Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Advice on first digital camera

Tags:
Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 9:47:00 PM

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

I'm sure this question has been asked countless times, so your answers
should be ready at hand. :-)

I'm in the market for a digital camera which will be used to take pictures
of people, indoors and outdoors, in various states of dress. The results
will be printed no smaller than 8 1/2 x 11" and no larger than 16 x 20. The
camera will be on a tripod 90% of the time, and it will need a remote
release. I will connect it to a computer monitor as a viewfinder.

Quality should be competitive with a medium format reflex camera. I will
not be enlarging small sections of the "negative".

I prefer a single zoom lens that stays on the camera permanently and has a
viewing angle similar to a 35mm camera with a 28-105mm lens.

Any advice, or any pointers to answering my questions would be Greatly
Appreciated.

Thanks a bunch,

Norm Strong

More about : advice digital camera

Anonymous
July 20, 2005 2:16:14 AM

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

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:47:00 -0700, normanstrong wrote:

> I'm sure this question has been asked countless times, so your answers
> should be ready at hand. :-)
>
> I'm in the market for a digital camera which will be used to take pictures
> of people, indoors and outdoors, in various states of dress. The results
> will be printed no smaller than 8 1/2 x 11" and no larger than 16 x 20.
> The camera will be on a tripod 90% of the time, and it will need a remote
> release. I will connect it to a computer monitor as a viewfinder.
>
> Quality should be competitive with a medium format reflex camera. I will
> not be enlarging small sections of the "negative".

I hate to disappoint you, but you're not going to get medium format
quality with the APS-C sized sensor of a pro-sumer DSLR or, for that
matter, even with a pro-model camera with a "full frame" sensor in the 12
to 18 megapixel range. A 22 MP, 24mm x 36mm sensor is considered to be
equivalent in image quality to 100 speed 35mm color film. Extrapolating
this up to 645, the "smallest" medium film format, you'd need around a 60
MP sensor to "match" film quality.

Now, if you've got an extra $22,000 taking up space in your sock drawer,
you can get a Hasselblad H1D digital medium format camera with a double 35
mm format (37mm x 49mm) 22 MP sensor, or, when it comes out, the 22 MP
Mamiya ZD medium format digital camera. Or for around half the money, a
medium format digital back, but you'll have to have a medium format
film camera to put it on. Any of these options would meet your quality
standards and output up to 16x20 or larger prints with excellent quality.


Stefan
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 3:03:49 AM

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

<normanstrong@comcast.net> writes:

> I'm sure this question has been asked countless times, so your answers
> should be ready at hand. :-)
>
> I'm in the market for a digital camera which will be used to take pictures
> of people, indoors and outdoors, in various states of dress. The results
> will be printed no smaller than 8 1/2 x 11" and no larger than 16 x 20. The
> camera will be on a tripod 90% of the time, and it will need a remote
> release. I will connect it to a computer monitor as a viewfinder.

This is likely to be the sticking point. DSLRs have the best image quality
cannot display the image before you take the picture on a monitor. Prosumer
cameras with fixed lenses can display the image before you take the picture on
a TV screen, so either you add a TV monitor to view the picture, or you get
some sort of video capture gear on the computer and have it display the image.
Note, you are limited to TV quality pictures, so it is more useful for framing
the picture than for focusing.

If all you need is viewing the picture on the computer afterwards, then many of
the higher end cameras can be used in tethered mode (ie, connected to the
computer and uploading afterwards), though you probably want something that
uses USB 2.0 in true high speed mode or firewire if you need speed. If money
is no object, and you want the best output, I suspect you want to go with a
medium format camera with a digital back (I saw prices in the $15,000 to
$10,000 range at B&H, and I'm sure lenses, etc. will also cost). For slightly
less, there is the Canon and Kodak full frame DSLRS ($8k for the Canon without
lenses). Then you get into the normal pro DSLRs, consumer DSLRs, and prosumer
cameras.

If you really need the TV monitor to frame the picture, any of the 8 megapixel
prosumer cameras (Olympus C-8080WZ, Sony 828, Nikon Pro1, and I don't remember
the Canon entry) might be a reasonable choice. I assume you will be using
studio lights (either strobes or hot lights), so you can take pictures at the
lowest ISO level to get the best quality.

> Quality should be competitive with a medium format reflex camera. I will
> not be enlarging small sections of the "negative".
>
> I prefer a single zoom lens that stays on the camera permanently and has a
> viewing angle similar to a 35mm camera with a 28-105mm lens.
>
> Any advice, or any pointers to answering my questions would be Greatly
> Appreciated.
>
> Thanks a bunch,
>
> Norm Strong
>
>

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Related resources
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 3:03:50 AM

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

In article <m3zmsifaay.fsf@tiktok.the-meissners.org>, Michael Meissner
<mrmnews@the-meissners.org> wrote:

> This is likely to be the sticking point. DSLRs have the best image quality
> cannot display the image before you take the picture on a monitor. Prosumer
> cameras with fixed lenses can display the image before you take the picture on
> a TV screen, so either you add a TV monitor to view the picture, or you get
> some sort of video capture gear on the computer and have it display the image.
> Note, you are limited to TV quality pictures, so it is more useful for framing
> the picture than for focusing.

