Since the quality of digital 135 SRL is closely to 120

On 07 Jul 2004 23:04:58 GMT, (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?


Like Dave L. says. And yes, of course you're right.

An area digital array (CMOS or CCD) has at least two
important attributes: the number of individual sensors
and the area of each sensor.

(Oh, I know there are dozens of other important
physical parameters but no physics tonight...)

The cost of producing functional silicon is almost
entirely a function of the area of the die.

Put more pixels in the same physical area and the
noise goes up.

I am not terribly hopeful that bob m's 16 MP
disposable foveon sensor will ever become a
reality, except if it's really a 2MP sensor subject
to foveon marketing math.

Cameras with large CCD or CMOS imaging
arrays, and associated high resolution, are still
very expensive by any measure or standard
and I expect they will be for some time.

Like Dave L says... film always wins on area.

Though I think Dave is whacko with his
grain phobia... grin What's up with that,
anyway?


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

On 07 Jul 2004 23:04:58 GMT, (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?


Like Dave L. says. And yes, of course you're right.

An area digital array (CMOS or CCD) has at least two
important attributes: the number of individual sensors
and the area of each sensor.

(Oh, I know there are dozens of other important
physical parameters but no physics tonight...)

The cost of producing functional silicon is almost
entirely a function of the area of the die.

Put more pixels in the same physical area and the
noise goes up.

I am not terribly hopeful that bob m's 16 MP
disposable foveon sensor will ever become a
reality, except if it's really a 2MP sensor subject
to foveon marketing math.

Cameras with large CCD or CMOS imaging
arrays, and associated high resolution, are still
very expensive by any measure or standard
and I expect they will be for some time.

Like Dave L says... film always wins on area.

Though I think Dave is whacko with his
grain phobia... grin What's up with that,
anyway?


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

"Raphael Bustin" wrote:

Like Dave L says... film always wins on area.

Though I think Dave is whacko with his
grain phobia... grin What's up with that,
anyway?

Imprinting.

When I was a kid, I got on Linhof's mailing list. Every month they'd send me
the most outrageously gorgeous brochure. If it ain't that good, I won't like
it.

I started out in MF. Ansco B2 Speedex, Rolleicord, Rolleiflex, Omega B22,
finally a Hassy. Throughout that period I made several forrays into 35mm.
Given 6x6, 35mm simply wasn't worth the effort. At 8x10 and 11x14, 35mm just
doesn't fly like MF does.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 13:07:20 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:


"Raphael Bustin" wrote:

Like Dave L says... film always wins on area.

Though I think Dave is whacko with his
grain phobia... grin What's up with that,
anyway?

Imprinting.

You're right about that, I'm sure.

When I was a kid, I got on Linhof's mailing list. Every month they'd send me
the most outrageously gorgeous brochure. If it ain't that good, I won't like
it.

I started out in MF. Ansco B2 Speedex, Rolleicord, Rolleiflex, Omega B22,
finally a Hassy. Throughout that period I made several forrays into 35mm.
Given 6x6, 35mm simply wasn't worth the effort. At 8x10 and 11x14, 35mm just
doesn't fly like MF does.


Well, sounds like we came about things from
opposite directions..

I'm sure we both agree though that there's
more to a photo than either tonality or detail
or the sum thereof.

For some subjects 35 mm works fine... the
images of Capa and Cartier-Bresson work
for me, no less so than the images of
Weston, Strand, Dykinga, Muench or St. Ansel.

Granted they work in very different ways...


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 13:07:20 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:


"Raphael Bustin" wrote:

Like Dave L says... film always wins on area.

Though I think Dave is whacko with his
grain phobia... grin What's up with that,
anyway?

Imprinting.

You're right about that, I'm sure.

When I was a kid, I got on Linhof's mailing list. Every month they'd send me
the most outrageously gorgeous brochure. If it ain't that good, I won't like
it.

I started out in MF. Ansco B2 Speedex, Rolleicord, Rolleiflex, Omega B22,
finally a Hassy. Throughout that period I made several forrays into 35mm.
Given 6x6, 35mm simply wasn't worth the effort. At 8x10 and 11x14, 35mm just
doesn't fly like MF does.


Well, sounds like we came about things from
opposite directions..

I'm sure we both agree though that there's
more to a photo than either tonality or detail
or the sum thereof.

For some subjects 35 mm works fine... the
images of Capa and Cartier-Bresson work
for me, no less so than the images of
Weston, Strand, Dykinga, Muench or St. Ansel.

Granted they work in very different ways...


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

David J. Littleboy wrote:

At 8x10 and 11x14, 35mm
just doesn't fly like MF does.



Interesting that we seem to agree on so much!

--

Stacey

"Stacey" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

At 8x10 and 11x14, 35mm
just doesn't fly like MF does.


Interesting that we seem to agree on so much!

Isn't that what I said just the other dayg?

But seriously, we're here in the MF world for good reason.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Stacey" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

At 8x10 and 11x14, 35mm
just doesn't fly like MF does.


Interesting that we seem to agree on so much!

Isn't that what I said just the other dayg?

But seriously, we're here in the MF world for good reason.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

In article ,
David J. Littleboy wrote:

"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.

There is a difference between replacing something every 3 years because it
is obsolete and replacing something when it breaks and can no longer be
repaired.

There is a lot of electronic stuff that sort of goes on forever. Other
things have a more limited lifetime due to manufacturing errors.

I guess that if pro-level equipment is made to last three years in bad
conditions (high temperature, high humidity) then it will probably last
more than 10 years in normal conditions.

In my computers the two things that break most often and harddisks and
power supplies. Harddisks are mechanical devices, so it makes sense that they
break. I don't really know why I have to replace so many power supplies.



--
The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video
recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving
you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for
you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

In article ,
David J. Littleboy wrote:

"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.

There is a difference between replacing something every 3 years because it
is obsolete and replacing something when it breaks and can no longer be
repaired.

There is a lot of electronic stuff that sort of goes on forever. Other
things have a more limited lifetime due to manufacturing errors.

I guess that if pro-level equipment is made to last three years in bad
conditions (high temperature, high humidity) then it will probably last
more than 10 years in normal conditions.

In my computers the two things that break most often and harddisks and
power supplies. Harddisks are mechanical devices, so it makes sense that they
break. I don't really know why I have to replace so many power supplies.



--
The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video
recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving
you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for
you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency