Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Digital vs Film for enlargements

Tags:
Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:29:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi,

I enjoy making enlargements up to 18x12in and sometimes larger, when I
have a particularly good picture. However I believe that unless one is
prepared to pay for a Canon EOS 1DS MkII, the quality of such
enlargements will not match that of film. I now prefer working in
digital and currently have a Canon Powershot A95 which is a good camera.
However I recently came across it's weak-point when I was taking
pictures of animals at a zoo, which were too far away. Without a good
optical zoom the pictures taken with digital zoom were OK but not that
sharp. I was not surprised.

Anyway my point is, I would love to get a digital camera which has a
good zoom, such as one of the olympus C-700UZ (380mm) or panasonic
DM-FZ20 models with up to 420mm equiv focal length BUT can I blow any of
these up to the size I would like. One magazine I've read says that even
for cameras with 5MP, 8x6 prints are the limit for seeing smooth
unblocked images (i.e. 300dpi). In fact cameras with much more MP than
this have a theoretical limit well below 18x12 inch.

Could the group offer advice on whether a good zoom digital for wildlife
is good enough for the enlargements I'm after or whether I should
instead buy a cheap 75-300mm lens and stick it on my Minolta dynax 500si
film camera?

Thanks for your help

Mark
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:48:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

mark.worthington wrote:
[]
> Could the group offer advice on whether a good zoom digital for
> wildlife is good enough for the enlargements I'm after or whether I
> should instead buy a cheap 75-300mm lens and stick it on my Minolta
> dynax 500si film camera?

It sounds a trite answer, but try it and see! Digital images react
differently to film images for big enlargements - the noise spectra are
different - so different people will make different judgments. 10 inch x
8 inch prints are fine from a 5MP ZLR camera - I've seen good 10 x 8 from
3.3MP cameras as well. 18 x 12 may require more in the 8 - 12MP region
(especially if you crop).

Other factors like auto-focus and taking speed may matter more.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:54:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks David.

Mark

David J Taylor wrote:

> mark.worthington wrote:
> []
> > Could the group offer advice on whether a good zoom digital for
> > wildlife is good enough for the enlargements I'm after or whether I
> > should instead buy a cheap 75-300mm lens and stick it on my Minolta
> > dynax 500si film camera?
>
> It sounds a trite answer, but try it and see! Digital images react
> differently to film images for big enlargements - the noise spectra are
> different - so different people will make different judgments. 10 inch x
> 8 inch prints are fine from a 5MP ZLR camera - I've seen good 10 x 8 from
> 3.3MP cameras as well. 18 x 12 may require more in the 8 - 12MP region
> (especially if you crop).
>
> Other factors like auto-focus and taking speed may matter more.
>
> Cheers,
> David
Related resources
March 2, 2005 2:03:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

mark.worthington wrote:

>Anyway my point is, I would love to get a digital camera which has a
>good zoom, such as one of the olympus C-700UZ (380mm) or panasonic
>DM-FZ20 models with up to 420mm equiv focal length BUT can I blow any of
>these up to the size I would like.

Doubtful.

The confusion with digital arises from the "equivalent focal length"
misnomer which is very misleading to the uninitiated. It's a field of
view crop, not a magnification and the lense is nowhere near 420mm, so
you won't get as close as you think you will.

>Could the group offer advice on whether a good zoom digital for wildlife
>is good enough for the enlargements I'm after or whether I should
>instead buy a cheap 75-300mm lens and stick it on my Minolta dynax 500si
>film camera?

Since you already have a film body, it would probably be more effective
to buy a suitable lense, but not a cheap one, for it when you need that
kind of range. Then use the digital for the rest of the shots you want.

If you're serious about getting wildlife shots, you only have one
option, and that's to get the right tools. A DSLR and long lense, or
possibly a digital P&S with a 10-12x zoom might do the trick. It all
depends on what kind of quality you want and how much you're willing to
spend to get it.

Either way, you're going to want a good tripod and use the timer or
remote shutter release to get sharp images.
March 2, 2005 3:02:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

mark.worthington wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I enjoy making enlargements up to 18x12in and sometimes larger, when I
> have a particularly good picture. However I believe that unless one is
> prepared to pay for a Canon EOS 1DS MkII, the quality of such
> enlargements will not match that of film.

I think it will depend greatly on the quality of the enlarger and the
skill of the operator.

I only ever had one color negative made that big, and it looked great,
especially considering the consumer film and cheezy zoom.

I know that at sizes up to 8x10, all the labs around here that enlarge
thorugh lenses have something wrong, which I think might be fogged
lenses. My $400 2 year old Coolpix 5000 produces better prints (through
the Fuji Frontier).

Bob
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 7:09:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill wrote:
[]
> The confusion with digital arises from the "equivalent focal length"
> misnomer which is very misleading to the uninitiated. It's a field of
> view crop, not a magnification and the lense is nowhere near 420mm, so
> you won't get as close as you think you will.

