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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
... Howard McCollister wrote: I use a Nikon D2H and I routinely get 8x10s printed from Ofoto with exceptional results. Any digital SLR with 4 MP or better is going to give you excellent 5x7s. 3-4 MP should do it. Keep in mind that you may decide you want to crop your original shot. Having more than 3-4 MP will allow you to do that and still get an excellent 5x7 final print. If you have just enough resolution to make a good 5x7 print and then you crop it, it'll start to show. Ken |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Dick" LeadWinger wrote in message
... Now what digital mp would I need to make similar quality prints? I could take the media to Costco, or I could print it out on my Canon i860 printer. I am looking at cameras like the Sony DSC -W1 and P100. Maybe the Canon S500. I realize they are not SLR's. Do I need to look further up the mp scale? As others have said, you can get good 5x7 prints out of 3-4 megapixels. However, with the non SLR digicams, you are working with very small sensors, so noise is a concern, especially at ISO ratings of higher than 100. My Canon 10D (digital SLR) has less noise at ISO 400 than a lot of compact digicams have at ISO 100. I have even printed an ISO 800 shot at 11x17 with pretty good results. I wouldn't want to try that with a camera as small as the S500. Not to knock the S500 - I want one as my snapshot camera - but be aware that resolution is not the only factor. Ken |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Dick" LeadWinger wrote in message
... Now what digital mp would I need to make similar quality prints? I could take the media to Costco, or I could print it out on my Canon i860 printer. I am looking at cameras like the Sony DSC -W1 and P100. Maybe the Canon S500. I realize they are not SLR's. Do I need to look further up the mp scale? As others have said, you can get good 5x7 prints out of 3-4 megapixels. However, with the non SLR digicams, you are working with very small sensors, so noise is a concern, especially at ISO ratings of higher than 100. My Canon 10D (digital SLR) has less noise at ISO 400 than a lot of compact digicams have at ISO 100. I have even printed an ISO 800 shot at 11x17 with pretty good results. I wouldn't want to try that with a camera as small as the S500. Not to knock the S500 - I want one as my snapshot camera - but be aware that resolution is not the only factor. Ken |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Böwzér wrote:
"Howard McCollister" wrote in message ... "Dick" LeadWinger wrote in message . .. In the early days of digital photography, it was said that something equivalent to 35mm file was some time out in the future. Are we there yet? What digital resolution would be equivalent to 35mm film? If you're just talking resolution, then yes, 6mp sensors or more will give you about the resolution of film. This is, in the very least, debateable. 6MP cameras will not provide anywhere near the detail contained in a high quality chrome. The issue is getting that detail off the chrome and into a scan. When people say is film better than digital and then simply conclude yes or no just illustrates their lack of knowledge of film characteristics. Every film has a different resolution. ISO 100 speed color 35mm films approximately match 6-megapixel DSLR bayer sensor digital cameras in terms of spatial information. Slow speed film like 35mm Fujichrome Velvia are about 16 megapixel equivalent. ISO 1600 film, like Provia 1600 rates only 3 megapixels equivalent. Here is a summary of film versus digital: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html Here are more details, including equations and more film formats: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...digital.1.html And then if you are still interested, here are tests of scanning (consumer scanners to drum scans) where some of the data for the above conclusions came from: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html There's more to it, though. Noise is an issue and to minimize noise, smaller sensors such as in the point-and-shoots won't give you as good a result as a dSLR, even at the same resolution sensor. The other issue is dynamic range. Current dSLRs will generally give you about as much dynamic range as slide film, maybe about 6 stops. This is incorrect. For example, the Canon 10D tests at about 11 stops: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange Electronic sensors have a much higher signal to noise than film, and have excellent dynamic range. The problem is clipping the highlights. If you expose correctly that is not a problem, but light meters do not always get it right. Dynamic range will improve, as we see in such high-level sensors such as the Creo Leaf. That $15,000 sensor will give reported 12 stops of dynmamic range, equal or better than just about any film. So for dynamic range, which is important, digital is not quite there yet. Give it a couple of years, or wait and see what kind of DR the Fujifilm S3 dSLR will give us. The current crop of high end models by Canon, and perhaps even the 20D are close to being limited by the 12-bit digitization of the camera. To get beyond 11 bits, they will need to move to 14-bit systems (or higher). Roger Clark Photos, other digital info at: http://www.clarkvision.com |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Böwzér wrote:
