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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |