the camera not as a replacement of a DSLR but as a great addition to have. I am mostly into landscape and fine arts photography, so this is a camera I was waiting for since a while. I am not only intrigued by its sensor, but even more so by its capability to be used with all kind of lenses. You might have old MF lenses which can't be used on a modern DSLR, or you see a good deal somewhere for a MF lens - no worries, guaranteed you will find an adapter which makes this lens work on A7 series cameras. The metal MF adapters cost less than $20 per piece! The small size of the camera comes handy and is ideal to take with me on travels. If weight is an issue, I can simply take a small and older MF lens with me to be used in combination with my A7R. I will review the quality of photos taken with third party MF lenses with the A7R in one of my future blogs, stay tuned!
The full frame sensor of the A7R is simply amazing. The difference to other existing sensors e. g. in Canon full frame DSLRs is huge. I didn't expect to see this difference when I bought the A7R. But the photos posted here in my blog didn't need post processing nor a graduated ND filter to take them - impossible if I had taken those with my 5D MkII. The shadows come with a lot more detail instantly, the colors appear richer and more natural as my eye sees them. There will be more for me to test, but after a bunch of first test shots this difference is more than obvious. To me it is the perfect combination of excellent electronics and very good glass which I own. The advantages of the A7R outweigh the cons mentioned above.
Consider that you will need to vest an additional $500 for adapters and accessories after you purchased the A7R. This does not make it a cheap full frame camera deal - in fact you need to ask yourself what you will need the A7 series camera for. I hope my blog facilitates your decision-making process. Furthermore, I am looking forward to the first Sony firmware update of the A7 series cameras due on March 19th.
B&W Film vs. Digital Infrared
Second part of my film project is testing B&W film. I decided to use Ilford XP-2 ASA 400 B&W film since it can be developed in any regular color film developer which uses the C-41 development process. It is cheaper and gives me more flexibility of locations to choose for the film development. I used my Canon EOS 500 film camera with this film. At home, I digitized the developed negatives by photographing each of them with my DSLR camera and 1:1 macro lens. I post-processed the RAW files in PS afterwards (reducing noise and adjusting contrast levels).
I chose a variety of architecture, scenery/landscape, and closeup motives. Especially for the landscape photos I added a Wratten #15 yellow filter on top of my lens to increase the contrast of clouds in the sky and to highlight some light green tones from grass and foliage. Part of my photo tour to explore this B&W film led me to the pier in Keyport/NJ where I took infrared (IR) photos last year before hurricane Sandy devastated the NJ coastline. The pier in Keyport was destroyed by Sandy, too. When I came back there in July 2013 to take the B&W film photos, most of the pier was already rebuilt. I walked to the same positions at the pier where I remembered myself being in 2012 and decided to take similar photos at this place. This allows me now to compare the newer film and the older IR photos with each other. As I mentioned in my blog about IR photography earlier, I convert my infrared photos in B&W during post-processing.
The two photos below show the same boat located at the pier - the left photo was taken in infrared in 2012, the right photo with Ilford B&W film in 2013:
As expected, the IR photo shows better contrast and reveals clouds better and more dramatic. The Wratten #15 yellow filter helps to see the cloud structure in the film photo, but a read filter might have been the better choice here, too. The US flag stands out better in the B&W film photo.
The boathouse on the pier was newly re-constructed after Sandy had destroyed it. The left photo in IR shows the old structure, the photo on the right is the new B&W film photo taken one year later with the new house. Main difference is the rooftop and the new ladder:
The IR photos is richer in contrast while the film photo is more evenly leveled. The IR photos were taken with the Canon 14/2.8 L lens on full frame, while the B&W film photos were taken with the 17-40/4 L zoom lens.
The photos below (left in IR, right B&W film) show the structure underneath the main pier. I got a more contrast-rich B&W shot in IR with the old pier but also the film photo with the rebuilt pier has something going for:
The Ilford XP-2 film has an amazing tonal range in B&W which can't be beaten easily with a conventional DSLR camera. The film is definitely a good addition to digital camera gear.
Canon 5D MkIII versus 5D MkII
When going on vacation and visiting my family back home, I had the opportunity to use and test my father's new Canon 5D MkIII camera which he bought as upgrade of his cropped-sensor based 40D camera model. I read many reviews about the 5D MkIII, but nothing is better to explore myself this camera and get my own opinion if it is worth to upgrade especially when you already own the predecessor model. I won't go into too much details, but will point to some major pros and cons which I became aware of when using the MkIII in comparison to my two existing MkII full frame models.