Would care to elaborate on that?

In precisely what way is the image taken with a 432mm focal length lens on
a Panasonic FZ20 not "as close as" that from a 35mm camera with a 432mm
focal length lens? (Aspect ratio differences aside).

I think you are wrong.

Thanks,
David
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 7:23:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>I enjoy making enlargements up to 18x12in and sometimes larger, when I

It sounds like you can't afford digital equipment that will give you
the same quality of enlargement that you are used to. But don't let
that deter you.

I have a 12x18in enlargement from a 3MP camera, and I love it. It's
pixelated (and certainly doesn't have the sharp focus I usually like)
but I still have it framed and hung where I can enjoy it.

So I would borrow someone's camera, make an enlargement, and see what
you think.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 7:51:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> The confusion with digital arises from the "equivalent focal length"
>> misnomer which is very misleading to the uninitiated. It's a field of
>> view crop, not a magnification and the lense is nowhere near 420mm, so
>> you won't get as close as you think you will.
>
>Would care to elaborate on that?
>
>In precisely what way is the image taken with a 432mm focal length lens on
>a Panasonic FZ20 not "as close as" that from a 35mm camera with a 432mm
>focal length lens? (Aspect ratio differences aside).

This issue crops up time and again. There are two ways to take a
picture of something and have it appear larger in the final print.

One way (call it zoom) is to use a lens to magnify the image. On a
35mm camera, a 300mm lens offers 6x zoom, making an image 6 times
larger than a 50mm lens. So if you take a picture of an owl with a
50mm lens and with a 300mm lens, and print them both at 4x6, the
own will be six times larger in the 300mm-lens-shot.

The second way (call it enlargement) is simply to enlarge the print
more. For example, a 24"x36" print is 6 times larger than 4x6 print.
So if you take a picture of an owl, and make one print at 4x6 and the
other at 24x36, the 24x36 will have an own 6 times the size.

If you crop the second method ("crop-enlargement") , you end up with
almost the exact same thing as the first method. That is, if you take
a shot with a 50mm lens, blow it up to 24x36, and then crop it down to
4x6, the image will look a lot like like a 4x6 print of an image taken
with a 300mm lens.

Among the differences are quality (enlarging a print is usually harder
than making a good zoom lens) and DOF.

The extra magnification from a dSLR camera comes from the
crop-enlargement, not from more zoom. I think that was the point.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 8:07:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
>>> The confusion with digital arises from the "equivalent focal length"
>>> misnomer which is very misleading to the uninitiated. It's a field
>>> of view crop, not a magnification and the lense is nowhere near
>>> 420mm, so you won't get as close as you think you will.
>>
>> Would care to elaborate on that?
>>
>> In precisely what way is the image taken with a 432mm focal length
>> lens on a Panasonic FZ20 not "as close as" that from a 35mm camera
>> with a 432mm focal length lens? (Aspect ratio differences aside).
[]
> The extra magnification from a dSLR camera comes from the
> crop-enlargement, not from more zoom. I think that was the point.

No, the questioner was comparing a 35mm camera with Pansonic FZ20 and
Olympus C-700UZ. No DLSR confusion at all.

David
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 8:26:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) writes:

>This issue crops up time and again. There are two ways to take a
>picture of something and have it appear larger in the final print.

>One way (call it zoom) is to use a lens to magnify the image. On a
>35mm camera, a 300mm lens offers 6x zoom, making an image 6 times
>larger than a 50mm lens. So if you take a picture of an owl with a
>50mm lens and with a 300mm lens, and print them both at 4x6, the
>own will be six times larger in the 300mm-lens-shot.

This is magnification provided by the optics ahead of the film or
sensor. This works fine as long as the lens has decent sharpness.

>The second way (call it enlargement) is simply to enlarge the print
>more. For example, a 24"x36" print is 6 times larger than 4x6 print.
>So if you take a picture of an owl, and make one print at 4x6 and the
>other at 24x36, the 24x36 will have an own 6 times the size.

>If you crop the second method ("crop-enlargement") , you end up with
>almost the exact same thing as the first method. That is, if you take
>a shot with a 50mm lens, blow it up to 24x36, and then crop it down to
>4x6, the image will look a lot like like a 4x6 print of an image taken
>with a 300mm lens.

No, you end up with an extremely blurry print, because you've added the
extra magnification after the negative or digital image is captured.
This is empty magnification, providing no extra image detail.
Geometrically, the owl is the same size, but the image looks awful.

>The extra magnification from a dSLR camera comes from the
>crop-enlargement, not from more zoom. I think that was the point.

That's wrong. The extra magnification from a DSLR does involve cropping
in the camera *before* the image is captured. As long as the lens
is reasonably good, it provides the full detail that the sensor is
capable of capturing over the somewhat smaller field (and the cropping
is by a modest factor of 1.6 or 1.5, not the 5X of your example!).
Once the image is captured, there is no further cropping needed, and no
loss of resolution.

