A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Digital vs Film Resolution



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old September 29th 04, 10:27 PM
Dick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:48:57 -0000, Jeremy Nixon
wrote:

Dick LeadWinger wrote:

I'm sure a $3,500 camera will take better pictures than a $350 camera,
but I don't really need something that professional. I'm confused by
sensor size. The D2H has a 23.3mm X 15.5mm sensor, whereas the Sony's
mentioned have 28mm sensors which would seem to be larger. Is there
more to sensor size than the obvious?


The Sonys most certainly don't have 28mm sensors... the W1's sensor is
7.18mm x 5.32mm according to the specs.


Maybe I was interpreting the number wrong. They are listed as 1/1.8"
Sony Super HAD. I was reading that as 1-1/8", but obviously that is
incorrect.
  #32  
Old September 29th 04, 10:33 PM
Rick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dick" LeadWinger wrote in message ...
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:48:57 -0000, Jeremy Nixon
wrote:

Dick LeadWinger wrote:

I'm sure a $3,500 camera will take better pictures than a $350 camera,
but I don't really need something that professional. I'm confused by
sensor size. The D2H has a 23.3mm X 15.5mm sensor, whereas the Sony's
mentioned have 28mm sensors which would seem to be larger. Is there
more to sensor size than the obvious?


The Sonys most certainly don't have 28mm sensors... the W1's sensor is
7.18mm x 5.32mm according to the specs.


Maybe I was interpreting the number wrong. They are listed as 1/1.8"
Sony Super HAD. I was reading that as 1-1/8", but obviously that is
incorrect.


http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...r_Sizes_01.htm

Rick


  #33  
Old September 29th 04, 10:42 PM
Tom Nakashima
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Roland Karlsson" wrote in message
...
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:

That would be the issue IF a scanned image was your final product.
However most people are looking for prints. You don't need to scan a
slide to get a print.


A good scanner will probably record more detail than you
can get with the best optical/chemical printing methods.

Most professional pictures are today scanned before printed.

Most hobby photographers cannot get the full potential
out of prints anyway.

So - the very small amount of direct optical/chemical prints
made today that are better than you can get from a digital
camera is probably very small.

And that is whats count - not the potential - but the actual
result.

One of the main reason why I switched to digital, is because of storage and
preserving of the negatives and slides. I also find it easier to make files
and folders, than to file slides and negatives in archival sleeves and
binders. I can reference to files a lot easier.
As far as resolution, I still enjoy using a large format and black and white
film, but my Olympus 8 megapixel 8080 is pretty darn sharp. No more
developer, stop bath, and fixer or enlargers to make prints. I send out all
the 8 x 10, 4 x 5 large format work. Dark room work for digital, I now
done on a desktop or laptop with the lights on.
-tom


  #34  
Old September 29th 04, 10:50 PM
Böwzér
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Roland Karlsson" wrote in message
...
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:

That would be the issue IF a scanned image was your final product.
However most people are looking for prints. You don't need to scan a
slide to get a print.


A good scanner will probably record more detail than you
can get with the best optical/chemical printing methods.


Roland, that's the theory, but in my experience, wet prints still win,
especially with negs. However, the newer digicams, like the D2X may change
that.

Right now, I'm scanning with a Nikon 9000, and while it does a nice job, it
does not capture anywhere near all the detail on film. Scanner softness
still holds it back. If you examine the film using a powerful loupe and
compare it to the scan, you can see how much more detail is on film.


Most professional pictures are today scanned before printed.

Most hobby photographers cannot get the full potential
out of prints anyway.

So - the very small amount of direct optical/chemical prints
made today that are better than you can get from a digital
camera is probably very small.

And that is whats count - not the potential - but the actual
result.


/Roland



  #35  
Old September 29th 04, 10:58 PM
jjs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tom Nakashima" wrote in message
...

One of the main reason why I switched to digital, is because of storage
and
preserving of the negatives and slides. I also find it easier to make
files
and folders, than to file slides and negatives in archival sleeves and
binders. I can reference to files a lot easier.


Then your hard drive crashes.


  #36  
Old September 29th 04, 10:58 PM
jjs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tom Nakashima" wrote in message
...

One of the main reason why I switched to digital, is because of storage
and
preserving of the negatives and slides. I also find it easier to make
files
and folders, than to file slides and negatives in archival sleeves and
binders. I can reference to files a lot easier.


Then your hard drive crashes.


  #37  
Old September 29th 04, 11:28 PM
Jeremy Nixon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dick LeadWinger wrote:

The Sonys most certainly don't have 28mm sensors... the W1's sensor is
7.18mm x 5.32mm according to the specs.


Maybe I was interpreting the number wrong. They are listed as 1/1.8"
Sony Super HAD. I was reading that as 1-1/8", but obviously that is
incorrect.


Right. 1/1.8" is actually a fraction, 1 over 1.8. And even then, it
isn't describing the size of the sensor; in a bizarre leftover idiom
from the days of vacuum tube TV cameras, it describes the diameter of
an imaginary vacuum tube resulting in a usable imaging area of the
actual sensor, which is about two-thirds the tube diameter. So, 1/1.8"
results in a 7.18mm x 5.32mm sensor. Strange, but true.

--
Jeremy |
  #38  
Old September 29th 04, 11:28 PM
Jeremy Nixon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dick LeadWinger wrote:

The Sonys most certainly don't have 28mm sensors... the W1's sensor is
7.18mm x 5.32mm according to the specs.


Maybe I was interpreting the number wrong. They are listed as 1/1.8"
Sony Super HAD. I was reading that as 1-1/8", but obviously that is
incorrect.


Right. 1/1.8" is actually a fraction, 1 over 1.8. And even then, it
isn't describing the size of the sensor; in a bizarre leftover idiom
from the days of vacuum tube TV cameras, it describes the diameter of
an imaginary vacuum tube resulting in a usable imaging area of the
actual sensor, which is about two-thirds the tube diameter. So, 1/1.8"
results in a 7.18mm x 5.32mm sensor. Strange, but true.

--
Jeremy |
  #39  
Old September 30th 04, 12:01 AM
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

David Chien wrote:

Canon just released their 16MP dSLR because their former model wasn't
good enough.


Canon releases a new 16 MP dSLR because: a.) They can, and b.) they will
make money from it. There are other reasons, also.

It doesn't render previous models either obsolete nor instantly less
good than they were and are.

--
John McWilliams
  #40  
Old September 30th 04, 12:20 AM
Phil Wheeler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



John McWilliams wrote:
David Chien wrote:


Canon just released their 16MP dSLR because their former model
wasn't good enough.


Canon releases a new 16 MP dSLR because: a.) They can, and b.) they will
make money from it. There are other reasons, also.

It doesn't render previous models either obsolete nor instantly less
good than they were and are.


Given the price of the one announced (not yet "released") is $8,000, it
is not likely to dent the sales of the 20D ($1,500).

Phil

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs KM Medium Format Photography Equipment 724 December 7th 04 10:58 AM
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? Toralf Digital Photography 213 July 28th 04 06:30 PM
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography Bob Monaghan Medium Format Photography Equipment 9 June 19th 04 05:48 PM
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... Todd Bailey Film & Labs 0 May 27th 04 08:12 AM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.