Are you really that stupid to not understand why a DSLR doesn't have a
live preview? Try looking through that little rectangle...that's your
live preview.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 5:49:43 AM

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

<normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:V_mdnRtkP6meAkDfRVn-qA@comcast.com...
> I'm sure this question has been asked countless times, so your answers
> should be ready at hand. :-)
>
> I'm in the market for a digital camera which will be used to take pictures
> of people, indoors and outdoors, in various states of dress. The results
> will be printed no smaller than 8 1/2 x 11" and no larger than 16 x 20.
> The camera will be on a tripod 90% of the time, and it will need a remote
> release. I will connect it to a computer monitor as a viewfinder.
>
> Quality should be competitive with a medium format reflex camera. I will
> not be enlarging small sections of the "negative".
>
> I prefer a single zoom lens that stays on the camera permanently and has a
> viewing angle similar to a 35mm camera with a 28-105mm lens.
>
> Any advice, or any pointers to answering my questions would be Greatly
> Appreciated.
>
> Thanks a bunch,
>
> Norm Strong
>
Look at DSLR's in the 12mp range. The 16.7 megapixel Canon 1Ds II would be
the best bet for getting close to medium format. It is very pricey though.
John
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 6:08:07 AM

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

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:16:14 -0700, stefan patric wrote:

>> Quality should be competitive with a medium format reflex camera. I will
>> not be enlarging small sections of the "negative".
>
> I hate to disappoint you, but you're not going to get medium format
> quality with the APS-C sized sensor of a pro-sumer DSLR or, for that
> matter, even with a pro-model camera with a "full frame" sensor in the 12
> to 18 megapixel range. A 22 MP, 24mm x 36mm sensor is considered to be
> equivalent in image quality to 100 speed 35mm color film. Extrapolating
> this up to 645, the "smallest" medium film format, you'd need around a 60
> MP sensor to "match" film quality.

Maybe not with a small sensor, but Canon's 16.7mp EOS-1Ds Mark II
with full frame CMOS sensor is there. And for many photographers,
the 6mp and 8mp DSLRs with smaller than full frame sensors compete
effectively with 35mm film cameras. I guess you missed the Canon
magazine inserts from several months back with one of Greg Gorman's
16x20 shots of Bo Derek. He's shoots only digital now and said:

> I don't use a medium format camera anymore. The results I can
> achieve with this camera actually surpass those of 35mm and
> medium format cameras.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 12:11:22 PM

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

Michael Meissner wrote:
[]
> If you really need the TV monitor to frame the picture, any of the 8
> megapixel prosumer cameras (Olympus C-8080WZ, Sony 828, Nikon Pro1,
> and I don't remember the Canon entry) might be a reasonable choice.
[]

Nikon Coolpix 8400 has a 8MP "2/3 inch" sensor so produces less noise than
some of the point-and-shoot cameras. It has a swivel LCD viewfinder and a
zoom range of 24 - 85mm. Whether under the best shooting conditions the
images would be acceptable for the purpose I leave the OP to judge - a
DSLR of 8MP or higher might produce better images, but doesn't (today)
offer live electronic preview.

David
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 1:32:41 PM

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

In article <pan.2005.07.20.05.16.13.345244@thisaddress.com>,
stefan patric <not@thisaddress.com> wrote:

>A 22 MP, 24mm x 36mm sensor is considered to be
>equivalent in image quality to 100 speed 35mm color film.

....perhaps if you don't take any factors such as image quality into account.

I shoot with a DSLR, 35mm, medium format (66, 67 and 69), and 4x5 large
format, and I can tell you that 22 megapixels from a DSLR is easilly into
medium format territory.

>Extrapolating
>this up to 645, the "smallest" medium film format, you'd need around a 60
>MP sensor to "match" film quality.

I'm happy if I can get DSLR-quality images at 60 megapixels from 6*7, let
alone 645, and I'm shooting slow E6 films. For the OP's stated requirements
- portraits which need to be competitive with medium format at the print
sizes stated, a 12 megapixel DSLR should do the trick. Landscape shots
would need more. Your figures are too generous to film.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 2:06:22 PM

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

> will be printed no smaller than 8 1/2 x 11" and no larger than 16 x 20. The
> camera will be on a tripod 90% of the time, and it will need a remote
> release. I will connect it to a computer monitor as a viewfinder.
>
> Quality should be competitive with a medium format reflex camera. I will
> not be enlarging small sections of the "negative".
>
> I prefer a single zoom lens that stays on the camera permanently and has a
> viewing angle similar to a 35mm camera with a 28-105mm lens.


Canon EOS 1Ds-MkII 16MP dSLR.
Cameras from PhaseOne.com and BetterLight.com.

Due to the requirement for being 'competitive' with a medium format
camera (in terms of quality, resolution, etc I'm assuming), you may find
yourself looking at the higher-end cameras from PhaseOne and BetterLight
rather than the typical lot of consumer-level dSLRs (which top out at
16MP today).

http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml
As you can see here, the EOS 1Ds Mk2 is simply insufficient to match
a 4x5 MF camera image. This fact is =well-known= and many professional
catalog photographers (eg. Macy's, etc.) are using MF digital cameras
for their exacting work requirements to replace traditional MF cameras
in the studio.

Let's do the math now:
3504x2336 pixels for the Canon 16MP image.
3504/20" = 175 pixel per inch
2336/16" = 146 pixel per inch

As you can see, this is well under 200 ppi in both dimensions, and a
16x20" print simply won't look as 'sharp' as it could possibly be. Of
course, we can assume that there is sufficient detail for a crisp 8x10"
print.

---

Nevertheless, you'll have to download a few of the samples images
that are provided online by Canon and other makers, print them out at
the sizes you prefer, and really eyeball them in person to see if the
detail level is 'sufficient' for your needs.

You may also consider having a dual-setup for the time being until
'better & cheaper' equipment arrives if you are on a tight budget.
Acquire a cheaper dSLR for 8x10" work; scan the MF films on an Imacon or
better for larger work.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 2:41:26 PM

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

stefan patric <not@thisaddress.com> wrote:

> I hate to disappoint you, but you're not going to get medium format
> quality with the APS-C sized sensor of a pro-sumer DSLR or, for that
> matter, even with a pro-model camera with a "full frame" sensor in
> the 12 to 18 megapixel range. A 22 MP, 24mm x 36mm sensor is
> considered to be equivalent in image quality to 100 speed 35mm color
> film.

Interesting use of the passive voice there: "is considered to be".
Considered by whom? RWG Hunt considers 8Mpx to be equivalent to high
resolution 35mm colour film. and that's what it looks like to me too.

> Extrapolating this up to 645, the "smallest" medium film format,
> you'd need around a 60 MP sensor to "match" film quality.

Extrapolating bogus data gets you only more bogus data.