Dave
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 11:30:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote in
news:5zlVd.26883$8B3.13687@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:

> In precisely what way is the image taken with a 432mm focal length
> lens on a Panasonic FZ20 not "as close as" that from a 35mm camera
> with a 432mm focal length lens? (Aspect ratio differences aside).
>
> I think you are wrong.

The FZ20 has a 1/2.5" sensor - that is approx 4 times as small
sensor as 35 mm film, i.e. 16 times smaller area. This means that
this 432 mm lens is really a 100 mm lens. It also means that this
100 mm lens at e.g. F5.6 lets in 16 times less light than a real
432 mm lens at F5.6.

So - the FZ20 is just a real wonder of camera that I would
really like to own. It is sharp and versatile - a small jewel
if you can believe all positive reviews.

But - it is a 100 mm lens and it is a tiny sensor. This sets
limits on what is possible. A larger camera with a larger
sensor and a larger lens is potentially much better. Now -
it is heavier and more expensive - at least for a lens that
is much better than the FZ20 lens.


/Roland
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 12:07:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have a Canon 300D (6.2 MP) and have just recently had pictures enlarged
and printed (at a professional lab) to 600 x 400 (24" x 16").
The image is perfect and I would defy anyone to tell the difference with a
print from film.

The images were around 3-4 Mb off the camera (jpeg maximum quality). I
converted to TIFF before post-processing in Photoshop CS and finally created
a jpeg file (quality 8-9) which produced a file around 4 Mb for the photo
lab.

I was blown away by the quality and resolution of the final image.

The images I had printed can be seen here
http://www.pbase.com/pshardie/images_for_sale

Don't hold back - print at whatever size you actually want - 600 x 400 is
great to show-off a great image. But definitely go through a professional
lab - the cost of a print is very small (around AU$60 per square metre in
Australia). Mounting, laminating etc is the bigger dollar cost.

regards

PeterH


"mark.worthington" <mark.worthington@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:41FA08AA.58ED5B21@ntlworld.com...
> Hi,
>
> I enjoy making enlargements up to 18x12in and sometimes larger, when I
> have a particularly good picture. However I believe that unless one is
> prepared to pay for a Canon EOS 1DS MkII, the quality of such
> enlargements will not match that of film. I now prefer working in
> digital and currently have a Canon Powershot A95 which is a good camera.
> However I recently came across it's weak-point when I was taking
> pictures of animals at a zoo, which were too far away. Without a good
> optical zoom the pictures taken with digital zoom were OK but not that
> sharp. I was not surprised.
>
> Anyway my point is, I would love to get a digital camera which has a
> good zoom, such as one of the olympus C-700UZ (380mm) or panasonic
> DM-FZ20 models with up to 420mm equiv focal length BUT can I blow any of
> these up to the size I would like. One magazine I've read says that even
> for cameras with 5MP, 8x6 prints are the limit for seeing smooth
> unblocked images (i.e. 300dpi). In fact cameras with much more MP than
> this have a theoretical limit well below 18x12 inch.
>
> Could the group offer advice on whether a good zoom digital for wildlife
> is good enough for the enlargements I'm after or whether I should
> instead buy a cheap 75-300mm lens and stick it on my Minolta dynax 500si
> film camera?
>
> Thanks for your help
>
> Mark
>
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 12:17:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

mark.worthington <mark.worthington@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Hi,

> I enjoy making enlargements up to 18x12in and sometimes larger, when I
> have a particularly good picture. However I believe that unless one is
> prepared to pay for a Canon EOS 1DS MkII, the quality of such
> enlargements will not match that of film.

More like the EOS 1D MkII rather than the 1Ds MkII, at least if you're
comparing fine grain colour transparency film.

> Could the group offer advice on whether a good zoom digital for wildlife
> is good enough for the enlargements I'm after

Surely is. But how much are you willing to spend?

Andrew.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 12:17:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:17:01 -0000, andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid
wrote:

>mark.worthington <mark.worthington@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>
>> I enjoy making enlargements up to 18x12in and sometimes larger, when I
>> have a particularly good picture. However I believe that unless one is
>> prepared to pay for a Canon EOS 1DS MkII, the quality of such
>> enlargements will not match that of film.
>
>More like the EOS 1D MkII rather than the 1Ds MkII, at least if you're
>comparing fine grain colour transparency film.
>
>> Could the group offer advice on whether a good zoom digital for wildlife
>> is good enough for the enlargements I'm after
>
>Surely is. But how much are you willing to spend?
>
>Andrew.

Sony is coming out with a full manual focus 5 MP super zoom to join
the other sub 500 dollar digitals that offer long stabilized lenses.

