Yes, if one is expecting the old film camera method of showing focus.

My 40D, like many digital SLRs, will confirm focus by lighting up the "focus dots" that are in-focus during manual focusing. Those are every bit as easy to see as the old style split-prism view, and the camera doesn't need to be centered on the target either.

Cheers

You can even get adapters that will let you use old manual focus lenses on DSLR bodies, some of these adapters will actually light up the AF Confirm dot when they are in focus. Using old lenses like this can be a good antidote to bored-with-all-your-lenses syndrom. For instance you can pick up an old Pentax or Nikon 50mm f/1.4 lenses for $30 or so. A 50mm Canon 1.4 costs about 10 times that. Of course you don't get autofocus and have to use stop-down metering but it works.

Except of course Leica's own top end digtial cameras.

Caon also has the AF-ON button. I am not sure, yet, that it can ben used as you describe as well. Definitely, it will perform the same function as the half-press shutter release (AF and AE).

Right like the M9 I should have said digital cameras that mere mortals can afford....

You can buy replacement focus screens for Nikon and Canon bodies with the split-image in various configurations.

The one I was already familiar with is Katz Eye:
http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/

But there are others:

http://www.focusingscreen.com/
http://brightscreen.com/enter.html (their HTML web page looks like complete shit, I shudder at the thought of seeing their Flash version)
http://haodascreen.com/othercameras.aspx

The benefit of these is that you don't have to walk around like a pretentious Leica user.

When photographers talk about a "faster" camera or lens, they are often talking about the light-gathering capability. A "fast" camera is one that can use a faster shutter speed, given the same environment, than a "slower" camera. This has to do with the maximum aperture size of the lens and the speed of the film (or sensor). In digital cameras, which I don't know much about, I understand that "noise" is an issue in low light conditions, which would be another form of "slowness", since you'd need a longer exposure to deal with this. The sensor may function like relatively slow-speed film in digital cameras. I know most digital cameras have ISO settings up to 1600, but I also understand this comes with quite a lot of noise in the image. For usable quality, I can imagine that a digital camera is "slower". Then again, film cameras also give extraordinarily higher quality, especially with slow film or negatives larger than 35mm, so comparing like-to-like image quality is a fool's endeavor anyhow.

Are you sure he wasn't talking about exposure time and not time between successive shots?

I don't know of any film that can be pushed to 16000+ ISO with any level of quality. I don't even know of any film body that allows even close to that to be configured.

Digital sensors will produce noise at all sensitivities, the least amount at the sensitivity they "default" with. But current low-noise and high-ISO capable sensors, along with the software controlling them, are producing some amazing results that you can't really expect from film.

Yeah. It's techno-weenies (like us!) that chat mostly about "sensor noise" in DSLRs. In pocket digicams, with teensy sensors, sure, this is a real issue. But not in DSLRs.

Film suffers from coarse grain at high ISOs, which is vaguely similar to digital sensor noise.

My 40D, at ISO 1600, is way, way, WAY better than ISO 1600 colour film. Oh, wait.. there's no such thing as ISO 1600 colour film..

And the better DSLRs go much, much higher than ISO 1600.

No, he is not talking about fast exposure times.

Conversation is still ongoing and at present it evolved as as follows:



Questions bein asked now are:

1. Is 0-1 time interval the same between analog and digital? I suppose the answer is "yes", meaning that it depends on the electronics between the shutter release button and the shutter itself, and has nothing to do with the camera being digital rather than analog.

2. Is 0-1 shorter in completely mechanical cameras, where the shutter is linked to the shutter release button via leverages?
I woudl say that if good electronics is used, it can be just the same as a mechanical one.

3. Is there a 1-2 time interval at all, in digital cameras? That is, does the sensor reacr immediately as it is hit by photons, or is there some lag time there?
I would guess it does react fast enough not to introduce any delay perceivable by humans compared to the chemical reaction occurring on a film, but it is just a guess.

This is just, pure intellectual curiosity.

Originally the question asked, that generated this thread, was actually different: if I want to take a picture of a specific moment in time and push the button of wto cameras identical in all but one being digital and the other analog, will they take the picture of the same "moment" in time? This already found an answer: yes. They will obviously take the picture of the "moment" in time defined by the exposure time interval.

For all we know there is a 1-2 interval in analogue as well, who is to say that film starts being exposed the instant light falls on it.

You could of course test this by rigging up two cameras to take the same shot at the same time of say a scrolling wave form on an oscilloscope (or some sort of hires digital timer on a screen/display, a second hand on a clock isn't going to work due to parallax issues). But I'll bet any difference (either way) is so small that it will be lost in the noise in the data.

That is, when the shutter opens, right? I mean, we ARE assuming light travels at infinite speed, here, am I correct? Taking into account light speed seems to be a bit too much accuracy.

1-2 was referring to the moments immediately AFTER lights hits the surface of sensor/film, in case - just in case - sensor does not respond immediately with an electric signal or, similarly, chemical reaction on a film does not actually start.

I think we are agreeing, that just as the sensor takes some finite time to start reacting to the light, the film stock almost certainly has some similar delay before it starts reacting.

The issue is: does the sensor need to be turned on or otherwise activated in some way? This might include turning on or activating whatever electronics are accepting the signal behind the scenes. This is almost certainly an infinitesimal amount of time, but film simply does not have this issue. Chemicals react to photons as soon as the photons arrive. Yeah, it may take a few femtoseconds for something to start happening, but delaying the incidence of light would also delay that delay. On the other hand, if the data bus behind the sensor simply isn't on for that period of time, for example, the sensor is essentially unreactive and the photons that hit it during that time were irrelevant.

