"Bobsprit" wrote

Vito, you clearly never used a modern digital camera. Modern 6 MP and
better
match or exceed the capability of a 35MM camera.

You are right. My 4.2 MP zoom is OK for snapshots used for web posting or
newsprint where quality doesn't matter. It replaced my 35mm SLR that I used
for essentially the same purposes - ie where quality didn't matter.


Unless you're refering to 8X10 cameras which are less than practical.

There is nothing so beautiful as a well concieved and executed 8x10 contact
print with the lovely range of tones unachievable in miniture (35mm) film
cameras or any digital camera I could afford. But you can compromise and
still get acceptable quality out of a practical 4x5 and old Graphics can
still be found in good shape.

Not many pros used them these days.

That's because customers have become inured to poor quality. Check out some
old Life magazines and see what I mean.

Your comment on contrast makes zero sense. A 5 Mp shot with a G5 can match
contrast with a 35mm shot on Kodak F5 papers.

That's because, like most minicam and digital tyros, you have no
appreciation of contrast control. You point and shoot and take whatever your
camera's computer gives you and deem it "good". But since you are reasonably
intellegent your ignorance in this area can be cured by simply learning and
understanding the Zone System. I suggest Ansel Adam's series on that
subject. Works for color too, BTW.

Get back to me when you can google up a clue.
Yes, please do.

Unless you're refering to 8X10 cameras which are less than practical.

There is nothing so beautiful as a well concieved and executed 8x10 contact
print

I have shot large format stuff for years, but it can't be used in many
situations and is just not practical. I used a deardorff for years. It's not
something that belongs on a boat or to get that rare moment on film. In fact,
in real life shooting it's pretty much useless.
Contact 8X 10s are fine, but I used to use a rail mounted enlarger for making
wall sized prints on a vacuum wall. I used to get the worlds worst paper cuts
and get blood on the prints...which I couldn't see until after processing.

RB

But you can compromise and
still get acceptable quality out of a practical 4x5 and old Graphics can
still be found in good shape.

As I said a new Canon 20D will only cost 2K and will match medium format film
based units and repay you with cheaper operation costs.

RB

In article ,
Bobsprit wrote:
But you can compromise and
still get acceptable quality out of a practical 4x5 and old Graphics can
still be found in good shape.

As I said a new Canon 20D will only cost 2K and will match medium format film
based units and repay you with cheaper operation costs.

I had a Bronica 645 a couple of years ago. Great optics, but I didn't
like the plastic body, etc. I don't have much use for film cameras any
more. My Nikon 5000 seems fine for my needs.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

Not many pros used them these days.

That's because customers have become inured to poor quality.

Not at all. And most of those life magazine pics were shot with 35mm and medium
format, which are now eclipsed by digital quality.
FYI, a 6 MP camera matches the resolution and depth of a 35MM camera. The only
limiting factor is the lens. My Nikon ED Optics are excellent and the Canon set
is even better.
Your basing your comments on el-cheapo cameras you've seen. Pick up any
prosumer 8 MP or even the Nikon D70 and see what they can do. They go way
beyond "snapshots."
And it's only a matter of time before digital CMOS chips exceed even large
format capability.

RB

Bobsprit wrote:

Not many pros used them these days.


That's because customers have become inured to poor quality.

Not at all. And most of those life magazine pics were shot with 35mm and medium
format, which are now eclipsed by digital quality.
FYI, a 6 MP camera matches the resolution and depth of a 35MM camera. The only
limiting factor is the lens.
It has greater depth but lower resolution. You need 22 Mpix to exceed
35mm resolution (I have a canon 10D).

Cheers

FYI, a 6 MP camera matches the resolution and depth of a 35MM camera. The
only
limiting factor is the lens.
It has greater depth but lower resolution. You need 22 Mpix to exceed
35mm resolution (I have a canon 10D).


Nav, for an 8X10 print, a 6 MP camera will match a 35mm frame as both are at
the paper's maximum res. limits. Using a dye sub printer with a scanned
negative, the digital file shows a sharper image when cropped using a F2/Nikkor
lens set BTW. Finally, unless you do your own processing or use an expensive
custom lab, the digital results will destroy the film camera. You should see
the prints I'm making from the Nikon 8800. They look like studio shots at
8.5X11.

RB

Bobsprit wrote:
FYI, a 6 MP camera matches the resolution and depth of a 35MM camera. The

only

limiting factor is the lens.

It has greater depth but lower resolution. You need 22 Mpix to exceed
35mm resolution (I have a canon 10D).


Nav, for an 8X10 print, a 6 MP camera will match a 35mm frame as both are at
the paper's maximum res. limits. Using a dye sub printer with a scanned
negative, the digital file shows a sharper image when cropped using a F2/Nikkor
lens set BTW. Finally, unless you do your own processing or use an expensive
custom lab, the digital results will destroy the film camera. You should see
the prints I'm making from the Nikon 8800. They look like studio shots at
8.5X11.



What do you think the film grain size is?

Cheers

the prints I'm making from the Nikon 8800. They look like studio shots at
8.5X11.



What do you think the film grain size is?

It doesn't matter if it can't be caught on photographic paper. It can be seen
on a slide or neg, but that is of little use to most people.
I can get far more good shots with a DSLR than I ever could with film camera.
That's because the limitless control over shots and tweaking in a digital
darkroom are free.

RB

Bobsprit wrote:

the prints I'm making from the Nikon 8800. They look like studio shots at
8.5X11.




What do you think the film grain size is?

It doesn't matter if it can't be caught on photographic paper. It can be seen
on a slide or neg, but that is of little use to most people.
I can get far more good shots with a DSLR than I ever could with film camera.
That's because the limitless control over shots and tweaking in a digital
darkroom are free.


I too get great shots but they are not as pin sharp as film at 6 Mpix.
The smaller grain size of film and the smaller area of the CMOS chip
mean that the sensor does not live up to the diffraction limited
performance of a good lens. Another fact that is not recognized by most
is that the limuiting resolution of the image is less than that expected
from the pixel count by a factor of 2 or more due to the bayer mask
processing in the camera CPU. Have a look at the dark signal from your
camera in raw mode if you don't believe me.

Cheers