PROS:
AF: the biggest strength of the MkIII. The camera offers many options to select areas or single AF points out of 61. The AF system is copied from the professional 1D series obviously. I tested it in combination with the Canon 50/1.4 EF lens, and was surprised to see that even without previous microfocus adjustment and in difficult light situations the center of the focus was edge on at f/1.4. One shot was enough to get it perfect - something which was very hard to accomplish with the 9 AF point system of the MkII. I also like that the 5D III has AF points in the corner of the frame which is ideal for portraits. I did not test the AI Servo mode, but I believe that it tracks much better moving objects than the 5D MkII does.
- High ISO quality: this advantage of the MkIII is mentioned many times in reviews, and I have seen it at ISO 6400 when a friend of mine used his MkIII at this high ISO number. I personally prefer shooting at low ISO, so I didn't go up higher than ISO 640. Up to ISO 640, I didn't see a difference in IQ between MkIII and MkII.
- Electronic level: Fantastic! I really like this new feature in the MkIII which is displayed on the LCD display. Since I was mainly shooting with my tilt/shift lens, I relied a lot on accurate leveling of the camera on my tripod. Normally I am doing this with my MkIIs by using the bubble levelers on the tripod and the head. But the electronic leveler is a bit more accurate and allowed me to get the parallel and vertical lines of structures lined out correctly much more easily.
- 100% viewfinder: Finally, Canon! I always wished to have a semi-professional camera with 100% viewfinder coverage! It is real "What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get" without using LiveView. I got used to add 2% to the 98% viewfinder in my MkII cameras, but it is easy to forget to do it when you ahve 100% viewfinder coverage anyway! Just to go back to the 98% is not so easy....in my opinion another big plus of things to have in the MkIII.
- In-camera HDR: People were raving about this feature in reviews, and I was excited to test it myself. Well, I spent several hours with automatic and semi-automatic in-camera HDR modes in the MkIII, and overall I was personally disappointed with this feature. I decided to use the in-camera HDR first (up to 7 single shots which can be automatically quickly fired with different exposures and which are adjusted by the camera) and then to to it manually in the way I am used to do HDRs in my MkII. The MkIII provided me with an instant HDR in JPG file format to see how it can look. So far I didn't see a convincingly good in-camera HDR JPG file! I recommend using professional HDR software and post-process the photos accurately at home for good looking HDRs (I prefer the natural HDR look rather than the overcooked tonal one). You can simply use the created HDR RAW files saved in the automatic in-camera HDR mode - they were obviously the same as in my manually taken HDR files. Yes, the in-camera HDR is faster, but it saved me only a bit of time. It can be advantageous if no tripod is on hand, and shots have to be fired quickly out of the hand. A maybe nice to have feature which some will use more often than others I guess.
- Silent shutter mode: I can see this as an advantage for photographers who want to take photos in churches or in concert halls. To me - I couldn't care less. I realized later that the camera was in silent shutter mode all the time, I didn't even realize this during my shooting. As I said, okay to have, just that I have normally no need for it.
CONS:
-
Biggest drawback of the 5D MkII was its limited AF capability which was exactly the same as in the older 5D classic. Now we got an excellent AF in the MkIII, but....the main drawback is the lack of new sensor development! This is where Canon cut back in this model - for some it is not a big issue who don't want to deal with larger file sizes or just with more MP. Others like me miss an upgrade of a new sensor, something similar to the Nikon/Sony Exmor sensor which has better resolution and higher dynamic range. I would love to have bigger files to be able to crop photos in case of wildlife shots on full frame for example. It didn't happen, for me it was disappointing news when I saw the sensor specs of the MkIII. Still the MkIII comes with new Digic5+ processors for more processing power. I am sure some processing algorithms also were improved compared to the MkII. But other than this, the IQ (especially at lower and normal ISO numbers) is the same as in the MkII. RAW file sizes are about the same as in my MkII what is expected.
-
Ergonomics: I added this point underneath the cons because one major drawback compared to the MkII is the way to magnify photos on the camera screen - in the MkIII you have to press the zoom function on the left camera side first and then use the wheel on the right top camera side to zoom in or out. Something you get used to, but I didn't see it as an ergonomic improvement. The MkIII was sitting in my hand as well as the bit smaller MkII body - both are equal in handling otherwise.
-
Price tag: the camera is simply expensive. It has come down now a bit to more reasonable numbers, many purchase it in the US via the Canon refurbished program. Some justify the price because of its professional AF system, but since it is copied from the 1D series, and I can't see why it makes this camera so expensive.
