Since the quality of digital 135 SRL is closely to 120

Since the quality of digital 135 SRL is closely to 120, I found some web
that's stated some professional sold their gears to use 135DSRL.
However, use 120 is my wish, hence i bought one.

In article ,
"¦ÊÅܤpÄå - Lingual" wrote:

Since the quality of digital 135 SRL is closely to 120, I found some web
that's stated some professional sold their gears to use 135DSRL.
However, use 120 is my wish, hence i bought one.

I disagree the quality is not close, that is unless your buying 8-11-14 MP Digital cameras
and then the trade off is a camera that will be obsolete in several years.
Then again if your perception and others persists, film camera will be obsolete, without
a good alternative left to fill the void.

I disagree the quality is not close, that is unless your buying 8-11-14 MP
Digital cameras
and then the trade off is a camera that will be obsolete in several years.
Then again if your perception and others persists, film camera will be
obsolete, without
a good alternative left to fill the void.


Very good point. I must admit though that I'm starting to get the feeling that
digital progress seems to be reaching a plateau. Konica Minolta today announced
two cameras with prosumer features at 4mp and 3.2mp. This is after Canon lately
released its pro S1 IS, which is a 3mp camera. Very strange indeed. Maybe they
no longer think they can keep the megapixel momentum going like it was?

I disagree the quality is not close, that is unless your buying 8-11-14 MP
Digital cameras
and then the trade off is a camera that will be obsolete in several years.
Then again if your perception and others persists, film camera will be
obsolete, without
a good alternative left to fill the void.


Very good point. I must admit though that I'm starting to get the feeling that
digital progress seems to be reaching a plateau. Konica Minolta today announced
two cameras with prosumer features at 4mp and 3.2mp. This is after Canon lately
released its pro S1 IS, which is a 3mp camera. Very strange indeed. Maybe they
no longer think they can keep the megapixel momentum going like it was?

Very good point. I must admit though that I'm starting to get the feeling
that
digital progress seems to be reaching a plateau. Konica Minolta today
announced
two cameras with prosumer features at 4mp and 3.2mp. This is after Canon
lately
released its pro S1 IS, which is a 3mp camera. Very strange indeed. Maybe
they
no longer think they can keep the megapixel momentum going like it was?

Digital resolution is a matter of sensor's size, not megapixels. Big sensors
cost too much for consumers, while the professionals have a very limited
choice (e.g. Canon 1DS or MF digital backs).

Probably the digital 35mm full frame might become the new "medium format"
digital standard, while the digital APS-size cameras will take the place of
35mm film cameras.

This is a transitional age for photography... it is difficult to make
previsions.

"Sabineellen" wrote:

I disagree the quality is not close, that is unless your buying 8-11-14
MP
Digital cameras
and then the trade off is a camera that will be obsolete in several
years.
Then again if your perception and others persists, film camera will be
obsolete, without
a good alternative left to fill the void.

Very good point.

Really. 6MP digital provides significantly less detail than A4 inkjet
printers can render. Scanned 645 (or 1Ds digital) does provide that amount
of detail. It really does take 11MP to get closer to 645 quality than 35mm
quality.

I must admit though that I'm starting to get the feeling that
digital progress seems to be reaching a plateau. Konica Minolta today
announced
two cameras with prosumer features at 4mp and 3.2mp. This is after Canon
lately
released its pro S1 IS, which is a 3mp camera. Very strange indeed. Maybe
they
no longer think they can keep the megapixel momentum going like it was?

The megapixel momentum in _consumer cameras_ is already dead. It's hit the
physical limits of sensor technology. In particular, the current generation
of 8MP cameras (and smaller MP count cameras with the same tiny pixels, e.g.
Canon G5, Panasonic LZ10) are fairly noisy at their lowest ISO (ISO 50) and
a problematic mess at ISO 100. (The Canon 300D produces cleaner images at
ISO 400 than any consumer camera produces at its lowest ISO.)

