On Mar 24, 8:00 am, "jimkramer" <Newsread...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> Unless the OP is shooting MF, a 6MP DSLR is going to produce equal or
better
> images then most commonly available (consumer) 35mm films. Where this
is
> not the case is very fine grained slow silver B&W print films and the
> better, i.e. more expensive, slide films. At 10-12 MP It's pretty much
a
> dead heat.
Yup, I'd second this. 10-12MP is the
best I can match very good 35mm film
with. That's with all care being taken
to achieve top quality, with both digital
and film cameras used, of course.
IOW: tripods, very careful focusing,
shutter speed matching subject movement,
low ISOs, and so on.
More normal run of the mill results
are around 6MP, both digital and film.
Which is not bad at all, mind you!
One can get very nice 8X10s out of that
rez, no problems at all.
Where digital completely exceeds film
with the latest crop of dslrs, is at higher
ISOs. And that goes for any format.
I'm still not convinced that digital can match
film in handling highlights, but miracles
can be worked with RAW post-processing
so it is not a halting problem in any way,
shape or format.
Is that enough to make me drop MF film?
No bloody way! And I still use my 35mm
rangefinder and slrs, as well as my precious
D80.
;-)
|