Andrew.
July 20, 2005 2:41:27 PM

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

In article <11dsaimo327bp16@news.supernews.com>, andrew29
@littlepinkcloud.invalid says...
> stefan patric <not@thisaddress.com> wrote:
>
> > I hate to disappoint you, but you're not going to get medium format
> > quality with the APS-C sized sensor of a pro-sumer DSLR or, for that
> > matter, even with a pro-model camera with a "full frame" sensor in
> > the 12 to 18 megapixel range. A 22 MP, 24mm x 36mm sensor is
> > considered to be equivalent in image quality to 100 speed 35mm color
> > film.
>
> Interesting use of the passive voice there: "is considered to be".
> Considered by whom? RWG Hunt considers 8Mpx to be equivalent to high
> resolution 35mm colour film. and that's what it looks like to me too.
>
> > Extrapolating this up to 645, the "smallest" medium film format,
> > you'd need around a 60 MP sensor to "match" film quality.
>
> Extrapolating bogus data gets you only more bogus data.
>
> Andrew.
>


Bogus data is what the "give me film or give me death" crowd uses most of the
time.

Having shot 35mm since the cameras first appeared on our (US) shores, doesnt
make me an expert, but it does make me "experienced".

I have several "ZLR" type Digitals and a DSLR, as well as all my film gear
still laying about.

On any given day, under "outdoor" conditions, I can out shoot 35mm film with
any one of a half dozen 8mp "ZLR" type cameras.

Even with the "fringing" problems it inherantly has, the Sony F-828, or the
Olympus 8080, or the Canon PRO-1 (I lump these together because AFAIK they
all use the same sensor) can simply out-perform film.

Given the flexibility under changing light conditions, I would not go back to
film for my wildlife, landscape, or sports (mostly horseback riding) photos.

In the studio, however, you would supposedly have control of the lighting,
and have a static subject. There is the rub.... You can spend an equal
amount on film gear or digital gear for the studio... Medium format film is
hard to beat, but I think digital can (and does) do it, it just takes a
bigger up-front investment, in the body and the lens(es)
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 7:54:32 PM

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

"Michael Meissner" <mrmnews@the-meissners.org> wrote in message
news:m3zmsifaay.fsf@tiktok.the-meissners.org...
> <normanstrong@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> I'm sure this question has been asked countless times, so your answers
>> should be ready at hand. :-)
>>
>> I'm in the market for a digital camera which will be used to take
>> pictures
>> of people, indoors and outdoors, in various states of dress. The results
>> will be printed no smaller than 8 1/2 x 11" and no larger than 16 x 20.
>> The
>> camera will be on a tripod 90% of the time, and it will need a remote
>> release. I will connect it to a computer monitor as a viewfinder.
>
> This is likely to be the sticking point. DSLRs have the best image
> quality
> cannot display the image before you take the picture on a monitor.
> Prosumer
> cameras with fixed lenses can display the image before you take the
> picture on
> a TV screen, so either you add a TV monitor to view the picture, or you
> get
> some sort of video capture gear on the computer and have it display the
> image.
> Note, you are limited to TV quality pictures, so it is more useful for
> framing
> the picture than for focusing.
>
> If all you need is viewing the picture on the computer afterwards, then
> many of
> the higher end cameras can be used in tethered mode (ie, connected to the
> computer and uploading afterwards), though you probably want something
> that
> uses USB 2.0 in true high speed mode or firewire if you need speed. If
> money
> is no object, and you want the best output, I suspect you want to go with
> a
> medium format camera with a digital back (I saw prices in the $15,000 to
> $10,000 range at B&H, and I'm sure lenses, etc. will also cost). For
> slightly
> less, there is the Canon and Kodak full frame DSLRS ($8k for the Canon
> without
> lenses). Then you get into the normal pro DSLRs, consumer DSLRs, and
> prosumer
> cameras.
>
> If you really need the TV monitor to frame the picture, any of the 8
> megapixel
> prosumer cameras (Olympus C-8080WZ, Sony 828, Nikon Pro1, and I don't
> remember
> the Canon entry) might be a reasonable choice. I assume you will be using
> studio lights (either strobes or hot lights), so you can take pictures at
> the
> lowest ISO level to get the best quality.

Very discouraging. You're talking big money here; much more than a film
camera costs. I was thinking in the $1000 range. I also don't understand
the reason for a reflex camera. Is there some reason why the sensor should
be covered while composing the photo?

It's just possible that I don't understand the theory behind digital
sensors. The more I follow this group, the more convinced I become that I
should read a good technical treatise on CCD and CMOS sensors. Let's back
away from choosing the camera for a bit, and instead recommend a good book
that covers the theory of digital photography and the way the image is
derived from the sensor itself. Maybe with more knowledge I'll be able to
answer my own questions. :-)

Once again, thanks for your efforts on behalf of this beginner.

Norm Strong
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 9:33:11 PM

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

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:
> Michael Meissner wrote:
> []
>> If you really need the TV monitor to frame the picture, any of the 8
>> megapixel prosumer cameras (Olympus C-8080WZ, Sony 828, Nikon Pro1,
>> and I don't remember the Canon entry) might be a reasonable choice.
> []
>
> Nikon Coolpix 8400 has a 8MP "2/3 inch" sensor so produces less noise than
> some of the point-and-shoot cameras.

It looks to me as though the Sony 2/3" sensor is a dog.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp8400/page15.asp

Note that the 8400 is much worse than the G6. (You have to be careful
looking at the data: the Oly 8080 gets it's low noise from noise reduction;
notice how soft the detail is at ISO 400.)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong6/page14.asp (For the G6 detail at ISO
400.)

Since you mention the F828, the 300D looks better to my eye at ISO 800 than
the F828 does at ISO 100. I wish the F828 weren't such a joke: I really love
the F707/F717 ergonomics. (But the F717 itself is already losing it at ISO
200.)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf828/page14.asp

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 9:33:12 PM

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

David J. Littleboy wrote:
[]
>> Nikon Coolpix 8400 has a 8MP "2/3 inch" sensor so produces less
>> noise than some of the point-and-shoot cameras.
>
> It looks to me as though the Sony 2/3" sensor is a dog.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp8400/page15.asp
>
> Note that the 8400 is much worse than the G6. (You have to be careful
> looking at the data: the Oly 8080 gets it's low noise from noise
> reduction; notice how soft the detail is at ISO 400.)