Overall the 5D MkIII would be my dream camera if it had a better/newer sensor in it which I consider the heart of any digital camera. I am not a wedding photographer or photo journalist who relies on quick and accurate AF. The expensive price tag makes it a bit unattractive against other options out there - the entry model full frame 6D camera for example or compared against the Nikon D800E for example. It really depends on the main usage of your camera(s) and your style in photography - I am more a scenery, landscape, architecture, macro, and fine art photographer, AF is just not so important to me. I decided to stick to my MkII camera models until Canon hopefully announces a successor model with (much) better sensor.
Film vs. Digital
Coming from the 35 mm film days, I was still an early adopter to the new digital photography age around 2001. I was eager to see the result of the taken shot instantaneously and to be in charge myself with the post-processing of my photos. I started first with a Sony CyberShot DSC-P5 point&shoot camera (3.2 MP but came in a nice Aluminum housing and with an excellent lens, I still have this little camera!). I lacked the option to have interchangeable lenses and manual modes in this camera, so later in 2005 I switched to my first DSLR, the classic 8 MP Canon Rebel XT. I was always wishing back the full frame 35 mm sensor format (I never felt really comfortable with the cropped APS-C sensor), so I finally upgraded to full frame with the Canon 5D MkII in 2009 which I am using since. The 21 MP image quality is excellent especially at lower ISO numbers. Since about 8 years I didn't touch my film camera and always assumed that the digital sensor can deliver at least very similar results.
Until now: a friend of mince convinced me to test out the 35 mm Fujichrome Provia 100F slide film which supposedly enhances the color saturation. I re-activated my older Canon EOS500 film SLR camera with this 36 slide film (surprise, when I added both of the two removed eight years old Lithium 3V batteries into the camera, they were fully charged and functional!). I took my SLR camera on several trips to shoot with it in parallel to my 5D MkII DSLR camera - often I even composed exactly the same motive for later comparison.
This blog describes my findings in regard to differences and similarities comparing side by side my film and my digital photos. The slide film was developed in a professional photo studio and the negatives scanned via E-scan and saved as medium-sized JPG files (3-4 MB size), good enough for some minor post-processing. For a higher resolution scan I would have been charged a lot more, about $3 for each photo to be scanned and saved as Hi-Res TIFF file. Since I didn't know the outcome and quality of the final photos, I decided to stick to the cheapest E-Scan option. Overall I paid for film development, scanning, photo CD and shipping plus tax $34.51.
People watching my postings on my website here might be already familiar with some of the photo motives which I present here in this blog. Be aware that I used the same lenses for the presented photos, same apertures and similar exposure times at ISO 100 to allow valid comparison.
Beginning of November last year we had a bit of early snowfall in East NJ, so I used the opportunity to take a few landscape photos in my neighborhood. I will always post here the digital photo on the left and the film photo on the right.
You can instantly see that the red and brown color tones appear more saturated in the film photography whereas the original digital file came out a lot more blueish. I had to change to warmer color temperature to get close to the snow in the more original looking film photo. The digital photo is a notch sharper but this can be also due to the lower resolution scan of my film photo.
In the second scenery photo below I tested the high contrast performance - purposely I did not want to create a HDR here but stick to the original shot only.
Main difference is the difference in the sky color - more dark blue in the film photo, also we see more saturation in the remaining fall foliage and in the water reflection. Overall the film photo has a stronger contrast, too.
Both cameras were with me on a trip to visit a few lighthouses at the NJ coastline. It was a clear and sunny late fall day, so I had an ideal situation to test the film performance in the settling afternoon sunlight which is richer in yellow and red tones. The first comparison shows the Cape May lighthouse below:
Again we see stronger orange/reddish color saturation in the film photo on the right with a different blue in the sky. The digital photos on the other hand expresses better the green foliage which appears more as a brown in the film photo. The film photo appears warmer while the digital one has a colder touch. We can see this trend consistently in all photos here.
Afternoon sunlight at the East Point lighthouse showed an even bigger difference especially in the reed in the foreground. I even had to reduce the saturation of the film photo to make it more realistic.
The Red Mill in Clinton/NJ offered another possibility for testing with a lot warmer tones in the film photo:
Interesting also the difference in the photos of the old quarry building next to the mill which includes a bunch of colors on the outside:
More examples revealing differences in the saturation are shown in the following examples:
An indoor shot taken inside the St. Augustine lighthouse in Florida also reveals differences in the color saturation. The film exceeds a bit in the reddish tones here: and the higher contrast does not reveal the details in the stairs as much:
The color of the water reflection is not as nice and blueish as in the digital photo on the left, but this is likely the result of having a higher saturation grade in the red which makes the water look more grey:
Overall the color is expressed much more saturated in this film as also seen below in the cathedral in St. Augustine, FL. I can definitely confirm that the film saturates strongly the red and yellow colors and has much more contrast in dark areas.