"Howard McCollister" wrote in message ... "Dick" LeadWinger wrote in message . .. In the early days of digital photography, it was said that something equivalent to 35mm file was some time out in the future. Are we there yet? What digital resolution would be equivalent to 35mm film? If you're just talking resolution, then yes, 6mp sensors or more will give you about the resolution of film. This is, in the very least, debateable. 6MP cameras will not provide anywhere near the detail contained in a high quality chrome. The issue is getting that detail off the chrome and into a scan. When people say is film better than digital and then simply conclude yes or no just illustrates their lack of knowledge of film characteristics. Every film has a different resolution. ISO 100 speed color 35mm films approximately match 6-megapixel DSLR bayer sensor digital cameras in terms of spatial information. Slow speed film like 35mm Fujichrome Velvia are about 16 megapixel equivalent. ISO 1600 film, like Provia 1600 rates only 3 megapixels equivalent. Here is a summary of film versus digital: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html Here are more details, including equations and more film formats: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...digital.1.html And then if you are still interested, here are tests of scanning (consumer scanners to drum scans) where some of the data for the above conclusions came from: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html There's more to it, though. Noise is an issue and to minimize noise, smaller sensors such as in the point-and-shoots won't give you as good a result as a dSLR, even at the same resolution sensor. The other issue is dynamic range. Current dSLRs will generally give you about as much dynamic range as slide film, maybe about 6 stops. This is incorrect. For example, the Canon 10D tests at about 11 stops: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange Electronic sensors have a much higher signal to noise than film, and have excellent dynamic range. The problem is clipping the highlights. If you expose correctly that is not a problem, but light meters do not always get it right. Dynamic range will improve, as we see in such high-level sensors such as the Creo Leaf. That $15,000 sensor will give reported 12 stops of dynmamic range, equal or better than just about any film. So for dynamic range, which is important, digital is not quite there yet. Give it a couple of years, or wait and see what kind of DR the Fujifilm S3 dSLR will give us. The current crop of high end models by Canon, and perhaps even the 20D are close to being limited by the 12-bit digitization of the camera. To get beyond 11 bits, they will need to move to 14-bit systems (or higher). Roger Clark Photos, other digital info at: http://www.clarkvision.com |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On 29 Sep 2004 14:13:27 -0500, "Howard McCollister"
wrote: "Dick" LeadWinger wrote in message .. . Thanks everyone for the insights. My needs are much more modest. Lets say all I want are really good 5 X 7 prints. For the baseline, let's say I take my trusty Canon AE-1 using a Canon FD 50mm 1:1.4 lens and take some pictures with it using Kodak Gold 200 film. Then I take the film to Costco or similar for the prints. Now what digital mp would I need to make similar quality prints? I could take the media to Costco, or I could print it out on my Canon i860 printer. I am looking at cameras like the Sony DSC -W1 and P100. Maybe the Canon S500. I realize they are not SLR's. Do I need to look further up the mp scale? I use a Nikon D2H and I routinely get 8x10s printed from Ofoto with exceptional results. Any digital SLR with 4 MP or better is going to give you excellent 5x7s. But it's not just megapixels that are going to give you film-quality results. The camera has to have a good lens, good AF, and a sensor that keeps noise from ruining the pictures. You simply are not going to get film-replacement quality from a small-sensor point-and-shoot such as you mention above. HMc 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? Dick |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Ken Alverson" wrote in message ... "Joseph Meehan" wrote in message ... Howard McCollister wrote: I use a Nikon D2H and I routinely get 8x10s printed from Ofoto with exceptional results. Any digital SLR with 4 MP or better is going to give you excellent 5x7s. 3-4 MP should do it. Keep in mind that you may decide you want to crop your original shot. Having more than 3-4 MP will allow you to do that and still get an excellent 5x7 final print. If you have just enough resolution to make a good 5x7 print and then you crop it, it'll start to show. True. HMc |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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. -- Jeremy | |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"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. /Roland |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"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. /Roland |
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 09:58 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 09:51 PM |