For this application, I would never suggest using ISO 400 as a matter of
routine, ISO 50 or 100 would be the normal setting. I would much rather
have the sharper image from the Nikon 8400 at ISO 400 than the
over-processed blur from the Olympus C-8080. The G6 images show the
slightly better performance of the 7MP sensor, but the camera only has
35mm wide-angle versus the Nikon's 24mm (both can take adapters for an
even wider angle).

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 10:09:11 PM

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

> Very discouraging. You're talking big money here; much more than a film
> camera costs. I was thinking in the $1000 range. I also don't understand
> the reason for a reflex camera. Is there some reason why the sensor
> should be covered while composing the photo?

An DSLR camera is built on the same platform as a 35mm SLR camera. There is
no way to get an image of what you are going to shoot as the mirror and
shutter are between the lens and the sensor. However, you are looking
directly through the lens, which gives you several advantages over a point
and shoot. What you don't see is how the exposure effects the final image.
However, these cameras tend to have no shutter lag, better lenses, and will
give you the image almost instantly after you take the shot via the LCD on
the back. So, you generally have plenty of time to make adjustments if
necessary.

>
> It's just possible that I don't understand the theory behind digital
> sensors. The more I follow this group, the more convinced I become that
> I should read a good technical treatise on CCD and CMOS sensors. Let's
> back away from choosing the camera for a bit, and instead recommend a good
> book that covers the theory of digital photography and the way the image
> is derived from the sensor itself. Maybe with more knowledge I'll be able
> to answer my own questions. :-)

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about the difference between CCD and
CMOS sensors. That info is easy to find on the net, but may not be worth
using to make or break a deal on a specific camera. I think you are making
this choice way too technical. But, there are tons of sites on the net if
you have to have the info -- http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp

A D70 would cost you around or under $1000 and is one of the most popular
DSLR's ever made. The kit lens is excellent, and it would give you the
option of changing lenses at some point in time. Price should be better
than it's replacement, the D70s, without losing much.

Sheldon
July 20, 2005 11:39:15 PM

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

stefan patric wrote:
A 22 MP, 24mm x 36mm sensor is considered to be
> equivalent in image quality to 100 speed 35mm color film. Extrapolating
> this up to 645, the "smallest" medium film format, you'd need around a 60
> MP sensor to "match" film quality.
>

Every time I print an image from my dslr, I am reminded of how wrong
that theory is from a practical perspective with regard to 35mm and 22mp.
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 12:29:41 AM

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

There is no such beast. Any of the 8mp prosumer cameras still have a
small sensor and the quality, while quite good, can not match a 6x6
negative or even a DSLR. And while RAW images from these cameras can be
enlarged to 16x20, the image starts to get pretty soft, IMHO.

DSLRs have interchangable lenses, but the 8 mp DSLRs are the sweet spot
in the cost/quality balance. A 8.5x11 print is excellent, an 11x14 print
is very good, and 13x19 is still pretty good in an 8mp DSLR. Beyond
that, a big 12 mp DSLR is the way to go if you have the dough. Actually,
in that price range and for your needs a used MF camera with a digital
back may be a better choice. Again, big bucks.

normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
> I'm sure this question has been asked countless times, so your answers
> should be ready at hand. :-)
>
> I'm in the market for a digital camera which will be used to take pictures
> of people, indoors and outdoors, in various states of dress. The results
> will be printed no smaller than 8 1/2 x 11" and no larger than 16 x 20. The
> camera will be on a tripod 90% of the time, and it will need a remote
> release. I will connect it to a computer monitor as a viewfinder.
>
> Quality should be competitive with a medium format reflex camera. I will
> not be enlarging small sections of the "negative".
>
> I prefer a single zoom lens that stays on the camera permanently and has a
> viewing angle similar to a 35mm camera with a 28-105mm lens.
>
> Any advice, or any pointers to answering my questions would be Greatly
> Appreciated.
>
> Thanks a bunch,
>
> Norm Strong
>
>
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 7:43:03 AM

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

Sheldon wrote:
>>Very discouraging. You're talking big money here; much more than a film
>>camera costs. I was thinking in the $1000 range. I also don't understand
>>the reason for a reflex camera. Is there some reason why the sensor
>>should be covered while composing the photo?
>
>
> An DSLR camera is built on the same platform as a 35mm SLR camera. There is
> no way to get an image of what you are going to shoot as the mirror and
> shutter are between the lens and the sensor. However, you are looking
> directly through the lens, which gives you several advantages over a point
> and shoot. What you don't see is how the exposure effects the final image.
> However, these cameras tend to have no shutter lag, better lenses, and will
> give you the image almost instantly after you take the shot via the LCD on
> the back. So, you generally have plenty of time to make adjustments if
> necessary.
>
>
>>It's just possible that I don't understand the theory behind digital
>>sensors. The more I follow this group, the more convinced I become that
>>I should read a good technical treatise on CCD and CMOS sensors. Let's
>>back away from choosing the camera for a bit, and instead recommend a good
>>book that covers the theory of digital photography and the way the image
>>is derived from the sensor itself. Maybe with more knowledge I'll be able
>>to answer my own questions. :-)
>
>
> Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about the difference between CCD and
> CMOS sensors. That info is easy to find on the net, but may not be worth
> using to make or break a deal on a specific camera. I think you are making
> this choice way too technical. But, there are tons of sites on the net if
> you have to have the info -- http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp
>
> A D70 would cost you around or under $1000 and is one of the most popular
> DSLR's ever made. The kit lens is excellent, and it would give you the
> option of changing lenses at some point in time. Price should be better
> than it's replacement, the D70s, without losing much.
>
> Sheldon
>
>
Hi,
First camera.... buy one and shoot some pictures. After gaining some
experience, you'll know what you need/want.
Tony
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 10:51:43 PM

