Re: experimenting with 35mm film

Woody wrote:
> "simon" <srp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
news:9a7f6507-a3dd-42cc-a07c-90df18d73bc8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> I have had digital cameras for many years now, however a few months
>> back I became interested in 35mm photography having seen some
>> pictures taken with a 35mm compact and scanned onto a CD. I have now
>> got my self a Nikon F80 and a 28-200 Nikkor lens. The camera was
>> less than 50 quid, and I guess the lens is not going to loose much
>> of it's value . After shooting my first roll ( and getting over the
shock 
>> of paying
>> for the processing !) I have had some nice results. I have also just
>> bought a MJU II 35mm compact film camera . Where as my TZ3 digital
>> compact is capable of some very nice photos, I am hoping that the MJU
>> will offer PQ nearer that of my DSLR ( D40 ) when shot in good
>> light.. at least it's going to be a cheaper and better alternative
>> to say a MJU 760 for the rare occaisions I need to fire off a few
>> shots in the rain.
>>
>> I must say that the scans from my F80 do compare rather well to my
>> D40 pictures, to me they are often more pleasing on the eye and seem
>> to have a better depth of field and nicer colours too. Does anyone
>> else prefer the 'look of film' ? The D40 pictures do look very clean
>> and visually striking though.
>>
>> It seems to me that the digital revolution is forging ahead on the
>> basis of market demand for a simply/ easy way to take photos. People
>> ( myself  included ) are quite happy with the noisy pictures from
>> there tiny sensors, at least they can take hundreds of shots and get
>> the one they want. Is 35mm film still better in certain cir***stances
>> ?
>
>
>
>
> I read somewhere recently that you need something like 22Mp to get
> picture quality achieved by 35mm film.
>
> You can save a bit of money if you take your film to Asda and ask them
> to process it and put it on CD. Their scanning quality is superb and
> you get both hi-res and lo-res copies of each frame for much less
> than the cost of a set of prints.
>
> Personally I would prefer film every time - digital has a long way to
> go yet - but it costs too much for amateurs and is now getting
> difficult to find.

No, more about 5 mp and you have more saturation and Range than 100 asa
Film

-- 
Trev
You can always tell a York****re man,
But you can't tell him much.