I recently had some cheap C41 kodak 110 format film scanned to disk
that showed detail improvement to about 1600 X 1200 pixels, thats all
you get with a 2MP digital. Extrapolating I would guess C41 35 mm
film would theoretically be equivalent to about 8MP before the grain
would start to show.

The stabilized super zooms let you crop with the viewfinder to some
extent but I don't think the viewfinder is quite as good as on a nice
SLR film camera. The digital cameras keep improving so buying a
digital camera thinking you are going to keep it for 20 years is
silly. The question is, how long should you wait before buying a
digital to replace your 35mm?
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 12:48:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Like you need another 2c worth... (O;

I routinely print images to 13"x19". I have used both 5Mp (Sony F717)
and 8Mp (Sony F828, Oly 8080) cameras extensively, and in the past,
35mm and medium format on a professional basis.

First up, IMO, prosumer 5Mp images do NOT make the grade for 13x19. At
more than an arm's length they are OK..ish, but any closer examination
will reveal the resolution shortcomings, except on very unforgiving
subjects (eg soft portraits...!)

8Mp prosumer images (and 6Mp DSLR images) are *very* usable at that
size, *for images that do not contain large amounts of fine detail*.
For example, typical portraiture looks wonderful, and will stand quite
close examination. However for detailed landscapes, eg a cityscape
taken from a lookout, the viewer tends to get much closer and personal!
So for that type of fine detail image, you really need many more Mp.
I would guess wildlife photography is a bit closer to portraiture than
landscapes, but ymmv..

Having said all that, I think the 8Mp images I print to that size are
clearly better than anything I got, even from pro labs, from 35mm film
- at least on 160 ISO or greater color print film. A ciba(ilfo)chrome
off Velvia might outdo it, or maybe Konica Impresa 50/Ektar 25 (those
were the days!), but is that what you are shooting/enlarging?

I used to shoot medium format for serious enlargements, and frankly,
for anything critical over about 14"x11", I would avoid 35mm. I admit
some of the newer films are probably capable of better enlargements
than they were in those days, but not by leaps and bounds, and only if
you have a very good (=$'s) lab...
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 1:34:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roland Karlsson" posted:
"...
It also means that this
100 mm lens at e.g. F5.6 lets in 16 times less light than a real
432 mm lens at F5.6.
...."

REALITY CHECK

The aperture number ... in this case f/5.6 ... is an absolute quantity.

The "amount of light 'let in' " by a 100 mm f/5.6 lens is *exactly* the
same as the amount of light 'let in' by a 43.2 mm lens at f/5.6. :

In other words ... WRONG.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 2:03:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <41FA08AA.58ED5B21@ntlworld.com>,
mark.worthington@ntlworld.com says...
> Could the group offer advice on whether a good zoom digital for wildlife
> is good enough for the enlargements I'm after or whether I should
> instead buy a cheap 75-300mm lens and stick it on my Minolta dynax 500si
> film camera?
>
I very much doubt you would be happy with a cheap 75-300mm on your film
camera.

You may be happy with a 5Mp digital with a good stabilised zoom in good
light. As David, says, try it. You can download plenty of pictures from
the web and send one off for a large print. Of course, make sure you get
a full rez file.

Another reference point is your A95. With something like a Pana FZ20, I
think you will get roughly similar quality, but greater focal length
range. If you are happy with full-frame large prints from your A95 then
you should expect roughly similar results at the greater range you want.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 3:16:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks to the group for all their help.

It would seem that perhaps a DSLR with suitable lens would be good enough (
form 'My View's email). I guess that I am trying to 'have my cake and eat
it' by considering a prosumer compact like the panasonic or olympus, which
in the latter case also has other more general abilities such as slow sync
flash option, size
Would I be correct in saying that the canon 300D has better image quality
than the Nikon D70? And in the group's opinion, how long will it be before
the price of such cameras drops below £500 (or equivalent in US dollars).
What do you all rate as the best value buy at the moment?. ( If I could
really afford it I think the Canon 20D looks very juicy!)

Thanks again

Mark

RSD99 wrote:

> "Roland Karlsson" posted:
> "...
> It also means that this
> 100 mm lens at e.g. F5.6 lets in 16 times less light than a real
> 432 mm lens at F5.6.
> ..."
>
> REALITY CHECK
>
> The aperture number ... in this case f/5.6 ... is an absolute quantity.
>
> The "amount of light 'let in' " by a 100 mm f/5.6 lens is *exactly* the
> same as the amount of light 'let in' by a 43.2 mm lens at f/5.6. :
>
> In other words ... WRONG.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 3:32:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roland Karlsson wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote in
> news:5zlVd.26883$8B3.13687@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>
>> In precisely what way is the image taken with a 432mm focal length
>> lens on a Panasonic FZ20 not "as close as" that from a 35mm camera
>> with a 432mm focal length lens? (Aspect ratio differences aside).
>>
>> I think you are wrong.
>
> The FZ20 has a 1/2.5" sensor - that is approx 4 times as small
> sensor as 35 mm film, i.e. 16 times smaller area. This means that
> this 432 mm lens is really a 100 mm lens. It also means that this
> 100 mm lens at e.g. F5.6 lets in 16 times less light than a real
> 432 mm lens at F5.6.
>
> So - the FZ20 is just a real wonder of camera that I would
> really like to own. It is sharp and versatile - a small jewel
> if you can believe all positive reviews.
>
> But - it is a 100 mm lens and it is a tiny sensor. This sets
> limits on what is possible. A larger camera with a larger
> sensor and a larger lens is potentially much better. Now -
> it is heavier and more expensive - at least for a lens that
> is much better than the FZ20 lens.

