How does ISO 400 in Digital Rebel compare to ISO 400 film?

You might want to specify what make of film ?
as diff film has diff characteristic.

but in short ... yep .. they are similar OR better

=bob=

"Veggie" wrote in message
...
I read that the Digital Rebel can do ISO 100 thru 1600. Are they
comparable to good film at the same ISO points?



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 11/08/2004

You might want to specify what make of film ?
as diff film has diff characteristic.

but in short ... yep .. they are similar OR better

=bob=

"Veggie" wrote in message
...
I read that the Digital Rebel can do ISO 100 thru 1600. Are they
comparable to good film at the same ISO points?



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 11/08/2004

"Veggie" wrote in message
news


on the 300D

Is the 10D any better, or does it use the same sensor as the 300D?


Same sensor, so they're more or less the same.

Mark

I usually use a digital point and shoot (Canon S410). I hardly use the
film SLR anymore. For film, I mean consumer grade film- Royal Gold 200,
or Superia 400.

On my last vacation, I remembered some of the pains of film. Like if
you're getting close to the end of a roll of film, you empty it and
reload so that you have a reasonable number of shots in it.

It made me think that it might be time to make the digital SLR jump,
which left me wondering what kind of image quality I could expect
compared to film.


[BnH] wrote:

You might want to specify what make of film ?
as diff film has diff characteristic.

but in short ... yep .. they are similar OR better

=bob=

"Veggie" wrote in message
m...


I read that the Digital Rebel can do ISO 100 thru 1600. Are they
comparable to good film at the same ISO points?





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 11/08/2004

I usually use a digital point and shoot (Canon S410). I hardly use the
film SLR anymore. For film, I mean consumer grade film- Royal Gold 200,
or Superia 400.

On my last vacation, I remembered some of the pains of film. Like if
you're getting close to the end of a roll of film, you empty it and
reload so that you have a reasonable number of shots in it.

It made me think that it might be time to make the digital SLR jump,
which left me wondering what kind of image quality I could expect
compared to film.


[BnH] wrote:

You might want to specify what make of film ?
as diff film has diff characteristic.

but in short ... yep .. they are similar OR better

=bob=

"Veggie" wrote in message
m...


I read that the Digital Rebel can do ISO 100 thru 1600. Are they
comparable to good film at the same ISO points?





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 11/08/2004

Veggie wrote in :

I usually use a digital point and shoot (Canon S410). I hardly use the
film SLR anymore. For film, I mean consumer grade film- Royal Gold 200,
or Superia 400.

On my last vacation, I remembered some of the pains of film. Like if
you're getting close to the end of a roll of film, you empty it and
reload so that you have a reasonable number of shots in it.

It made me think that it might be time to make the digital SLR jump,
which left me wondering what kind of image quality I could expect
compared to film.

If you use the best low sensitivity film and the best scanners,
then 35 mm film SLR is better than a DSLR.

If you don't, it is the other way around.


/Roland

Veggie wrote in :

I usually use a digital point and shoot (Canon S410). I hardly use the
film SLR anymore. For film, I mean consumer grade film- Royal Gold 200,
or Superia 400.

On my last vacation, I remembered some of the pains of film. Like if
you're getting close to the end of a roll of film, you empty it and
reload so that you have a reasonable number of shots in it.

It made me think that it might be time to make the digital SLR jump,
which left me wondering what kind of image quality I could expect
compared to film.

If you use the best low sensitivity film and the best scanners,
then 35 mm film SLR is better than a DSLR.

If you don't, it is the other way around.


/Roland

"Veggie" wrote in message
...
I read that the Digital Rebel can do ISO 100 thru 1600. Are they
comparable to good film at the same ISO points?

The method used in the ISO standard defining photosensitivity ratings
for digicams, is aimed at getting comparable numbers for film and
digicams. However, there may be a small difference due to the noise
characteristics or the dynamic range of the camera electronics.

So roughly comparable. Image quality is something entirely different,
but that wasn't the question.

Bart

That sounds reasonable to me. I've heard that film is roughly the
equivalent of a 20 meg image.

But it might to be too much quality, or maybe more accurately, more
quality than most consumer people would use. If Costco's brochure is
right, a 5 meg image can be quality enlarged to 16x20. Most people,
including myself, wouldn't enlarge even to 8x10. But cropping is a
form of enlarging, so I guess more resolution is a good insurance policy.

Of course, it's worth mentioning that DSLR owners can do one series of
test shots in the field and determine the best shutter speed and
aperture to use on the spot. They don't have to bracket all of the
shots like a film shooter would. Some fast moving subjects, like
wildlife, are tough to bracket.


Roland Karlsson wrote:
If you use the best low sensitivity film and the best scanners, then
35 mm film SLR is better than a DSLR.

If you don't, it is the other way around.

That sounds reasonable to me. I've heard that film is roughly the
equivalent of a 20 meg image.

But it might to be too much quality, or maybe more accurately, more
quality than most consumer people would use. If Costco's brochure is
right, a 5 meg image can be quality enlarged to 16x20. Most people,
including myself, wouldn't enlarge even to 8x10. But cropping is a
form of enlarging, so I guess more resolution is a good insurance policy.

Of course, it's worth mentioning that DSLR owners can do one series of
test shots in the field and determine the best shutter speed and
aperture to use on the spot. They don't have to bracket all of the
shots like a film shooter would. Some fast moving subjects, like
wildlife, are tough to bracket.


Roland Karlsson wrote:
If you use the best low sensitivity film and the best scanners, then
35 mm film SLR is better than a DSLR.

If you don't, it is the other way around.