On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:02:50 -0700 (PDT), Noons
<wizofoz2k@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>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.
>;-)
I am new here so this may not be welcome.
I shoot digital and film..
I believe that the skill of getting a great shot has be sacraficed in
favor of manipulation. If you take a great shot to begin with, film
is much better. If you have a shot that needs manipulation then the
digital shot is better... I print only 8 x 10 and the human eye
cannot tell the difference in my digital and film prints, without a
magnifier.
I say... to each his own
|