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

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 02:08:07 -0400, ASAAR wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:16:14 -0700, stefan patric wrote:
>
>>> Quality should be competitive with a medium format reflex camera. I
>>> will not be enlarging small sections of the "negative".
>>
>> I hate to disappoint you, but you're not going to get medium format
>> quality with the APS-C sized sensor of a pro-sumer DSLR or, for that
>> matter, even with a pro-model camera with a "full frame" sensor in the
>> 12 to 18 megapixel range. A 22 MP, 24mm x 36mm sensor is considered to
>> be equivalent in image quality to 100 speed 35mm color film.
>> Extrapolating this up to 645, the "smallest" medium film format, you'd
>> need around a 60 MP sensor to "match" film quality.
>
> Maybe not with a small sensor, but Canon's 16.7mp EOS-1Ds Mark II
> with full frame CMOS sensor is there. And for many photographers, the 6mp
> and 8mp DSLRs with smaller than full frame sensors compete effectively
> with 35mm film cameras. I guess you missed the Canon magazine inserts
> from several months back with one of Greg Gorman's 16x20 shots of Bo
> Derek. He's shoots only digital now and said:

No, I didn't see the poster. 4-color? Photo-offset? 133 line screen?
Not much of a testament. A good 6 MP+- camera (full frame) has just
about enough pixels do the same. And you fell for it. Hell, 35mm film
cameras have been making excellent quality 20x30(!) posters for decades.
And still are.

The Canon 1Ds, even if it were in every way equivalent to 35mm film (and
it is closing in on it) would still pale in comparison to medium format
film, since even the best 35mm film camera is no match -- print size to
print size -- for even a "cheap" medium format camera with a 4-element
Tessar lens, let alone a quality, high-end medium format film camera. The
OP's goal of medium format print quality from a pro-sumer (or even a
top-of-the-line, full frame DSLR) is unrealistic, at this time, anyway.
Besides, I don't think the OP has the budget for the 1Ds. ;-)

>> I don't use a medium format camera anymore. The results I can achieve
>> with this camera actually surpass those of 35mm and medium format
>> cameras.

Advertising misdirection and slight of hand. Which 35mm and medium format
cameras? He didn't specify. You assumed professional equipment, his
equipment, since this guy's a pro, but point-n-shoots are 35mm cameras,
too. Now, if he had said "... MY 35mm and medium format FILM cameras...,"
then that would be significant. But he didn't. All the
Truth-in-Advertising law requires is a factual statement. If you interpret
it in a way, that's advantageous to the product, even if it's
woefully wrong or inaccurate... Well, that's what advertisers are hoping
for. And they haven't violated the law. At least, not technically.
Morally, yes. But not technically.


Stefan
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 11:30:56 PM

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

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:39:15 +1200, frederick wrote:

> stefan patric wrote:
> A 22 MP, 24mm x 36mm sensor is considered to be
>> equivalent in image quality to 100 speed 35mm color film. Extrapolating
>> this up to 645, the "smallest" medium film format, you'd need around a
>> 60 MP sensor to "match" film quality.
>>
>>
> Every time I print an image from my dslr, I am reminded of how wrong that
> theory is from a practical perspective with regard to 35mm and 22mp.

How long has it been since you've printed 35mm, conventionally? (Or have
you ever?) I'm not talking about scanning the negs or chromes, then
printing them digitally. I'm mean 100% conventional, wet process:
enlarger, lens, trays, chemicals, etc. All analog.

So, don't take my word: In an newspaper article on police and crime labs
switching to digital cameras as a cost saving measure, the head of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation's forensic lab stated that to meet the
quality of 200 speed 35mm film would require a digital camera with an
effective 18 MP sensor. So, how many MP's for equivalent to 100 speed
film? More, to be sure, but not much more. 4 more MP, maybe? (No link
available for reference. I read it in a real paper newspaper last Fall.
But it was, I think, an AP syndicated story. So, maybe it's out there
somewhere on the 'net.)


Stefan
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 12:53:52 AM

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

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:32:41 +0000, Chris Brown wrote:

> In article <pan.2005.07.20.05.16.13.345244@thisaddress.com>, stefan patric
> <not@thisaddress.com> wrote:
>
>>A 22 MP, 24mm x 36mm sensor is considered to be equivalent in image
>>quality to 100 speed 35mm color film.
>
> ...perhaps if you don't take any factors such as image quality into
> account.

Huh? So, you want images of bad quality? I'll rephrase: An effective 22
MP, 24mm x 36mm sensor is considered to be equivalent to 100 speed 35mm
color film.

> I shoot with a DSLR, 35mm, medium format (66, 67 and 69), and 4x5 large
> format, and I can tell you that 22 megapixels from a DSLR is easilly into
> medium format territory.

How did you come to that conclusion? Empirically? Practical test?

Film can resolve so much more, than most people realize, if the lens is
good enough to deliver it. Years ago, I used to wow other pro
photographers with b&w prints that were so sharp and resolved such fine
detail, that they just HAD to have been shot with medium format. Only way.
Nope, Nikon. 35mm. And then to twist the knife, I would refuse to tell
anyone how I had done it. (Nope, notTech Pan. Just conventional film,
chemistry and printing. Nope, not digital processing. Didn't exist.) With
the same technique, images from the old 'Blad were mistaken for those from
an 8x10. So, I think 22 MP as an average resolution equivalent for 35mm
100 speed color film (taken with a good lens) is conservative.

>>Extrapolating
>>this up to 645, the "smallest" medium film format, you'd need around a 60
>>MP sensor to "match" film quality.
>
> I'm happy if I can get DSLR-quality images at 60 megapixels from 6*7, let
> alone 645, and I'm shooting slow E6 films. For the OP's stated
> requirements - portraits which need to be competitive with medium format
> at the print sizes stated, a 12 megapixel DSLR should do the trick.
> Landscape shots would need more. Your figures are too generous to film.

Are you scanning your film for printing or printing it conventionally. If
the former, that's the caveat. Scanning is a just a copy process with
all the problems inherient in copying added to the problems involved
with digitizing and interpolation algorithms. That scanned image is 2nd
generation. Some of what was lost in the copying process can be fixed;
some can't. The print becomes 3rd generation. With an original digital
image right out of the camera, there is no loss of any data during the
work flow until it's printed. So, less resolution will look just as good
as scanned film. Generally speaking.

