If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
20 Mpix Canon vs film
I know this is a film group, but it seems to me that the new
20 Mpix Canon on a 35mm size sensor has now reached the limits of the lens resolution. Most lenses seem to do about 50-80 lpm on film and this seems about the number of pixels per mm on this sensor. I know there are some that claim that digital has a wider dynamic range than film, but I'm not sure. I really can capture everything of interest in an outdoor scene (including deep shadows) with modern color negative film. It will be interesting to see if anyone does some comparisons. Regardless of the results, I'm still not switching. Several of my cameras still have no digital equivalents... -- Robert D Feinman - Landscapes, Panoramas, Photo Tips Web Site: http://robertdfeinman.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
20 Mpix Canon vs film
Robert Feinman wrote:
I know this is a film group, but it seems to me that the new 20 Mpix Canon on a 35mm size sensor has now reached the limits of the lens resolution. Most lenses seem to do about 50-80 lpm on film and this seems about the number of pixels per mm on this sensor. I know there are some that claim that digital has a wider dynamic range than film, but I'm not sure. I really can capture everything of interest in an outdoor scene (including deep shadows) with modern color negative film. It will be interesting to see if anyone does some comparisons. Regardless of the results, I'm still not switching. Several of my cameras still have no digital equivalents... Resolution wise, except for some specific cases, that's all she wrote. (and that's lppmm BTW). As to dynamic range v. negative, there is simply much less noise with digital compared to 'grain' so the subjective experience of digital is better ... even in cases where there is more discernible detail in a negative, the digital image is just easier to look at. If your cameras are Nikons then see dpreview... Nikon just announced 2 FF bodies at a comparatively modest 12 Mpix, but with 14 bit/color they are going to get some great images. I'll leave looking there for the great ISO range on the D3... Cheers, Alan -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
20 Mpix Canon vs film
Alan Browne wrote:
Robert Feinman wrote: I know this is a film group, but it seems to me that the new 20 Mpix Canon on a 35mm size sensor has now reached the limits of the lens resolution. Most lenses seem to do about 50-80 lpm on film and this seems about the number of pixels per mm on this sensor. I know there are some that claim that digital has a wider dynamic range than film, but I'm not sure. I really can capture everything of interest in an outdoor scene (including deep shadows) with modern color negative film. It will be interesting to see if anyone does some comparisons. Regardless of the results, I'm still not switching. Several of my cameras still have no digital equivalents... Resolution wise, except for some specific cases, that's all she wrote. (and that's lppmm BTW). As to dynamic range v. negative, there is simply much less noise with digital compared to 'grain' so the subjective experience of digital is better ... even in cases where there is more discernible detail in a negative, the digital image is just easier to look at. If your cameras are Nikons then see dpreview... Nikon just announced 2 Sorry ... 1 FF body... (D3). FF bodies at a comparatively modest 12 Mpix, but with 14 bit/color they are going to get some great images. I'll leave looking there for the great ISO range on the D3... Cheers, Alan -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
20 Mpix Canon vs film
On Aug 23, 6:56 pm, Robert Feinman wrote:
It will be interesting to see if anyone does some comparisons. Regardless of the results, I'm still not switching. Several of my cameras still have no digital equivalents... OK, I'll bite. Which cameras would those be? Sounds like you aren't gonna switch no matter what so keep telling yourself that your old film cameras are better. It'll be alright. The photos on your website, especially the one on the main page, are certainly not indicative of the best that film (or even a modern cellphone cam) can offer. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
20 Mpix Canon vs film
On Aug 23, 7:56 pm, Annika1980 wrote:
The photos on your website, especially the one on the main page, are certainly not indicative of the best that film (or even a modern cellphone cam) can offer. Also, when I was there the water was level and not sloped. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/84376929 BTW, that was a quick-and-dirty 8-image pano I just made with Photomerge in CS3. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
20 Mpix Canon vs film
On Aug 24, 10:23 am, Annika1980 wrote:
The photos on your website, especially the one on the main page, are certainly not indicative of the best that film (or even a modern cellphone cam) can offer. So, where are the "best that film can do"? BTW, that was a quick-and-dirty 8-image pano I just made with Photomerge in CS3. ah yes: he used a single lens for his wide angle. Something the 20d can't quite do... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
20 Mpix Canon vs film
On Aug 24, 8:56 am, Robert Feinman wrote:
Most lenses seem to do about 50-80 lpm on film and this seems about the number of pixels per mm on this sensor. We'll have to wait and see. Maybe the Digic processor will be able to shorten light waves and rebuild them later on? I'm quite sure some marketeer will figure a way of fitting that one in somewhere. Just like the "digital lenses" and "digital filters"... It will be interesting to see if anyone does some comparisons. Regardless of the results, I'm still not switching. Several of my cameras still have no digital equivalents... Same here. I'm getting same quality with 35mm film at the moment than I get with my 10mp dslr. And that is with full access to true wide angles, not stitches. On the other hand, the DX sensor on the dslr is nice for making my 300 feel much longer. But when it comes to the 6x4.5 and 6x7 film, nothing compares. As simple as that. Not to say it won't happen, mind you. But I'm not losing any sleep over it. BTW: new Provia 400X is an AMAZING film. And I'm starting to like Kodak BW CN400 a lot. Where digital is going next is what is very attractive: the agenda seems to be on high ISOs and less noise. That is much better than the "I've got more MP than you" nonsense. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
20 Mpix Canon vs film
On Aug 24, 12:44 am, Noons wrote:
But when it comes to the 6x4.5 and 6x7 film, nothing compares. As simple as that. Blanket statements are usually simple. And usually wrong. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
20 Mpix Canon vs film
On Aug 24, 12:34 am, Noons wrote:
ah yes: he used a single lens for his wide angle. You sure about that? Even if true, so what? My pic covers a much larger FOV. ------------------------ Something the 20d can't quite do... He was comparing film to digital, not the 20D. There are digital cameras with FF sensors you know. ------------------------- So, where are the "best that film can do"? Certainly not on his page. My point was the irony of some Luddite making BS statements about the superiority of film while illustrating his point with crappy images. Don't het me wrong. You can get some fine images from film as well, if you are willing to spend the time. Here's one I took with my last roll of slide film: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/82040466 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
20 Mpix Canon vs film
"Annika1980" wrote in message oups.com... On Aug 24, 12:44 am, Noons wrote: But when it comes to the 6x4.5 and 6x7 film, nothing compares. As simple as that. Blanket statements are usually simple. And usually wrong. who cares |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
6 or 8 MPIX? | Chuck Deitz | Digital SLR Cameras | 38 | March 9th 05 11:01 PM |
8 Mpix or 6? | Chuck Deitz | Digital ZLR Cameras | 7 | March 3rd 05 09:10 AM |
Comparison of 16 Mpix MF back to Canon 1Ds M II | Bill Hilton | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 4 | November 21st 04 11:19 PM |
Is 4 Mpix camera just as good as 5 Mpix when available light is the limiting factor? | Woody | Digital Photography | 17 | September 26th 04 06:44 PM |