The new 8MP sensor in the Canon 1Dmk2, on the other hand, is lower noise
than the 10D/300D up to ISO 800. (It's noise catches up with the 10D at 1600
and 3200, though.)

IMHO, the 11MP 1Ds doesn't capture quite as much detail as 645 Provia. But
it's close enough that if that technology were available at a reasonable
price, one would only rarely shoot 6x7* and never 645, since the advantages
of 645 wouldn't be enough to make up for the inconvenience. Also, there's
the point that when the detail captured is close, the tonality on digital is
much better, since grain/dye cloud noise in film reduces tonality. So you
really need 6x7 to provide images that are better _in all ways_ than 11 to
16MP digital.

Film always wins on area. If you can throw four times the area at the
problem, then film will look better. But if you only have twice the area,
digital wins. And you can't always throw more area at the problem: there
simply aren't any MF lenses equivalent to the 12mm, 14mm, and 17mm
rectilinear lenses you can get for 35mm. Even the 24mm TSE lens requires
going to a field camera to compete in MF. Digital will mean that you can
play with those toys without the unacceptable hit in image quality
associated with using 35mm film. If and only if the price comes down.

*: Since the paper here is all 1:1.414, I see the world in 1:1.414 terms. At
that point, 35mm is 24x34mm, 645 is 39x56mm, and 6x7 is 48x68mm. Thus 6x7 is
_exactly_ four times the area of 35mm.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Sabineellen" wrote:

I disagree the quality is not close, that is unless your buying 8-11-14
MP
Digital cameras
and then the trade off is a camera that will be obsolete in several
years.
Then again if your perception and others persists, film camera will be
obsolete, without
a good alternative left to fill the void.

Very good point.

Really. 6MP digital provides significantly less detail than A4 inkjet
printers can render. Scanned 645 (or 1Ds digital) does provide that amount
of detail. It really does take 11MP to get closer to 645 quality than 35mm
quality.

I must admit though that I'm starting to get the feeling that
digital progress seems to be reaching a plateau. Konica Minolta today
announced
two cameras with prosumer features at 4mp and 3.2mp. This is after Canon
lately
released its pro S1 IS, which is a 3mp camera. Very strange indeed. Maybe
they
no longer think they can keep the megapixel momentum going like it was?

The megapixel momentum in _consumer cameras_ is already dead. It's hit the
physical limits of sensor technology. In particular, the current generation
of 8MP cameras (and smaller MP count cameras with the same tiny pixels, e.g.
Canon G5, Panasonic LZ10) are fairly noisy at their lowest ISO (ISO 50) and
a problematic mess at ISO 100. (The Canon 300D produces cleaner images at
ISO 400 than any consumer camera produces at its lowest ISO.)

The new 8MP sensor in the Canon 1Dmk2, on the other hand, is lower noise
than the 10D/300D up to ISO 800. (It's noise catches up with the 10D at 1600
and 3200, though.)

IMHO, the 11MP 1Ds doesn't capture quite as much detail as 645 Provia. But
it's close enough that if that technology were available at a reasonable
price, one would only rarely shoot 6x7* and never 645, since the advantages
of 645 wouldn't be enough to make up for the inconvenience. Also, there's
the point that when the detail captured is close, the tonality on digital is
much better, since grain/dye cloud noise in film reduces tonality. So you
really need 6x7 to provide images that are better _in all ways_ than 11 to
16MP digital.

Film always wins on area. If you can throw four times the area at the
problem, then film will look better. But if you only have twice the area,
digital wins. And you can't always throw more area at the problem: there
simply aren't any MF lenses equivalent to the 12mm, 14mm, and 17mm
rectilinear lenses you can get for 35mm. Even the 24mm TSE lens requires
going to a field camera to compete in MF. Digital will mean that you can
play with those toys without the unacceptable hit in image quality
associated with using 35mm film. If and only if the price comes down.