Roland, thanks for your observations, but it wasn't what I was
questioning. The statement was made that at an equivalent focal length
the image from a digital P&S camera was not "as close as" that from a 35mm
film camera. That is plainly wrong.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 3:36:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

RSD99 wrote:
> "Roland Karlsson" posted:
> "...
> It also means that this
> 100 mm lens at e.g. F5.6 lets in 16 times less light than a real
> 432 mm lens at F5.6.
> ..."
>
> REALITY CHECK
>
> The aperture number ... in this case f/5.6 ... is an absolute
> quantity.
>
> The "amount of light 'let in' " by a 100 mm f/5.6 lens is *exactly*
> the same as the amount of light 'let in' by a 43.2 mm lens at f/5.6. :
>
> In other words ... WRONG.

He's right - you're right. At a given aperture number (e.g. f/5.6), the
light per unit area on the focal plane will be the same. With a bigger
physical aperture, more light is let in, i.e. the same light intensity per
unit area applies over a wider area. The energy coming in per pixel is
greater, hence the possibility of lower noise.

David
March 3, 2005 5:32:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:

>> The confusion with digital arises from the "equivalent focal length"
>> misnomer which is very misleading to the uninitiated. It's a field of
>> view crop, not a magnification and the lense is nowhere near 420mm, so
>> you won't get as close as you think you will.
>
>Would care to elaborate on that?
>
>In precisely what way is the image taken with a 432mm focal length lens on
>a Panasonic FZ20 not "as close as" that from a 35mm camera with a 432mm
>focal length lens? (Aspect ratio differences aside).
>
>I think you are wrong.

You're right, I was thinking the cameras mentioned were digital SLR
models. My bad.

For compact digital cameras (P&S), the smaller sensor and shorter focal
lengths work together to result in similar magnification and field of
view.

However, DOF is much larger due to the smaller focal lengths. That's
probably not a major issue unless one is doing portraits or other shots
that require a heavily blurred background.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 6:38:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <5zlVd.26883$8B3.13687@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

>In precisely what way is the image taken with a 432mm focal length lens on
>a Panasonic FZ20 not "as close as" that from a 35mm camera with a 432mm
>focal length lens? (Aspect ratio differences aside).

The difference is, you can put a much sharper lens (such as a Canon
500mm f4L IS) on the 35mm, if you care to spend the money. If you use a
Cosina 43-432mm zoom, then the FZ20 probably has better reach. It comes
down to the resolution of the lens and the resolution of the sensor.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 9:54:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

http://users.tpg.com.au/hpc/images/examples.jpg

All the photos in this example are digital from low resolution Nikon files.


"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote in message news:%ZfVd.26720$8B3.8985@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> mark.worthington wrote:
> []
> > Could the group offer advice on whether a good zoom digital for
> > wildlife is good enough for the enlargements I'm after or whether I
> > should instead buy a cheap 75-300mm lens and stick it on my Minolta
> > dynax 500si film camera?
>
> It sounds a trite answer, but try it and see! Digital images react
> differently to film images for big enlargements - the noise spectra are
> different - so different people will make different judgments. 10 inch x
> 8 inch prints are fine from a 5MP ZLR camera - I've seen good 10 x 8 from
> 3.3MP cameras as well. 18 x 12 may require more in the 8 - 12MP region
> (especially if you crop).
>
> Other factors like auto-focus and taking speed may matter more.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 12:24:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message <5zlVd.26883$8B3.13687@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
>
>> In precisely what way is the image taken with a 432mm focal length
>> lens on a Panasonic FZ20 not "as close as" that from a 35mm camera
>> with a 432mm focal length lens? (Aspect ratio differences aside).
>
> The difference is, you can put a much sharper lens (such as a Canon
> 500mm f4L IS) on the 35mm, if you care to spend the money. If you
> use a Cosina 43-432mm zoom, then the FZ20 probably has better reach.
> It comes down to the resolution of the lens and the resolution of the
> sensor.