It's not an issue at all Bitt. Well, I suppose if you want to split hairs you could do all kinds of analysis. I don't think you'd be able to measure the speed of activating the sensor in any meaningful way though.

The bottom line is that digital is simply a lot faster than film. Especially if you're talking about anything but the highest-end F6 (the most advance film body ever created).

Since the time the shutter opens, light hits both film and sensor at the same time, of course.

My thinking regarding Bitt's observation is that the sensor is already ON even when in darkness, before the shutter opens. It would just make no sense not to have it on and ready to accept light.When photons hit the sensor, I would agree with Bruno that the consequent electron-flow (signal) generated by the sensor itself takes place "immediatly", that is in a time which is not significant. But, are we sure? I am just guessing here.
But, I also think that chemical reaction on film is slower than sensor in anyway.
Again, just guessing. I'd be interested in finding some data.

The only importance of the "time" it takes to cause the reaction/sensing is whether it causes a delay or otherwise impacts the time it takes to get to the next shot. With a digital SLR you can take another shot immediately, with film, you either have to manually advance to the next frame or wait for an automatic motor winder to advance the frame for you. Consumer automatic 35mm cameras were insanely slow. And even the highest end motor winders and extra battery packs (for cameras with built-in motors, were considerably slower than the quick DSLRs of today. Some of them are of course able to beat some consumer DSLRS of today, but dollar for dollar, DSLR frame capture is just all-around so much faster.

Of course there is. For example.

However, since you weren't aware that ISO1600 film exists, it seems unlikely that you know for certain that the 40D is WAY better at that speed. Admittedly, 1600-speed film is very grainy. It is also possible to "push" film a couple of stops faster than its rated, and make up for it with longer development time, and some people used to use 800 speed or 400 speed film that way.

I don't take many pictures of fast-moving subjects, so I mostly used ISO25 or ISO50 film when I was doing a lot of photography. While we're on the subject, digital may be nearly as good as a 35mm film camera for image quality, but film is available in 6x7cm or 4x5in and the results from those negatives can be incredible. Digital is cheaper, and "good enough", but I still use my film cameras for stuff that I know is going to be enlarged -- typically my 6x7 Crown Graphics.

There's currently no easily attainable digital substitute for very large format film, that's for sure.

I've pushed both B&W and colour neg a few stops when I was in school and developing it and the prints myself.

As an extreme example, let's look at ISO 6400, which is still a modest capability of the new pro Nikon bodies.

Well, there are "medium format" digital cameras. Hasselblad and Mamiya, possibly amongst others, make them. Of course, at that point, you're talking about spending as much for a camera as for a car.

Why would that be, in your opinion?
Leaving aside the comparison with film, I would argue that if there's a time needed by the sensor to react (1-2 in my little diagram above), which has no impact on the final result of the shot you're taking (shot 1), that same delay would simply transfer to the following shot (shot 2) and in that case, too, it would have no impact on the final result of shot 2.

In any case I still think reasonable to assume that time to react for a sensor is irrelevant and possibly significantly less relevant that that of the chemical reaction of a film, assuming both sensor and film are hit by photons at the same time.

I've tried this trypod in a shop:

http://www.zipshottripod.com

I was impressed on how light it is and how quickly it opens. The idea is extremely simple and very effective, I think. Too bad it only holds 1.3 Kg. Several body+lens combination in the market will be too heavy, including mine (1.7Kg). I would have probably bought it, otherwise. Anybody owns one?

That tripod appears to be way too flimsy to do what a tripod is meant for: holding the camera dead steady.

The more conventional heavy Manfrotto tripod I have here, has quick-release snaps on the legs, and opens out in about ten seconds. Fold up time is similar, and the legs adjust in length to handle irregular terrain (hillsides, for example..).

Cheers

Yes, Manfrotto are great, this one can't compare. It is more supposed to be the option for when you want to stay light.
You can't even adjust its height.


But, although it looks flimsy, after trying it and holding it I did change my mind in that. I looks as some very cheap product, but it is actually very well designed and deliberately simple. Not as steady and strong as a Manfrotto, it is incredibly steady nontheless! Before I read the specs, I thought it could sustain even something huge. I have been pushing on it, trying to bend it, and it felt great in my hands.
But again, specs tell me its limit is nonetheless quite low.

I would bet Ilford Delta 3200 in 120 (Medium Format) would beat your DSLR. Color? Who needs it.

Heh. Okay, so there are a few fast films still left in inventories around the planet.

But the better comparison for that 120 format stuff would be a 120 format digital medium format sensor.. and there, the digital wins hands down again on the noise/grain issue. Or so say the experts.

Anyone still shooting film, should run out and buy a case or two of the stuff while it's still in stock. And put it in your freezer. What's left on the market now isn't going to be manufactured for much longer. Or switch to digital, and save a ton of money!

Cheers

I do agre they're some amazing cameras, but...

Super expensive, and compared to their film counterparts, lower resolution. Their sensors are also not the same size as the medium format film frame, are they? What are they up to now, 40MP? Even Canon is already at 24 with a FF "35mm" sensor.

60 megapixels, full 645 medium format.

I'm curious when Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford will finally give up on manufacturing film. Certainly, less popular films are rapidly going away (e.g., Kodachrome). With demand contracting, it wouldn't surprise me at all if somebody like Kodak or Fuji just packs up and stops making film, period, in the next few years.

I totally agree with Mark: if you care about shooting film, stock up now.

Will film have a minor resurgence like vinyl records are apparently having currently?