digital to match Velvia?

Okay, this is just hypothetical, as I won't be going digital for quite
some time (I intend to make the most out of my Dynax 9), and Velvia 100
is simply outstanding. But, as that day will eventually come, and I am
completely in the blue about digital cameras and pixel rates...

Minolta now has a 6 million-pixel body called Dynax 7D, and Canon and
Nikon have digital SLRs that produce 12 million pixels.

The question is: to be able to match the sharpness and saturation of
Velvia 100 and Provia 100F, would the Minolta body suffice, or would I
need the new Nikon or Canon models?

In other words, does digital deliver?

help appreciated,

cheers, Marko

P.S. I don't mind the extra hassle of buying film, scanning etc. as
long as the quality is good. That is the only thing that matters.

etosha wrote:
Okay, this is just hypothetical, as I won't be going digital for quite
some time (I intend to make the most out of my Dynax 9), and Velvia 100
is simply outstanding. But, as that day will eventually come, and I am
completely in the blue about digital cameras and pixel rates...

Minolta now has a 6 million-pixel body called Dynax 7D, and Canon and

Minolta just exited the camera business. Find one and baby it and
you'll have one for a long time. Or, wait for the Sony DSLR with
Maxxum/Dynax lens mount coming out this summer (so it is said), likely a
10 MPix based on the same sensor as the D200. That will do very well.

Nikon have digital SLRs that produce 12 million pixels.

The question is: to be able to match the sharpness and saturation of
Velvia 100 and Provia 100F, would the Minolta body suffice, or would I
need the new Nikon or Canon models?

In other words, does digital deliver?

Yes, if not quite to "Velvia" quality. But you can't project a digital
image like you can project Velvia.
(Assumes your lenses are decent).


help appreciated,

cheers, Marko

P.S. I don't mind the extra hassle of buying film, scanning etc. as
long as the quality is good. That is the only thing that matters.

Scanning, unless you use a drum scanner, adds another "lossy" transition
from the original. Digital gives originals right from the camera.

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.

On 21 Jan 2006 03:02:58 -0800, "etosha" wrote:

Okay, this is just hypothetical, as I won't be going digital for quite
some time (I intend to make the most out of my Dynax 9), and Velvia 100
is simply outstanding. But, as that day will eventually come, and I am
completely in the blue about digital cameras and pixel rates...

Minolta now has a 6 million-pixel body called Dynax 7D, and Canon and
Nikon have digital SLRs that produce 12 million pixels.

The question is: to be able to match the sharpness and saturation of
Velvia 100 and Provia 100F, would the Minolta body suffice, or would I
need the new Nikon or Canon models?

In other words, does digital deliver?

help appreciated,

cheers, Marko

P.S. I don't mind the extra hassle of buying film, scanning etc. as
long as the quality is good. That is the only thing that matters.

I've also just discovered Velvia 100 (although in 6x6; I don't shoot
much 35mm any more as I've gone mostly to digital for that stuff) and
like it a lot. I heard something not too long ago about a Photoshop
plugin that supposedly will adjust a digital image to reflect the
saturation characteristic of Velvia. A patient Google should tell you
where to find it (I think it's a freeware thing).

Jeff

"etosha" writes:

Okay, this is just hypothetical, as I won't be going digital for quite
some time (I intend to make the most out of my Dynax 9), and Velvia 100
is simply outstanding. But, as that day will eventually come, and I am
completely in the blue about digital cameras and pixel rates...

Minolta now has a 6 million-pixel body called Dynax 7D, and Canon and
Nikon have digital SLRs that produce 12 million pixels.

The question is: to be able to match the sharpness and saturation of
Velvia 100 and Provia 100F, would the Minolta body suffice, or would I
need the new Nikon or Canon models?

You can match the saturation and sharpness easily at 6 megapixels.

You can't match the full level of *detail*, though, you have to go
higher for that.

There are all sorts of surprises in comparing digital enlargements to
film enlargements -- they behave very differently. The grain
structure is a dominant feature in determining what you can do with a
picture on film -- and it's completely absent in digital. That
changes everything. So you can get a really good-looking 16x24 print
from 6 megapixels, sharp as blazes (unsharp masking is your friend).
But if you compare it with a print from say a 6x7 negative, you
realize there's a lot of detail not there. But your eye didn't notice
the lack in the original print.

So the usual questions for a film photographer aren't always the most
important questions to ask.

In other words, does digital deliver?

For 35mm applications, I think digital delivers in spades.

But lots of people really attached to Velvia seem, to me, to be doing
in 35mm things that really belonged in medium format. Only the high
end of digital really delivers for that, I think. That's not where I
work, and not where my expertise, such as it is, lies.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

Thanks, David, for that definitive answer,

cheers, Marko

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

But lots of people really attached to Velvia seem, to me, to be doing
in 35mm things that really belonged in medium format. Only the high
end of digital really delivers for that, I think. That's not where I
work, and not where my expertise, such as it is, lies.

Maybe it was a good lab I used, but Fuji Reala 400 seemed grainy in 35mm, in
6x6 8x8 prints were fantastic, great, saturated colour _and_ skin tones
were not too bad either.

The annoying thing o MF, ignoring cost is the reduced DoF and that you seem
to need more light.

Just my limited experience.


Pete


--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

If its landscapes you areding then I think you would be better to spend
the money on MF anyway.