Correct, of course, but not the point, John. The poster was claiming
(incorrectly, I believe) that the field of view was somehow different.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 2:13:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <41FA08AA.58ED5B21@ntlworld.com>,
"mark.worthington" <mark.worthington@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I enjoy making enlargements up to 18x12in and sometimes larger, when I
> have a particularly good picture. However I believe that unless one is
> prepared to pay for a Canon EOS 1DS MkII, the quality of such
> enlargements will not match that of film. I now prefer working in
> digital and currently have a Canon Powershot A95 which is a good camera.
> However I recently came across it's weak-point when I was taking
> pictures of animals at a zoo, which were too far away. Without a good
> optical zoom the pictures taken with digital zoom were OK but not that
> sharp. I was not surprised.
>
> Anyway my point is, I would love to get a digital camera which has a
> good zoom, such as one of the olympus C-700UZ (380mm) or panasonic
> DM-FZ20 models with up to 420mm equiv focal length BUT can I blow any of
> these up to the size I would like. One magazine I've read says that even
> for cameras with 5MP, 8x6 prints are the limit for seeing smooth
> unblocked images (i.e. 300dpi). In fact cameras with much more MP than
> this have a theoretical limit well below 18x12 inch.
>
> Could the group offer advice on whether a good zoom digital for wildlife
> is good enough for the enlargements I'm after or whether I should
> instead buy a cheap 75-300mm lens and stick it on my Minolta dynax 500si
> film camera?
>
I don't think you should worry too much about thinking a DSLR is
essential. I have printed (enlarged is a misnomer for digital) A3 size
pictures from a 2 megapixel image and been very satisfied with the
result - true the dpi was less than 100.

In a perfect world every print will be 300dpi or more, but it depends on
how you view photos. A postcard-sized print is usually viewed from
around 30cm or less but an A3 is viewed from 60cm or more. Pixelation
will not be an irritating problem.

Get yourself a good 5 or 6 or more megapixel camera - the Panasonic
FZ20, Nikon's Coolpix 8800, Fuji S7000 of Canon G6 etc and forget about
the DSLR - unless you can buy it with someone else's money. Ignore any
info about digital zooms - 99.9% of users disable this feature at the
first opportunity.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 2:13:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <anyone4tennis-6BA98E.11135803032005@newssv.kcn.ne.jp>,
Stewy <anyone4tennis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Pixelation
>will not be an irritating problem.

Pixelation is the last thing to worry about; pixelation is trivial to
eliminate in the digital world. Just upsample the image, and apply a
texture that maintains color, or use a diffuse filter to break up the
repeating shapes, etc. There are commercial fractal enlargers as well.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 3:50:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Xns960DDADD7ADD1klotjohan@130.133.1.4>,
roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com says...
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote in
> news:5zlVd.26883$8B3.13687@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>
> > In precisely what way is the image taken with a 432mm focal length
> > lens on a Panasonic FZ20 not "as close as" that from a 35mm camera
> > with a 432mm focal length lens? (Aspect ratio differences aside).
> >
> > I think you are wrong.
>
> The FZ20 has a 1/2.5" sensor - that is approx 4 times as small
> sensor as 35 mm film, i.e. 16 times smaller area. This means that
> this 432 mm lens is really a 100 mm lens. It also means that this
> 100 mm lens at e.g. F5.6 lets in 16 times less light than a real
> 432 mm lens at F5.6.
>
> So - the FZ20 is just a real wonder of camera that I would
> really like to own. It is sharp and versatile - a small jewel
> if you can believe all positive reviews.
>
> But - it is a 100 mm lens and it is a tiny sensor. This sets
> limits on what is possible. A larger camera with a larger
> sensor and a larger lens is potentially much better. Now -
> it is heavier and more expensive - at least for a lens that
> is much better than the FZ20 lens.
>
>
> /Roland
>
actually the real focal length at 72mm is even a bit shorter than you
calculated. My rule of thumb is that the advantage of the larger camera
need only be apparent (to a first order) at low levels of light. Of
course other practical issues usually intrude caused by the lower cost
target of the smaller camera, such as slower operation due to a cheaper
processor and no real AF sensors, only 8 bit output (no raw) etc.

I am intrigued by the FZ20 as a travel camera and I'm looking forward to
downloading some shots from my daughter's FZ20 when she gets back from
vacation next week. I think I might wait for the next version hopefully
with more than 8 bit output and a better EVF.
March 3, 2005 4:30:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message <anyone4tennis-6BA98E.11135803032005@newssv.kcn.ne.jp>,
> Stewy <anyone4tennis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Pixelation
>>will not be an irritating problem.
>
>
> Pixelation is the last thing to worry about; pixelation is trivial to
> eliminate in the digital world. Just upsample the image, and apply a
> texture that maintains color, or use a diffuse filter to break up the
> repeating shapes, etc. There are commercial fractal enlargers as well.


I found a simple pixelation eliminator that works pretty well.

