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

35mm film VS digital



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old September 2nd 08, 12:20 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Nicholas O. Lindan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,227
Default 35mm film VS digital

"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

My little Lumix ... prints equal to my 35 MM ...
usually take still pics 0.3 mb


Er, that's 320 x 200 pix.

I would really like to know what '35 MM'
camera you have.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com


  #52  
Old September 2nd 08, 03:58 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Ken Hart1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default 35mm film VS digital


"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote in message
m...
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

My little Lumix ... prints equal to my 35 MM ...
usually take still pics 0.3 mb


Er, that's 320 x 200 pix.

I would really like to know what '35 MM'
camera you have.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com


I was wondering the same thing myself. I have a crappy 300Kpixel (0.3Mpixel)
camera that I got for box tops (well, not box tops, rather the barcodes from
cigarette packs), and it really and truely sucks!

OTOH, I often make 11x14 and 16x20 prints from my 35mm negs, and if the negs
were shot correctly (good exposure, focus, and held steady). the prints can
be very good.


  #53  
Old September 2nd 08, 03:33 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Stormin Mormon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default 35mm film VS digital

Couple of them. I mostly use the Olympus Trip 40, point and shoot. With
flash, takes two AA cells.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote in message
m...
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

My little Lumix ... prints equal to my 35 MM ...
usually take still pics 0.3 mb


Er, that's 320 x 200 pix.

I would really like to know what '35 MM'
camera you have.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com



  #54  
Old September 2nd 08, 03:34 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Stormin Mormon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default 35mm film VS digital

The camera says it's 7.something megapixel, so it does fairly good pics. I
do use more megabytes for group photos, and once in a while when I'm fairly
sure I've got a memorable moment.

For snap shots of the neighborhood, kids, dogs, etc, 0.3 makes reasonable
pics.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Ken Hart1" wrote in message
news:yZ1vk.254$Wd.15@trnddc01...

I was wondering the same thing myself. I have a crappy 300Kpixel (0.3Mpixel)
camera that I got for box tops (well, not box tops, rather the barcodes from
cigarette packs), and it really and truely sucks!

OTOH, I often make 11x14 and 16x20 prints from my 35mm negs, and if the negs
were shot correctly (good exposure, focus, and held steady). the prints can
be very good.



  #55  
Old September 2nd 08, 03:36 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Stormin Mormon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default 35mm film VS digital

For sure, the mega pixel rating is a bit more than 0.3.

I had a camera from Ebay, which was 1.3 MP, and that took miserable pics.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Scott W" wrote in message
...


But I do have to point out that 0.3MB is not the same as 0.3MP.

Depending on the content of the image you can get a good looking 8x12
inch print from 0.3MB, but from 0.3MP not a chance.

Scott


  #56  
Old September 2nd 08, 03:37 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Stormin Mormon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default 35mm film VS digital

You would, then, be mistaken in your thoughts.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Jim" wrote in message
...
My little Lumix ... prints equal to my 35 MM ...
usually take still pics 0.3 mb



I think he means 0.3 megapixels. That means a 640*480 pixel image.
Still way too small for recent or even decade old monitors and with
the cheap cost of memory cards these days, taking small pictures like
that will only lead to regret in the future, if not already.

Jim
www.inghamcam.info


  #57  
Old September 2nd 08, 04:30 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Marvin[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 171
Default 35mm film VS digital

Stormin Mormon wrote:
The camera says it's 7.something megapixel, so it does fairly good pics. I
do use more megabytes for group photos, and once in a while when I'm fairly
sure I've got a memorable moment.

For snap shots of the neighborhood, kids, dogs, etc, 0.3 makes reasonable
pics.


Perhaps 0.3 Mb is the size of the jpg. file.
  #58  
Old September 4th 08, 03:28 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Stormin Mormon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default 35mm film VS digital

That's the setting I use. However, my windows computer says most of the pics
are about 0.150 MB.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Marvin" wrote in message
news_cvk.353$393.331@trnddc05...

Perhaps 0.3 Mb is the size of the jpg. file.


  #59  
Old September 4th 08, 07:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Jürgen Exner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,579
Default 35mm film VS digital

"Stormin Mormon" wrote:
The camera says it's 7.something megapixel, so it does fairly good pics. I
do use more megabytes for group photos, and once in a while when I'm fairly
sure I've got a memorable moment.

For snap shots of the neighborhood, kids, dogs, etc, 0.3 makes reasonable
pics.


You do realize that you are talking apples and oranges? Size of a sensor
in megapixel and size of a generated JPEG file are two very different
things.
A camera with 0.3 MPixel would make photos with a truly lousy
resolution.

Learn more about Jesus


Learn more about digital photography:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...olution_01.htm
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...ression_01.htm

jue
 




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
35mm film vs Digital..what is the difference? Marion 35mm Photo Equipment 252 January 3rd 07 01:08 AM
35mm Film vs Digital again Graham Fountain 35mm Photo Equipment 23 December 22nd 05 05:45 AM
Digital images to 35mm slide film Malevil Digital SLR Cameras 3 March 13th 05 07:07 AM
35mm film vs digital Conrad Weiler Digital Photography 49 January 5th 05 05:01 AM
Developing 35mm film into digital Stuart Droker Film & Labs 1 September 20th 04 04:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:04 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.