20 Mpix Canon vs film

I know this is a film group, but it seems to me that the new
20 Mpix Canon on a 35mm size sensor has now reached the limits
of the lens resolution.
Most lenses seem to do about 50-80 lpm on film and this seems
about the number of pixels per mm on this sensor.

I know there are some that claim that digital has a wider
dynamic range than film, but I'm not sure. I really can
capture everything of interest in an outdoor scene (including
deep shadows) with modern color negative film.

It will be interesting to see if anyone does some comparisons.
Regardless of the results, I'm still not switching. Several
of my cameras still have no digital equivalents...

--
Robert D Feinman - Landscapes, Panoramas, Photo Tips
Web Site: http://robertdfeinman.com

Robert Feinman wrote:
I know this is a film group, but it seems to me that the new
20 Mpix Canon on a 35mm size sensor has now reached the limits
of the lens resolution.
Most lenses seem to do about 50-80 lpm on film and this seems
about the number of pixels per mm on this sensor.

I know there are some that claim that digital has a wider
dynamic range than film, but I'm not sure. I really can
capture everything of interest in an outdoor scene (including
deep shadows) with modern color negative film.

It will be interesting to see if anyone does some comparisons.
Regardless of the results, I'm still not switching. Several
of my cameras still have no digital equivalents...

Resolution wise, except for some specific cases, that's all she wrote.

(and that's lppmm BTW).

As to dynamic range v. negative, there is simply much less noise with
digital compared to 'grain' so the subjective experience of digital is
better ... even in cases where there is more discernible detail in a
negative, the digital image is just easier to look at.

If your cameras are Nikons then see dpreview... Nikon just announced 2
FF bodies at a comparatively modest 12 Mpix, but with 14 bit/color they
are going to get some great images. I'll leave looking there for the
great ISO range on the D3...

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.

Alan Browne wrote:
Robert Feinman wrote:
I know this is a film group, but it seems to me that the new
20 Mpix Canon on a 35mm size sensor has now reached the limits
of the lens resolution.
Most lenses seem to do about 50-80 lpm on film and this seems
about the number of pixels per mm on this sensor.

I know there are some that claim that digital has a wider
dynamic range than film, but I'm not sure. I really can
capture everything of interest in an outdoor scene (including
deep shadows) with modern color negative film.

It will be interesting to see if anyone does some comparisons.
Regardless of the results, I'm still not switching. Several
of my cameras still have no digital equivalents...

Resolution wise, except for some specific cases, that's all she wrote.

(and that's lppmm BTW).

As to dynamic range v. negative, there is simply much less noise with
digital compared to 'grain' so the subjective experience of digital is
better ... even in cases where there is more discernible detail in a
negative, the digital image is just easier to look at.

If your cameras are Nikons then see dpreview... Nikon just announced 2

Sorry ... 1 FF body... (D3).

FF bodies at a comparatively modest 12 Mpix, but with 14 bit/color they
are going to get some great images. I'll leave looking there for the
great ISO range on the D3...

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 Aug 23, 6:56 pm, Robert Feinman wrote:

It will be interesting to see if anyone does some comparisons.
Regardless of the results, I'm still not switching. Several
of my cameras still have no digital equivalents...


OK, I'll bite. Which cameras would those be?

Sounds like you aren't gonna switch no matter what so keep telling
yourself that your old film cameras are better. It'll be alright.

The photos on your website, especially the one on the main page, are
certainly not indicative of the best that film (or even a modern
cellphone cam) can offer.

On Aug 23, 7:56 pm, Annika1980 wrote:

The photos on your website, especially the one on the main page, are
certainly not indicative of the best that film (or even a modern
cellphone cam) can offer.

Also, when I was there the water was level and not sloped.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/84376929

BTW, that was a quick-and-dirty 8-image pano I just made with
Photomerge in CS3.

On Aug 24, 10:23 am, Annika1980 wrote:

The photos on your website, especially the one on the main page, are
certainly not indicative of the best that film (or even a modern
cellphone cam) can offer.

So, where are the "best that film can do"?


BTW, that was a quick-and-dirty 8-image pano I just made with
Photomerge in CS3.

ah yes: he used a single lens for his wide angle. Something
the 20d can't quite do...

On Aug 24, 8:56 am, Robert Feinman wrote:

Most lenses seem to do about 50-80 lpm on film and this seems
about the number of pixels per mm on this sensor.

We'll have to wait and see. Maybe the Digic processor
will be able to shorten light waves and rebuild them later on?
I'm quite sure some marketeer will figure a way of fitting
that one in somewhere. Just like the "digital lenses" and
"digital filters"...


It will be interesting to see if anyone does some comparisons.
Regardless of the results, I'm still not switching. Several
of my cameras still have no digital equivalents...

Same here. I'm getting same quality with 35mm film
at the moment than I get with my 10mp dslr.
And that is with full access to true wide angles, not stitches.

On the other hand, the DX sensor on the dslr is nice
for making my 300 feel much longer.

But when it comes to the 6x4.5 and 6x7 film, nothing
compares. As simple as that.

Not to say it won't happen, mind you. But I'm not losing
any sleep over it. BTW: new Provia 400X is an AMAZING
film. And I'm starting to like Kodak BW CN400 a lot.

Where digital is going next is what is very attractive:
the agenda seems to be on high ISOs and less noise.
That is much better than the "I've got more MP
than you" nonsense.

On Aug 24, 12:44 am, Noons wrote:

But when it comes to the 6x4.5 and 6x7 film, nothing
compares. As simple as that.

Blanket statements are usually simple.
And usually wrong.

On Aug 24, 12:34 am, Noons wrote:


ah yes: he used a single lens for his wide angle.

You sure about that?
Even if true, so what? My pic covers a much larger FOV.
------------------------

Something the 20d can't quite do...

He was comparing film to digital, not the 20D. There are digital
cameras with FF sensors you know.
-------------------------

So, where are the "best that film can do"?

Certainly not on his page. My point was the irony of some Luddite
making BS statements about the superiority of film while illustrating
his point with crappy images.

Don't het me wrong. You can get some fine images from film as well,
if you are willing to spend the time. Here's one I took with my last
roll of slide film:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/82040466

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 24, 12:44 am, Noons wrote:

But when it comes to the 6x4.5 and 6x7 film, nothing
compares. As simple as that.

Blanket statements are usually simple.
And usually wrong.


who cares