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