In Photoshop, first upsample the image as suggested.

Change the mode to Lab color.

Blur the color chanels.

Sharpen the L channel.

I printed some 100k screen captures 3' wide. They looked pretty bad, but
they were at least 1000% better than I was expecting, and showed no real
"pixelation."

Bob
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 6:52:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roland Karlsson wrote:

> "RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote in news:o brVd.53686$EL5.34713
> @trnddc05:
>
> > REALITY CHECK
> >
> > The aperture number ... in this case f/5.6 ... is an absolute
quantity.

It has no units, so it isn't "absolute".

> > The "amount of light 'let in' " by a 100 mm f/5.6 lens is *exactly*
the
> > same as the amount of light 'let in' by a 43.2 mm lens at f/5.6. :
> >
> > In other words ... WRONG.
>
> F/5.6 on a 56 mm lens is a 10 mm hole.
> F/5.6 on a 56 m lens is a 10 m hole.
>
> A 10 m hole lets in 1 million more light than a 10 mm hole.

But the 10m hole is a thousand times farther away from the image plane,
so the flux density (also known as irradiance) remains the same.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:25:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote in news:o brVd.53686$EL5.34713
@trnddc05:

> REALITY CHECK
>
> The aperture number ... in this case f/5.6 ... is an absolute quantity.
>
> The "amount of light 'let in' " by a 100 mm f/5.6 lens is *exactly* the
> same as the amount of light 'let in' by a 43.2 mm lens at f/5.6. :
>
> In other words ... WRONG.

F/5.6 on a 56 mm lens is a 10 mm hole.
F/5.6 on a 56 m lens is a 10 m hole.

A 10 m hole lets in 1 million more light than a 10 mm hole.


/Roland
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:30:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote in
news:5WsVd.27326$8B3.7604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:

> Roland, thanks for your observations, but it wasn't what I was
> questioning. The statement was made that at an equivalent focal
> length the image from a digital P&S camera was not "as close as" that
> from a 35mm film camera. That is plainly wrong.

Something that cannot really be understood is never wrong :) 


/Roland
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:33:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roland Karlsson wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote in
> news:5WsVd.27326$8B3.7604@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>
>> Roland, thanks for your observations, but it wasn't what I was
>> questioning. The statement was made that at an equivalent focal
>> length the image from a digital P&S camera was not "as close as" that
>> from a 35mm film camera. That is plainly wrong.
>
> Something that cannot really be understood is never wrong :) 
>
>
> /Roland

or never right?

David
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 1:49:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote in news:CoLVd.27929$8B3.23410@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:

> or never right?

:) 

Sometimes I think we discuss semantics of words more than
the actual technical issue. And sometimes I think that we
deliberately misunderstand each other, just to be able
to start an argument :) 


/Roland
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 2:31:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Fail.
Go back to school ... and take 'Beginning Optics' again.







"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns960EE40AA5214klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> "RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote in news:o brVd.53686$EL5.34713
> @trnddc05:
>
> > REALITY CHECK
> >
> > The aperture number ... in this case f/5.6 ... is an absolute quantity.
> >
> > The "amount of light 'let in' " by a 100 mm f/5.6 lens is *exactly* the
> > same as the amount of light 'let in' by a 43.2 mm lens at f/5.6. :
> >
> > In other words ... WRONG.
>
> F/5.6 on a 56 mm lens is a 10 mm hole.
> F/5.6 on a 56 m lens is a 10 m hole.
>
> A 10 m hole lets in 1 million more light than a 10 mm hole.
>
>
> /Roland
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 2:02:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

RSD99 unexpectedly blithered stupidly:

>> It has no units, so it isn't "absolute".
>
> Fail.
> Go back to school ... and take 'Beginning Optics' again.

Talking to yourself?

My copy of "Principles of Optics" (don't bother - you wouldn't get past
the first page or two) calls it a focal _ratio_. Perhaps you need to
seek legal counsel re: the "Beginning Optics" course you took; it
seems you have been lied to. Or then again:

> In this case ... also repeat beginning Mathematics.

.... it's more likely you are just a total mental case.

P.S. Top-posting is the #1 predictor of a defective intellect. Thanks
for contributing yet another datapoint!
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 2:06:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roland Karlsson wrote:
>
> "RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote in news:o brVd.53686$EL5.34713
> @trnddc05:
>
> > REALITY CHECK
> >
> > The aperture number ... in this case f/5.6 ... is an absolute quantity.
> >
> > The "amount of light 'let in' " by a 100 mm f/5.6 lens is *exactly* the
> > same as the amount of light 'let in' by a 43.2 mm lens at f/5.6. :
> >
> > In other words ... WRONG.
>
> F/5.6 on a 56 mm lens is a 10 mm hole.
> F/5.6 on a 56 m lens is a 10 m hole.
>
> A 10 m hole lets in 1 million more light than a 10 mm hole.
>
> /Roland

Yes - but the image thrown by the 56m lens is a million times bigger in
area than the smaller one, so the actual image brightnesses for each
lens at the focus are the same. That is the whole point of F-numbers -
the image brightness for a given f-number is the same regardless of the
focal length of the lens. Obviously, this allows for exposure to be
calculated without having to take the lens focal length into account -
if the meter gives an exposure of 1/100 sec. at f/11, it applies to
*all* lenses wothout regard to focal length.

