Another query

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

I am sorry to ask more dumb questions but I just had a look on the sites
listed in this thread and cannot see a difference in optical or digital
zoom. For example, I clicked on Camera Reviews (Steve's Digicams site) and
chose 6-8 MPs. It has "Zoom" but not whether its digital or optical.
Also, I have a digital camera that died roughly 12 months ago and was told
that it is probably my power supply (I think that's the right term) in the
camera that died. I was told also that newer cameras have less chance of
this happening due to something they've done to them. Is there a way to know
if the camera is better this way or not?
I am not sure I made much sense there... My camera has a rechargeable
battery and when that stopped working I just used normal batteries (they
didn't last very long) but now it doesn't matter what batteries I use or if
I try to use electricity by just putting it on the mount it came with,
nothing works. That is why I was told it was the power thing inside it.
Sorry to be longwinded but I just want to make sure I get a decent camera.
Thanks again.
Beck.

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

In article <Xns965E3E2B422xxxxSIGMASD10xxxx@81.174.12.30>,
George Preddy <george.preddy@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Beck" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
> news:VlTje.612$oj7.15140@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au:
>
> > I just want to make sure I get a decent camera.
>
> You can't get a more decent DSLR than the Sigma SD10, which is
> comparable to 120mm slide film in detail and dynamic range. The
> best part about it is that this model has been available for quite
> some time now and you can find real bargains on used bodies and
> Sigma EX lenses, which are on par (slightly better according to my
> extensive testing, actually) than Canon L glass but much less
> expensive. With the SD10, you get a pro digital body in the same
> ballpark price range as Canon consumer junk.

And you can't smoke more crack than George Preddy.

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

So far I've never seen '120mm' film.
Could you mean '120' film? If so that is just 70mm...or 60mm x 60mm
image in square format.

Or could you just be a troll with very little knowledge of photografic
gear?




On 22 May 2005 05:57:14 +0200, George Preddy <george.preddy@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>You can't get a more decent DSLR than the Sigma SD10, which is
>comparable to 120mm slide film in detail and dynamic range.

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

"Me" <me@here.com> wrote in message
> So far I've never seen '120mm' film.

Me neither. Too small to be 5x7, too large to be 4x5.

> Could you mean '120' film? If so that is just 70mm...or 60mm x 60mm
> image in square format.

Not quite. 120 film is a tad over 60mm wide (just shy of 61mm) with 56x42,
56x56, 56x70, 56x76, 56x82, 56x120, or 56x170mm images, depending on the
camera used.

56x70 images (called "6x7" ) scanned at 4000 dpi and downsampled to 2400 dpi
produce images that aren't quite as good as dSLRs, but they make very nice
300 dpi 13x19 prints. I suspect that I wouldn't shoot much 6x7 if Canon
produced an affordable/liftable camera with the 1Dsmk2 sensor in it, but
until then, 6x7's very nice.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

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

On Sun, 22 May 2005 23:02:28 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:


>56x70 images (called "6x7" ) scanned at 4000 dpi and downsampled to 2400 dpi
>produce images that aren't quite as good as dSLRs, but they make very nice
>300 dpi 13x19 prints. I suspect that I wouldn't shoot much 6x7 if Canon
>produced an affordable/liftable camera with the 1Dsmk2 sensor in it, but
>until then, 6x7's very nice.


Why would you downsample to 2400 after scanning
at 4000?

Well scanned 6x7 cm film should easily out-resolve
any DSLR, at just about any price. Certainly
anything in the 10D/20D class.

Compared to a 1Ds MkII? It might be an interesting
comparison.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

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

"rafe bustin" <rafe b at speakeasy dot net> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
> >56x70 images (called "6x7" ) scanned at 4000 dpi and downsampled to 2400
dpi
> >produce images that aren't quite as good as dSLRs, but they make very
nice
> >300 dpi 13x19 prints. I suspect that I wouldn't shoot much 6x7 if Canon
> >produced an affordable/liftable camera with the 1Dsmk2 sensor in it, but
> >until then, 6x7's very nice.
>
> Why would you downsample to 2400 after scanning
> at 4000?

I could either print at 500 dpi (from the raw 4000 dpi scan) or print at 300
dpi from the 2400 dpi downsampled scan. If I noise-reduce, lightly sharpen,
and downsample to 2400 I get a file that looks better on the screen and is
easier to work on/with. IMHO, there's really not much information in a 4000
dpi scan above what a 2400 dpi file can hold.

> Well scanned 6x7 cm film should easily out-resolve
> any DSLR, at just about any price. Certainly
> anything in the 10D/20D class.
>
> Compared to a 1Ds MkII? It might be an interesting
> comparison.

You'll have to ask someone else: I can neither lift nor afford that clunker.

(Actually, it's easy: just shoot with the equivalent 35mm format lens on a
10D or 300D and pretend you have a crop from a 1Ds mk2. E.g. shoot your 65mm
lens on film and set your zoom to 32mm or so, and upsample the dSLR image by
about 2.1x and compare to the 4000 dpi scan. (Or by 1.3x and compare to the
"2400 dpi" downsampled image.))

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

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

On Sun, 22 May 2005 23:04:14 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>
>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 May 2005 13:33:19 GMT, Me <me@here.com> wrote:
>>
>> >So far I've never seen '120mm' film.
>> >Could you mean '120' film? If so that is just 70mm...or 60mm x 60mm
>> >image in square format.
>> >
>>
>> Never looked for it then have you?
>>
>> http://www.penncamera.com/store/it [...] ENT_ID=225
>>
>> http://www.penncamera.com/store/it [...] ENT_ID=225
>>
>>
>http://www.photographyreview.com/Black,and,White,Film/Kodak,Tri-X,/PRD_83298_3119crx.aspx
>>
>> Just because you've not seen it don't assume it doesn't exist.
>
>You haven't seen it either: all three of those are the same brain fart "Me"
>pointed out.

Your post never made to the earthlink news server.


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

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

Well Thanks Kevin for replying to my questions. I just went through this
thread and didn't see a reply besides yours that was worth reading. Thanks
again, much appreciated.
Beck.

"Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:mcmurtri-65CF6A.22320321052005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
> In article <VlTje.612$oj7.15140@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>,
> "Beck" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I am sorry to ask more dumb questions but I just had a look on the sites
>> listed in this thread and cannot see a difference in optical or digital
>> zoom. For example, I clicked on Camera Reviews (Steve's Digicams site)
>> and
>> chose 6-8 MPs. It has "Zoom" but not whether its digital or optical.
>> Also, I have a digital camera that died roughly 12 months ago and was
>> told
>> that it is probably my power supply (I think that's the right term) in
>> the
>> camera that died. I was told also that newer cameras have less chance of
>> this happening due to something they've done to them. Is there a way to
>> know
>> if the camera is better this way or not?
>> I am not sure I made much sense there... My camera has a rechargeable
>> battery and when that stopped working I just used normal batteries (they
>> didn't last very long) but now it doesn't matter what batteries I use or
>> if
>> I try to use electricity by just putting it on the mount it came with,
>> nothing works. That is why I was told it was the power thing inside it.
>> Sorry to be longwinded but I just want to make sure I get a decent
>> camera.
>> Thanks again.
>> Beck.
>
> Good review sites only list the optical zoom, and Steve's Digicams falls
> into that category. www.dpreview.com is another good one.