*: Since the paper here is all 1:1.414, I see the world in 1:1.414 terms. At
that point, 35mm is 24x34mm, 645 is 39x56mm, and 6x7 is 48x68mm. Thus 6x7 is
_exactly_ four times the area of 35mm.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Sabineellen wrote:

I disagree the quality is not close, that is unless your buying 8-11-14 MP
Digital cameras
and then the trade off is a camera that will be obsolete in several years.
Then again if your perception and others persists, film camera will be
obsolete, without
a good alternative left to fill the void.


Very good point. I must admit though that I'm starting to get the feeling that
digital progress seems to be reaching a plateau. Konica Minolta today announced
two cameras with prosumer features at 4mp and 3.2mp. This is after Canon lately
released its pro S1 IS, which is a 3mp camera. Very strange indeed. Maybe they
no longer think they can keep the megapixel momentum going like it was?

The circa 3 MP market segment is that greatest volume seller in direct digital P&S
cameras. This usually gives enough information to allow 4" by 6" snapshot prints,
and the cameras are still small enough to pocket. Also, it is easy to get web
sized images with these cameras that can fill the screen on many computer
monitors, which is also good enough for the people buying these P&S digitals.

Since the circa 3 MP segment addresses the size needs of many people, both in
printed image, and file sizes, some companies see a sub market of cameras with
more features, or even more of a look of better quality (as in: size means quality
.. . . bigger is better). This is obviously a marketing over simplification, though
I have no doubt they will sell some cameras. Few on this news group will buy these
things.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!

Sabineellen wrote:

I disagree the quality is not close, that is unless your buying 8-11-14 MP
Digital cameras
and then the trade off is a camera that will be obsolete in several years.
Then again if your perception and others persists, film camera will be
obsolete, without
a good alternative left to fill the void.


Very good point. I must admit though that I'm starting to get the feeling that
digital progress seems to be reaching a plateau. Konica Minolta today announced
two cameras with prosumer features at 4mp and 3.2mp. This is after Canon lately
released its pro S1 IS, which is a 3mp camera. Very strange indeed. Maybe they
no longer think they can keep the megapixel momentum going like it was?

The circa 3 MP market segment is that greatest volume seller in direct digital P&S
cameras. This usually gives enough information to allow 4" by 6" snapshot prints,
and the cameras are still small enough to pocket. Also, it is easy to get web
sized images with these cameras that can fill the screen on many computer
monitors, which is also good enough for the people buying these P&S digitals.

Since the circa 3 MP segment addresses the size needs of many people, both in
printed image, and file sizes, some companies see a sub market of cameras with
more features, or even more of a look of better quality (as in: size means quality
.. . . bigger is better). This is obviously a marketing over simplification, though
I have no doubt they will sell some cameras. Few on this news group will buy these
things.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!

In article ,
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

Film always wins on area. If you can throw four times the area at the
problem, then film will look better. But if you only have twice the area,
digital wins. And you can't always throw more area at the problem: there
simply aren't any MF lenses equivalent to the 12mm, 14mm, and 17mm
rectilinear lenses you can get for 35mm. Even the 24mm TSE lens requires
going to a field camera to compete in MF. Digital will mean that you can
play with those toys without the unacceptable hit in image quality
associated with using 35mm film. If and only if the price comes down.

Using your terminology I think I agree, I typically use a 6x6 to shoot
interiors, recently got the 40mm wide angle lens. Anyway I took my digital
D70 with its 18mm-70mm (28-to 105?) lens its quite restrictive...shot against the
E200 120 film 6x6 Framing the 40mm offers both alot (repeat alot more coverage) and
the desirable color shift from long exposures blows the digital away) even at 6MP raw.

*: Since the paper here is all 1:1.414, I see the world in 1:1.414 terms. At
that point, 35mm is 24x34mm, 645 is 39x56mm, and 6x7 is 48x68mm. Thus 6x7 is
_exactly_ four times the area of 35mm.

The more I shoot the less interested in formats and paper sizes I am, my thought is
you make good images on what ever the size offered,.......when you work doing magazine
spreads compelling imagery is better than format size.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918