Colin
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 2:06:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:42278A48.93DA6A4A@killspam.127.0.0.1:

> Yes - but the image thrown by the 56m lens is a million times bigger in
> area than the smaller one, so the actual image brightnesses for each
> lens at the focus are the same. That is the whole point of F-numbers -
> the image brightness for a given f-number is the same regardless of the
> focal length of the lens. Obviously, this allows for exposure to be
> calculated without having to take the lens focal length into account -
> if the meter gives an exposure of 1/100 sec. at f/11, it applies to
> *all* lenses wothout regard to focal length.
>

Yes - but the pixels can be a million times larger, catching
a million time as much light each.


/Roland
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 2:06:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Fail.
Go back to school ... and take 'Beginning Optics' again.








"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns960EF1F7B474klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in
> news:42278A48.93DA6A4A@killspam.127.0.0.1:
>
> > Yes - but the image thrown by the 56m lens is a million times bigger in
> > area than the smaller one, so the actual image brightnesses for each
> > lens at the focus are the same. That is the whole point of F-numbers -
> > the image brightness for a given f-number is the same regardless of the
> > focal length of the lens. Obviously, this allows for exposure to be
> > calculated without having to take the lens focal length into account -
> > if the meter gives an exposure of 1/100 sec. at f/11, it applies to
> > *all* lenses wothout regard to focal length.
> >
>
> Yes - but the pixels can be a million times larger, catching
> a million time as much light each.
>
>
> /Roland
>
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 2:06:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> writes:

>Yes - but the pixels can be a million times larger, catching
>a million time as much light each.

And if they were that much larger, they would have a million times the
full well capacity per pixel. So you'd want to expose them to the same
exposure per unit area as the smaller sensor, in order to benefit from
the 1000 times lower noise level.

Thus, the same f/number gives the correct exposure no matter what the
actual focal length, and no matter how large the sensor pixels, because
it gives the energy flux density at the surface of the sensor. Total
flux doesn't matter, flux per unit area does.

Dave
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 8:21:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Fail.
Go back to school ... and take 'Beginning Optics' again.

In this case ... also repeat beginning Mathematics.









<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109893923.884210.204950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Roland Karlsson wrote:
>
>
> It has no units, so it isn't "absolute".
>
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 11:54:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

RSD99 wrote:
> Fail.
> Go back to school ... and take 'Beginning Optics' again.

> "Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns960EF1F7B474klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
>
>>Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in
>>news:42278A48.93DA6A4A@killspam.127.0.0.1:
>>
>>
>>>Yes - but the image thrown by the 56m lens is a million times bigger in
>>>area than the smaller one, so the actual image brightnesses for each
>>>lens at the focus are the same. That is the whole point of F-numbers -
>>>the image brightness for a given f-number is the same regardless of the
>>>focal length of the lens. Obviously, this allows for exposure to be
>>>calculated without having to take the lens focal length into account -
>>>if the meter gives an exposure of 1/100 sec. at f/11, it applies to
>>>*all* lenses wothout regard to focal length.
>>>
>>
>>Yes - but the pixels can be a million times larger, catching
>>a million time as much light each.

Roland is correct. And like Dave Martindale said, you are
correct too. But each is answering a different question,
so there is not need to retake 'Beginning Optics' again.
Perhaps a course in civility might help ;-)

It is correct to state that for a given f/ratio, the surface
brightness of the image in the focal plane is the same
per unit area (like square micron).

But in comparison of digital cameras, like the FZ20
5 megapixel camera to a DSLR (e.g. a Canon 10D 6 megapixels).
Ignoring the 5 versus 6 megapixels, the main difference
is sensor size: 2.2 micron pixel spacing in the FZ20 versus
7.4 in the 10D. The full well capacity of the 10D is about
44,000 electrons, and the FZ20 probably somewhere around 10,000 to
15,000. Each sensor gets a percentage of full well when imaging
the same scene at the same ISO and f/number. The 10D collects
more photons in each pixel than does the FZ20. This is because
the larger pixels cover more area and since the signal is
proportional to photons per square micron per second * exposure
time * pixel area, the camera with larger pixels collects more
photons.

Modern sensors in digital cameras are photon noise limited.
thus larger pixels in sensors produce higher quality images.

More details at:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.no...

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matt...

(I would have responded to this thread earlier but I was in Italy.)

Roger
!