12 MP full frame sensor for medium format film quality in a 16x20 print?
I disagree. Not even close. Unless you're going to upsample. But that's
kinda like cheating unless you let me upsample my film to 4x5. ;-)

I think my numbers are conservative, but I have higher standards than most
photographers. ;-)


Stefan
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 2:08:06 AM

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

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:51:43 -0700, stefan patric wrote:

>> Maybe not with a small sensor, but Canon's 16.7mp EOS-1Ds Mark II
>> with full frame CMOS sensor is there. And for many photographers, the 6mp
>> and 8mp DSLRs with smaller than full frame sensors compete effectively
>> with 35mm film cameras. I guess you missed the Canon magazine inserts
>> from several months back with one of Greg Gorman's 16x20 shots of Bo
>> Derek. He's shoots only digital now and said:
>
> No, I didn't see the poster. 4-color? Photo-offset? 133 line screen?
> Not much of a testament. A good 6 MP+- camera (full frame) has just
> about enough pixels do the same. And you fell for it. Hell, 35mm film
> cameras have been making excellent quality 20x30(!) posters for decades.
> And still are.

If you want to stick your head in a hole in the ground and ignore
reality, be my guest. I'm sure it won't stop you from your mission.
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 2:45:58 AM

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

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:41:26 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:

> stefan patric <not@thisaddress.com> wrote:
>
>> I hate to disappoint you, but you're not going to get medium format
>> quality with the APS-C sized sensor of a pro-sumer DSLR or, for that
>> matter, even with a pro-model camera with a "full frame" sensor in the
>> 12 to 18 megapixel range. A 22 MP, 24mm x 36mm sensor is considered to
>> be equivalent in image quality to 100 speed 35mm color film.
>
> Interesting use of the passive voice there: "is considered to be".
> Considered by whom? RWG Hunt considers 8Mpx to be equivalent to high
> resolution 35mm colour film. and that's what it looks like to me too.

Who? A consensus of experts, more knowledgeable than I in the matter,
whose writings I've read over the years. Plus, some independent
calculations of my own that fit my practical photographic requirements for
image quality.

What criteria did Hunt use to determine the 8MP value? 3 sensors -- one
each for Red, Green and Blue -- with a beam splitter like is used in TV
cameras? Or one using a Bayer type color mosaic? Or some other
configuration? It makes a difference. What minimum resolution figure did
he use? Did he use a maximum value?

>> Extrapolating this up to 645, the "smallest" medium film format, you'd
>> need around a 60 MP sensor to "match" film quality.
>
> Extrapolating bogus data gets you only more bogus data.

One person's opinion...


Stefan
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 3:27:11 AM

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

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 07:37:49 -0400, Larry wrote:

> In article <11dsaimo327bp16@news.supernews.com>, andrew29
> @littlepinkcloud.invalid says...
>> stefan patric <not@thisaddress.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I hate to disappoint you, but you're not going to get medium format
>> > quality with the APS-C sized sensor of a pro-sumer DSLR or, for that
>> > matter, even with a pro-model camera with a "full frame" sensor in the
>> > 12 to 18 megapixel range. A 22 MP, 24mm x 36mm sensor is considered
>> > to be equivalent in image quality to 100 speed 35mm color film.
>>
>> Interesting use of the passive voice there: "is considered to be".
>> Considered by whom? RWG Hunt considers 8Mpx to be equivalent to high
>> resolution 35mm colour film. and that's what it looks like to me too.
>>
>> > Extrapolating this up to 645, the "smallest" medium film format, you'd
>> > need around a 60 MP sensor to "match" film quality.
>>
>> Extrapolating bogus data gets you only more bogus data.
>>
>> Andrew.
>>
>>
>
> Bogus data is what the "give me film or give me death" crowd uses most of
> the time.

Insults and sarcasam are what those who don't really know use when they
have nothing useful to contribute.

As far as digital or film, I use both, and have no particular loyalty to
either. It's media, and cameras and lenses are tools. I use the best
tools for the job. So, I know the limitations and advantages of both,
because as a pro, it's part of my job. I'm constantly testing and
evaluating. And my evaluations are usually done at 20X, and not by
looking at a 4x6 or 8x10 I had done at the drug store.

> Having shot 35mm since the cameras first appeared on our (US) shores,
> doesnt make me an expert, but it does make me "experienced".
>
> I have several "ZLR" type Digitals and a DSLR, as well as all my film gear
> still laying about.
>
> On any given day, under "outdoor" conditions, I can out shoot 35mm film
> with any one of a half dozen 8mp "ZLR" type cameras.
>
> Even with the "fringing" problems it inherantly has, the Sony F-828, or
> the Olympus 8080, or the Canon PRO-1 (I lump these together because AFAIK
> they all use the same sensor) can simply out-perform film.
>
> Given the flexibility under changing light conditions, I would not go back
> to film for my wildlife, landscape, or sports (mostly horseback riding)
> photos.
>
> In the studio, however, you would supposedly have control of the lighting,
> and have a static subject. There is the rub.... You can spend an equal
> amount on film gear or digital gear for the studio... Medium format film
> is hard to beat, but I think digital can (and does) do it, it just takes a
> bigger up-front investment, in the body and the lens(es)

And in all those years, you never tried to find out why your daylight film
shots turned out less than you desired. With film you have to really know
what you're doing to get good shots. Yes, film has big problems with
contrast, and color temperature, and a plethora of other things that
digital is more forgiving or more correctable of, but that's the
challenge. To get good shots, only shoot when conditions are suitable.
(This applies to digital as well.) When they aren't, don't waste time
and film (or a battery charge) shooting. Go have lunch or read a book or
hangout at the Tiki-bar.


Stefan
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 2:09:18 PM

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

Carlos wrote:

<big snip>

>
> Other mistake here: The 16x20 format have 4:5 ratio. The DSLR's based on
> the 35 mm frame ("full" or not) have 2:3 ratio. [P.S.: Nikon DSLR's have
> 3:4 ratio]

<big snip>

My Nikon DSLR (D70) has a 2:3 ratio as have all the other Nikon DSLRs I've
seen or used (D1, D1X, D100, D2X).

