Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CometGuy
Remember this is a full frame sensor - i.e the imaging area is 36 x 24mm - this is the first time such a camera has been offered under $10000. Terry
|
It's good to see a full frame sensor available for what is a fairly reasonable price as far as DSLR’s go. Hopefully there is more to follow from various manufacturers (Nikon maybe?
) at competitive prices. All we need now is a dedicated astrophotography version.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MiG
In a magazine that I have there is a comparison shot between a 1Ds MkII at ISO200 and some Canon body loaded with ISO200 film. Same lens and shot parameters
The 1D looked much better. It was less noisy and more detailed. Bye bye average film. Ok, it wasn't Kodak tech-pan super high res film, but most people that carry on about film being so superior don't use films like that anyway.
So unless you use special films, the arguments for film are price (1Ds MkII is sort of expensive ) and highlight blowout performance.
I have even seen reputable photographers suggest that photos from old 4 megapixel DSLRs like the D30 and D60 appear to be of a higher quality than film due to the lack of noise. Resolution isn't everything, unless photographing newspapers from long range is your kind of thing.
|
I'd imagine a 1Ds MkII with 16 mega pixels would out perform a normal ISO 200 film. It'd want to otherwise you'd feel pretty ripped off buying a $12000+ camera.
MiG, I take it that when you say "noise" from film you mean the grain of the film? Film doesn't (and can't) have noise! It can appear to have noise when you scan the negative or slide, but it is caused by the negative scanner itself and has nothing to do with the actual negative, and there are ways around it, depending on the scanner and software, but it does happen.
Don't break out into a funeral just yet because "average" film is far from dead. The only thing that will kill it in the very near future is the marketing and advertising campaigns of the digi cam manufacturers. I have scanned my own negatives many times and regularly compare notes with others that do the same. The conclusions that we usually come to are that Kodak Gold 100 (a fairly cheap film) is equivalent to around 12MP before there are any real signs of the grain in the film showing up, and HD200 film is about the same resolution (and costs about $4 a roll). The scanner I use is capable of 4000dpi (equivalent to well over 20MP) and a good quality film won’t show any grain at all. Remembering also that the grain in a film is a random pattern rather than square pixels in a uniform pattern, therefore it is far more forgiving when it is enlarged. Under normal conditions there aren’t any advantages in digital for getting better colours than film either, except for astro work and other unusual conditions but they can be compensated for by choosing the correct film for a few extra $’s.
I know this information may surprise some people, and others will think I'm full of it (and that's ok
), but I'm speaking from my personal experience and the experience of others more knowledgeable in this field than I am, so I've got a pretty good idea of what I'm dribbling on about. I'm not bagging digital cameras, but the convenience does come as a compromise on quality in comparison to film. There are many aspects of digital that I like and it is well proven to have its place, especially in astronomy where it outperforms film. But film has been getting needlessly sledged in recent years with incorrect information and unsubstantiated biased opinions by lots of people who really don’t know what they’re talking about, and all for no particular reason other than they own a digital camera and therefore it’s newer and better than the film camera someone else is using. There are too many pro’s (and amateurs) out there using too many types of film in many different situations for it to be redundant. Film is by far the most economical way of taking high quality photographs, and the only way of taking super high resolution photo’s but eventually digital will take over, but not for a number of years yet. And yes I do own a digital camera and plan to buy another before much longer, so I have been on both sides of the fence, but I choose to use film nearly all the time, especially when I’m after quality results. I hope I’ve cleared up some “grey areas” in peoples knowledge of film and what it really is capable of and why I don’t get particularly excited when a $5000 (or more) camera is really only doing what can and has already been done by film cameras for a fraction of the price.