Who is the winner - film or digital? The simple answer is that there is no winner at all, it is like comparing apples and oranges. It all depends which kind of film is used and also which kind of setting provides the best effects for the available light. I did not expect to see such big difference here, but the confirmation of the effects of this high color saturating Provia film makes sense. I am sure that the development process of the film played another big role here, but this was out of my control.
For me at least it was a good experience to trust my manual film shooting skills which I learned more than 28 years ago with my first SLR camera. I can recommend shooting film even if you just started out in digital - it helps you focusing on the essence of photography and to be quantitatively and qualitatively selective before releasing the shutter of what to shoot.
Tilt Shift Lenses
Tilting and shifting either lens and/or film plane was commonly used in the old days with large format cameras (Ansel Adams camera for example). In today's market, the film or sensor plane can not be moved any longer in the DSLR or medium format cameras. Photographers need to rely on so-called manual focusing tilt/shift prime lenses which allow up and down or sideways movement of the lens plane as well as tilting it. Common focal lengths for tilt/shift (T/S) lenses are 17, 24, 45, and 90 mm for cropped and full frame DSLR cameras. But who can make use of T/S lenses, what are they good for?
Wide angle T/S lenses are commonly used in architecture and landscape photography, but also with longer lens focal lengths for closeup photography of jewelry, even sometimes for portrait work. Architectural photography commonly makes use of the shift function in the T/S lenses: Falling lines of tall buildings can be reduced or fully avoided. The image plane and therefore the focus are kept parallel to the subject. There are post processing programs out there which correct falling lines in photos taken with regular lenses, too. This gives a more natural look very similar to a photo taken with a T/S lens, but it will crop the photo without keeping the regular film or senor proportions of the negative or RAW file.
Shifted vertically, lines can be kept parallel to the subject which leads to a more natural look as seen in the central University building at Princeton University below. This was taken with Canon's 24/3.5 T/S lens where the lens was shifted 10 mm up.
Instead of shifting the lens vertically, sometimes it is useful to have it shifted horizontally to create a distortion-free panorama photo. The crosswalk photo is a stich of three single photos - one shifted horizontally fully to the left, one center one (not shifted), and one shifted to the right. Have a look at the pillars - they are all straight, only the one far left is bent a bit due to the lens angle towards the subject. By stiching three 24 mm T/S photos together, the field of view is similar to a 14 mm lens! Landscape photographers apply this technique to create a natural looking super-wide angle view.
Lens tilting can create the "miniature effect" - focusing on one specific subject in the frame, and making the surrounding area blurry. The photo below taken at the Red Mill in Clinton, NJ shows this effect - I used the few mm tilted 24/3.5 T/S lens in combination with a 2x teleconverter making it a 48 mm f/8 lens. The shallow depth of field surrounding the fisherman in the middle of the photo was only created by tilting the lens out of its focal plane following the Scheimpflug rules.
The lens was also shifted a bit up to have the sensor plane parallel to the corner wall side of the Red Mill behind. Combination of shift and tilt can work nicely, but it takes a bit trial and error to get used to. A camera equipped with LiveView is very helpful here since it allows you to see instantly the final composition of the photo.
Instead of creating more shallow depth of field, tilting the other way allows much deeper depth of field at a fairly low aperture number (more wide open aperture). The photo with the old barn in Valley Forge Park, PA is an example for this: To have both the brick wall in the front and the building in the back in focus, normally you would need a small aperture like f/22. This shot again was taken with my 24/3.5 T/S lens, but at an aperture of f/4.5. Tilting and shifting the lens in the right directions allows to focus both background and foreground reasonably sharp and keeping the sensor plane parallel to the structures. If you look closely, you will see that the plant branches in the middle are unsharp - the result of the Scheimpflug rules since the depth of field is no longer horizontally aligned when the lens is tilted!
T/S lenses take some patience and experience to get used to. You always need a tripod to work with a T/S lens. Also they do not come with AF. In case the lens is shifted and tilted, I recommend checking the focus confirmation with the enlarged area finder in LiveView. Exposure also changes with the shifted direction of the lens. But main disadvantage is the price - they still cost about $1K as used and older lens versions. Latest new T/S models are at least double this price. They have less vignetting and a better rotation system of tilt and shift being parallel or perpendicular. I am still using the older (first) version of Canon's 24 mm T/S lens, and so far I am fine with it, too. If you once get used to T/S lenses, you will always carry one with you if composition allows to use it for.