Ronnie
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 12:09:32 AM

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

Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> writes:

> In article <m3zmsifaay.fsf@tiktok.the-meissners.org>, Michael Meissner
> <mrmnews@the-meissners.org> wrote:
>
> > This is likely to be the sticking point. DSLRs have the best image quality
> > cannot display the image before you take the picture on a monitor.
> > Prosumer cameras with fixed lenses can display the image before you take
> > the picture on a TV screen, so either you add a TV monitor to view the
> > picture, or you get some sort of video capture gear on the computer and
> > have it display the image. Note, you are limited to TV quality pictures,
> > so it is more useful for framing the picture than for focusing.
>
> Are you really that stupid to not understand why a DSLR doesn't have a live
> preview? Try looking through that little rectangle...that's your live
> preview.

Do you always begin your posts asking if people are stupid?

I understand why a DSLR doesn't have live preview on a TV or CRT screen, which
was part of the question I was responding to. Particularly if the photographer
is not near the camera (for example, putting a camera in a blind to photograph
birds, or the camera is mounted on a wall where the photographer can't get
behind it), using a viewfinder is impossible. I was trying to tell the poster
that if the remote capture on a TV/CRT was a hard and fast requirement, then
DSLRs were out of the question.

I tend to think there is a big market for people who want to upgrade to a DSLR,
but want to have things that they got used to with the prosumer cameras, and
whoever delivers it will have a big seller on their hands. I think in maybe
5-10 years, cameras with a mirror slap will be in the same category as manual
focus lenses (ie, interesting to a few people, but not used by the majority of
photographers).

Having used both DSLR and prosumer, there are times I choose the prosumer and
times I choose the DSLR.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
July 26, 2005 12:43:16 AM

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

stefan patric wrote:

>A 22 MP, 24mm x 36mm sensor is considered to be equivalent in image
>quality to 100 speed 35mm color film.

I keep reading this figure. Can you please attribute it to someone, and
to put it in context, state when it was written. The theory might have
sounded good once, but it must have been written before consumer dslrs
hit the shelves, and the argument shifted to medium format vs 12 or 16mp.
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 2:38:27 AM

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

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:08:06 -0400, ASAAR wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:51:43 -0700, stefan patric wrote:
>
>>> Maybe not with a small sensor, but Canon's 16.7mp EOS-1Ds Mark II
>>> with full frame CMOS sensor is there. And for many photographers, the
>>> 6mp and 8mp DSLRs with smaller than full frame sensors compete
>>> effectively with 35mm film cameras. I guess you missed the Canon
>>> magazine inserts from several months back with one of Greg Gorman's
>>> 16x20 shots of Bo Derek. He's shoots only digital now and said:
>>
>> No, I didn't see the poster. 4-color? Photo-offset? 133 line screen?
>> Not much of a testament. A good 6 MP+- camera (full frame) has just
>> about enough pixels do the same. And you fell for it. Hell, 35mm film
>> cameras have been making excellent quality 20x30(!) posters for decades.
>> And still are.
>
> If you want to stick your head in a hole in the ground and ignore
> reality, be my guest. I'm sure it won't stop you from your mission.

Just run the numbers. Perhaps it's you that's examining the underside of
the ground.

Stefan
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 4:12:31 AM

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

On 25 Jul 2005 20:09:32 -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:

>> Are you really that stupid to not understand why a DSLR doesn't have a live
>> preview? Try looking through that little rectangle...that's your live
>> preview.
>
> Do you always begin your posts asking if people are stupid?

Let's just say that if a followup starts like that, chances are
that it was posted by RA. Attempts to change that behaviour are
only mildly successful, at best. He's stoopid that way. :) 
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 12:43:49 PM

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

ASAAR <caught@22.com> writes:

> On 25 Jul 2005 20:09:32 -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
>
> >> Are you really that stupid to not understand why a DSLR doesn't have a live
> >> preview? Try looking through that little rectangle...that's your live
> >> preview.
> >
> > Do you always begin your posts asking if people are stupid?
>
> Let's just say that if a followup starts like that, chances are
> that it was posted by RA. Attempts to change that behaviour are
> only mildly successful, at best. He's stoopid that way. :) 

Yes, I figured as much.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 2:00:08 AM

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

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:43:16 +1200, frederick wrote:

> stefan patric wrote:
>
> >A 22 MP, 24mm x 36mm sensor is considered to be equivalent in image
> >quality to 100 speed 35mm color film.
>
> I keep reading this figure. Can you please attribute it to someone, and
> to put it in context, state when it was written. The theory might have
> sounded good once, but it must have been written before consumer dslrs hit
> the shelves, and the argument shifted to medium format vs 12 or 16mp.

You can start where I started, a Yahoo search. These are the search terms
I used: digital+film+equivalence, digital+film+compared, "digital vs
film", "digital versus film".

Plus, here are a few links, I bookmarked:

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/filmwins.html
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summ...
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

Just be aware that on some digital vs film comparisons, the person isn't
really comparing digital and film, but digital to SCANNED film. Makes a
BIG difference.

Stefan
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 9:20:33 AM

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

"stefan patric" <not@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.07.28.05.00.07.522698@thisaddress.com...
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:43:16 +1200, frederick wrote:
>
>> stefan patric wrote:
>>
>> >A 22 MP, 24mm x 36mm sensor is considered to be equivalent in image
>> >quality to 100 speed 35mm color film.
>>
>> I keep reading this figure. Can you please attribute it to someone, and
>> to put it in context, state when it was written. The theory might have
>> sounded good once, but it must have been written before consumer dslrs
>> hit
>> the shelves, and the argument shifted to medium format vs 12 or 16mp.
>
> You can start where I started, a Yahoo search. These are the search terms
> I used: digital+film+equivalence, digital+film+compared, "digital vs
> film", "digital versus film".
>
> Plus, here are a few links, I bookmarked:
>
> http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/filmwins.html
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Ken compared digital to 4x5, of course film came out better. No one here
contends that 35mm based digital competes with large format. 35mm film
doesn't compete with it either...

