|
|
How many megapixcels equivalent to 35 mm in quality
How many megapixels does a digital camera need to produce an 8" by
10" print equivalent in quality to what one would get from a 35 mm camera (or for that matter a larger format) shooting a top of the run film, such as a major brand 100-125 ASA color (or black and white) film. The bottom line, if I replace a film camera with a digital, and want the same quality enlargements, am I talking about the current models now available (costing perhaps $500 to a bit over $1000), typically with roughly 10 MP, or am I talking about something not designed for other than professional use such as the $8000 Canon with 21 mp, or perhpas something yet to be invented. |
How many megapixcels equivalent to 35 mm in quality
Aaron Kuperman wrote:
How many megapixels does a digital camera need to produce an 8" by 10" print equivalent in quality to what one would get from a 35 mm camera (or for that matter a larger format) shooting a top of the run film, such as a major brand 100-125 ASA color (or black and white) film. The bottom line, if I replace a film camera with a digital, and want the same quality enlargements, am I talking about the current models now available (costing perhaps $500 to a bit over $1000), typically with roughly 10 MP, or am I talking about something not designed for other than professional use such as the $8000 Canon with 21 mp, or perhpas something yet to be invented. A first rate Canon or Nikon SLR with 8 MP and a first rate lens both manufacturers make equally good lenses) will easily outdo any 35 mm camera with ASA 125 color film. With more than 8 MP you will need better and better lenses (read: zooms need not apply except at absolute best f/number) to get actually better. Doug McDonald |
How many megapixcels equivalent to 35 mm in quality
On Thu, 29 May 2008 14:51:29 +0000, Aaron Kuperman wrote:
How many megapixels does a digital camera need to produce an 8" by 10" print equivalent in quality to what one would get from a 35 mm camera (or for that matter a larger format) shooting a top of the run film, such as a major brand 100-125 ASA color (or black and white) film. If your criteria is printing an 8x10 - about 2mp suffices, IMHO. If you're actually querying about matching 35mm you'll get a bunch of answers, most of which will probably range from around 8mp to 20mp. The bottom line, if I replace a film camera with a digital, and want the same quality enlargements, am I talking about the current models now available (costing perhaps $500 to a bit over $1000), typically with roughly 10 MP, or am I talking about something not designed for other than professional use such as the $8000 Canon with 21 mp, or perhpas something yet to be invented. |
How many megapixcels equivalent to 35 mm in quality
"Joseph Meehan" wrote
... You are trying to compare apples and orange. The answers you are going to get will mostly be all good and accurate answers, they will still be opinions. Mostly good opinions. Quick and dirty, I would put it about about 8-10 MP. "Aaron Kuperman" wrote in message ... How many megapixels does a digital camera need to produce an 8" by 10" print equivalent in quality to what one would get from a 35 mm camera Since when have megapixels been equated to quality??? My undertanding was that dynamic range, color accuracy, absence of noise, etc...etc... are measures of quality. Megapixies are somewhat related to resolution and acutance, but that's about it. |
How many megapixcels equivalent to 35 mm in quality
G Paleologopoulos wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote ... You are trying to compare apples and orange. The answers you are going to get will mostly be all good and accurate answers, they will still be opinions. Mostly good opinions. Quick and dirty, I would put it about about 8-10 MP. "Aaron Kuperman" wrote in message ... How many megapixels does a digital camera need to produce an 8" by 10" print equivalent in quality to what one would get from a 35 mm camera Since when have megapixels been equated to quality??? Since marketing guru's needed just one number to throw at people... So why not add your view, then? My undertanding was that dynamic range Good (ie large) digital sensors have a dynamic range that is comparable to the best print film (about 9-10 stops) but the 'heel and toe' behaviour is different, so it is difficult to directly compare and some folk still maintain that print film has the edge. (However, ask those folk to *show* how they get more than 9 stops out of a negative, and things go quiet). The better large sensors and full-frames, imo, definitely offer better usable dynamic range. And digital processing techniques like HDR allow much more convenient manipulation of dynamic range, depending on your subject matter. The fact that the OP didn't mention what he shot or what films he used, tends to suggest that this might not be a very serious enquiry. color accuracy Digitals are more accurate and repeatable, but you will hear those who refer to the plastic look.. Which is more about low noise and lack of grain, I think, or perhaps that they have only seen web-sized images. However, if you like the very distinctive look (aka 'inaccuracy' (O:) of some films, eg Velvia, Reala, Kodachrome, NPS/NPH, etc, you may find it hard to emulate those... absence of noise Noise in digitals looks quite different to grain in film. Most small sensor cameras have significant issues at anything over 200 ISO equivalent (just like film..) but larger sensors (ie those in DSLRs) run rings around high-speed film. As to the original question, here's my opinion, assuming a reasonable sized sensor... Normal 100-200 print film - 6-8 Mp Pro quality 100-160 print film - 8-12 Mp Slide film* (Velvia, Kchrome) - 12-24 Mp * - plus a good lens, tripod and lots of light.. (O: |
How many megapixcels equivalent to 35 mm in quality
There is a highly technical web site by a guy whose name is Norman Koren (I
think correct spelling) re this question - If I remember correctly his conclusion is around 8Mp to equal 35 mm film. You should be able to google this article but it is heavy going. the reason the Mp is so low is digital sharpening (which seems to challenge many of those those on thiese groups). Of course other posters have pointed out that this is not the only consideration. A very important factor is the size of the sensor with DSLR's much larger than most point and shoot cameras and therefore DSLR's will have markedly less noise. Anyway look up Norman Koren Malcolm |
How many megapixcels equivalent to 35 mm in quality
|
How many megapixcels equivalent to 35 mm in quality
Malcolm Smith wrote:
Try this link http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html Malcolm Thanks for that pointer - useful information but a little stale. Cheers, David |
How many megapixcels equivalent to 35 mm in quality
I would be intereested in you pointing me to something less stale!
Presumably to be stale you must have seen soemthing more recent to make Nornam Koran article stale. Malcolm |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com