Since the quality of digital 135 SRL is closely to 120

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

In article ,
"Ronin" wrote:

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.

Provisions come from the mind's eye. Not technology, not what some entity
like a camera maker supplies you with. The only way MF sytems can truely be replaced
by digital is "IF" the makers resolve the issue of the need to replace a non film system
on a two/three year basis. People (even the best pro's) rapidly get tired of replacing equiptment
every three years.....got to amortize and justify.
--
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

In article ,
"Ronin" wrote:

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.

Provisions come from the mind's eye. Not technology, not what some entity
like a camera maker supplies you with. The only way MF sytems can truely be replaced
by digital is "IF" the makers resolve the issue of the need to replace a non film system
on a two/three year basis. People (even the best pro's) rapidly get tired of replacing equiptment
every three years.....got to amortize and justify.
--
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

Recently, Ronin posted:

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).

Not quite so. Pixel quality is a matter of sensor cell size, but
resolution is directly dependent on the number of cells. Keep in mind that
"resolution" is the ability to resolve fine details, and is most often
measured in l/mm.

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.

By that reasoning, a full-frame medium format sensor would become the new
"large format digital standard". I doubt that this would become the state
of things for many reasons. However, it is true that many people's needs
would be met by full-frame 35 mm sized sensors in the 14 - 16 MP range,
and that might impact the sales of medium format equipment (of course, it
already has impacted the sales of MF, but whether this is a long or
short-term phenomenon remains to be seen, IMO).

Neil

Recently, Ronin posted:

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).

Not quite so. Pixel quality is a matter of sensor cell size, but
resolution is directly dependent on the number of cells. Keep in mind that
"resolution" is the ability to resolve fine details, and is most often
measured in l/mm.

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.

By that reasoning, a full-frame medium format sensor would become the new
"large format digital standard". I doubt that this would become the state
of things for many reasons. However, it is true that many people's needs
would be met by full-frame 35 mm sized sensors in the 14 - 16 MP range,
and that might impact the sales of medium format equipment (of course, it
already has impacted the sales of MF, but whether this is a long or
short-term phenomenon remains to be seen, IMO).

Neil

"Gregory W Blank" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Ronin" wrote:

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.

Provisions come from the mind's eye. Not technology, not what some entity
like a camera maker supplies you with. The only way MF sytems can truely
be replaced
by digital is "IF" the makers resolve the issue of the need to replace a
non film system
on a two/three year basis. People (even the best pro's) rapidly get tired
of replacing equiptment
every three years.....got to amortize and justify.
--


There's no such need, except that created by the people buying digital
systems.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"Matt Clara" wrote:

There's no such need, except that created by the people buying digital
systems.

Yes. But digital cameras are not all that different from modern AF cameras.
These electronic wonders, both digital and film, are nearly unrepairable out
of warranty, and will be unrepairable 7 years after they've gone out of
production.

It's really not a digital phenomenon at all.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Matt Clara" wrote:

There's no such need, except that created by the people buying digital
systems.

Yes. But digital cameras are not all that different from modern AF cameras.
These electronic wonders, both digital and film, are nearly unrepairable out
of warranty, and will be unrepairable 7 years after they've gone out of
production.

It's really not a digital phenomenon at all.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Sabineellen wrote:


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?


IMHO they need to stop just making more MP to make more MP and deal with
issues like color fringing, lens distortion, sensor noise, tonality and the
other problems many of these cameras have.
--

Stacey

Sabineellen wrote:


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?


IMHO they need to stop just making more MP to make more MP and deal with
issues like color fringing, lens distortion, sensor noise, tonality and the
other problems many of these cameras have.
--

Stacey