> http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summ...

Shows Velvia as the rough equivalent of 16mp, or the Canon 1Ds mkII, not
22mp. Shows Ektachrome and Sensia checking in at the equal of 6mp...

> http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

Quote from the first paragraph:
"The 11 megapixel Canon EOS-1Ds clearly outperforms 35mm."
Where does anyone say anything about it taking 22mp to equal 35mm film?

>
> Just be aware that on some digital vs film comparisons, the person isn't
> really comparing digital and film, but digital to SCANNED film. Makes a
> BIG difference.
Rockwell makes that distinction, as have others. But it's impossible to put
up examples of film on the 'net without scanning it.
>
> Stefan
>
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 12:11:04 AM

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

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 05:20:33 -0700, Skip M wrote:

> "stefan patric" <not@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
> news:p an.2005.07.28.05.00.07.522698@thisaddress.com...
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:43:16 +1200, frederick wrote:
>>
>>> stefan patric wrote:
>>>
>>> >A 22 MP, 24mm x 36mm sensor is considered to be equivalent in image
>>> >quality to 100 speed 35mm color film.
>>>
>>> I keep reading this figure. Can you please attribute it to someone,
>>> and to put it in context, state when it was written. The theory might
>>> have sounded good once, but it must have been written before consumer
>>> dslrs hit
>>> the shelves, and the argument shifted to medium format vs 12 or 16mp.
>>
>> You can start where I started, a Yahoo search. These are the search
>> terms I used: digital+film+equivalence, digital+film+compared, "digital
>> vs film", "digital versus film".
>>
>> Plus, here are a few links, I bookmarked:
>>
>> http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/filmwins.html
>> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm
>
> Ken compared digital to 4x5, of course film came out better. No one here
> contends that 35mm based digital competes with large format. 35mm film
> doesn't compete with it either...

Read the entire article. Follow the links. It's not ALL about 4x5. And,
yes, he did unfairly compare digital with (scanned) 4x5, but he also said
this:

"...I find that it takes about 25 megapixels to simulate 35mm film's
practical resolution, which is still far more than any practical digital
camera. At the 6 megapixel level digital gives about the same sharpness as
a duplicate slide, which is plenty for most things."

>> http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summ...
>
> Shows Velvia as the rough equivalent of 16mp, or the Canon 1Ds mkII, not
> 22mp. Shows Ektachrome and Sensia checking in at the equal of 6mp...

No. Clark "showed" that SCANNED Velvia was equivalent to a 1Ds. IIRC,
all his comparisons, digital vs film, were for scanned film, and any
advantage film has over digital, particularly resolution, would have been
mostly nullified or, at least, greatly reduced by the limitations of
the scanning process.

Did he ever specifiy which scanner he used?


>> http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html
>
> Quote from the first paragraph:
> "The 11 megapixel Canon EOS-1Ds clearly outperforms 35mm." Where does
> anyone say anything about it taking 22mp to equal 35mm film?

His conclusion like Clark's is from scanned film. From farther along in
the report: "The EOS 10D has 82% the total resolution of full frame 35mm
Provia SCANNED at 4000 dpi." (Emphasis mine) This is no more a "fair"
comparison than the one Rockwell did with the 4x5 film.

>
>> Just be aware that on some digital vs film comparisons, the person isn't
>> really comparing digital and film, but digital to SCANNED film. Makes a
>> BIG difference.
>
> Rockwell makes that distinction, as have others. But it's impossible to
> put up examples of film on the 'net without scanning it.

That is true. So, why do you think he went to all the trouble to make the
point? Perhaps, because it's siginificant.

And, since you like quoting, here's one of my own (ref.
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/filmwins.html):

"What size DSLR sensor do you need to equal the resolution of a mid-speed
ISO 100 film? Kodak suggests you need at least 24 Megapixels. Popular
Photography and Imaging Magazine real world tests suggest you need a 40
megapixel sensor. An AFIPS scientist's tests suggest that 54 megapixels is
possible with mid-speed 35mm film. Let us be conservative, and go with the
"real-world" tests estimate of 40 Megapixels per Popular Photography
magazine tests with mid-speed film."

So, who's correct? Amateur testers and their home pro-sumer equipment
or people with the best equipment money can buy, who evaluate for a living?


And FWIW Department

Long before digital photography and the internet, photography magazines'
tests had the same problem: the differences between two compared images,
which were readily apparent to the eye when viewing the originals, were
totally obsured when halftoned or color separated (then a 100% optical,
non-digital process) and printed in the magazine. How many times have I
read, "You can't see the differences in these reproduced images, but they
are there none the less...?"

Stefan
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 8:06:37 AM

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

stefan patric wrote:
How many times have I
> read, "You can't see the differences in these reproduced images, but they
> are there none the less...?"
>
> Stefan
>

Which pretty much sums up the whole controversy. IF you can't SEE the
difference, then it doesn't MATTER. A photo is, after all, a matter of
visual perception. At some point, it might take a scanning electron
microscope to detect the difference, but few of us have one of those in
our pocket. I believe Adam Osborne said 'Good enough is good enough.'

--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 11:09:25 AM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ykmGe.162$VU1.107@fe07.lga...
> stefan patric wrote:
> How many times have I
>> read, "You can't see the differences in these reproduced images, but they
>> are there none the less...?"
>>
>> Stefan
>
> Which pretty much sums up the whole controversy. IF you can't SEE the
> difference, then it doesn't MATTER. A photo is, after all, a matter of
> visual perception. At some point, it might take a scanning electron
> microscope to detect the difference, but few of us have one of those in
> our pocket. I believe Adam Osborne said 'Good enough is good enough.'
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Reminds me of an article in "Stereo Review" many years ago. The reviewer
had finished testing some new, state of the art Sony CD player that had
phenomenal specs, but the engineers had pushed it into the inaudible range.
The writer's point was that if you can't hear the difference, what is the
reasoning behind the advancement?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
!