[silversx80]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10189546-39.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5

Considering that, IIRC, 6 MP is the quality of film, then 12 should be just fine. Working on dynamic range is where it's at in order to completely surpass film.


Discuss.

 

[Nexus242]

Unless you are doing print work for Ads, a working pro or like working with files so big they'll choke to death even the fastest PCs out there then no anything more then 12mp to 14mp is pointless even if it's a FF camera too.

 

[frick]

I heard from my photographer friend that, with 12MP, the pixels are too small and the images look washed out.

However, a lot of people are dumping their old cameras to buy the new 12MP ones. So if you're in the market for a nice used camera...

 

[Gerard7aa]

I'm still using my Nikon D50.
Good enough for me...

 

[Chilltake]

My D70 does me just fine ...

 

[ASCSurveyor]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10189546-39.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5

Considering that, IIRC, 6 MP is the quality of film, then 12 should be just fine. Working on dynamic range is where it's at in order to completely surpass film.


Discuss.

I though I read in my little photography book that film was ~30MP? :dontknow: I'll have to look it up again.

Reglardless... yes... too much emphasis is put on MP.

You can take very nice shots with a 4MP camera.

People will spend hundreds and even thousands of dollars on the most popular, highest MP, camera with all the IS, face-capturing, smile-making bells and whistles, and expect it to make them a great photographer.

IMO, photography has little to do with the camera.

 

[silversx80]

I heard from my photographer friend that, with 12MP, the pixels are too small and the images look washed out.

However, a lot of people are dumping their old cameras to buy the new 12MP ones. So if you're in the market for a nice used camera...

My guess is that with same sensor sizes and higher MP count, pixel density grows while pixel size is much smaller. They're light sensors and a smaller sensor will collect less light.

 

[jbswear]

The smaller sensor will capture fewer photons for each cell, but then you just change the software to account for the fewer photons per cell.

Not a big deal or problem.

 

[silversx80]

The smaller sensor will capture fewer photons for each cell, but then you just change the software to account for the fewer photons per cell.

Not a big deal or problem.

Yeah, but it also increases the noise and artifacts. Also, fewer photons will lead to a more narrow dynamic range because less contrast is detected... at least from what I understand.

 

[DarkMatter]

really it depends more on the film quality being used, as opposed to the lens/sensor equivalents. Most consumer films are in the area of 6 - 8 MP in final developed image resolution. So that 10MP Nikon/Olympus/Canon/Fuji will outperform a similarly priced film equivalent camera combo.

Upper end commercial films can develop as much as 25MP of image quality. Currently there are no Digicams commercially available that can exceed this capacity so far as I know.

 

[silversx80]

really it depends more on the film quality being used, as opposed to the lens/sensor equivalents. Most consumer films are in the area of 6 - 8 MP in final developed image resolution. So that 10MP Nikon/Olympus/Canon/Fuji will outperform a similarly priced film equivalent camera combo.

Upper end commercial films can develop as much as 25MP of image quality. Currently there are no Digicams commercially available that can exceed this capacity so far as I know.

Hassleblad (not sure of the spelling). Upwards of 30 MP and $30K . Anyway, when talking about 35mm film SLRs, I've heard 10-16 MP.

 

[DarkMatter]

theoretically, your available resolution on film is

(lines/mm * width * 2) * (lines/mm * height * 2) / 1,000,000

most films give their lines/mm resolution on the package. Of course (if I remember right you're an engineer) theoretically and realistically never play nicely in the sandbox.

 

[silversx80]

theoretically, your available resolution on film is

(lines/mm * width * 2) * (lines/mm * height * 2) / 1,000,000

most films give their lines/mm resolution on the package. Of course (if I remember right you're an engineer) theoretically and realistically never play nicely in the sandbox.

... and really, when it comes down to it, who's going to be able to tell the difference?

I can't find the video, but some UK show did a film vs digital shoot a while back. They used Nikons with the same lenses and both shot with ISO 100. They then blew up the photos to about 5 stories tall and compared. Ditigal won out.

... still looking.

 

[jbswear]

Hassleblad (not sure of the spelling). Upwards of 30 MP and $30K . Anyway, when talking about 35mm film SLRs, I've heard 10-16 MP.

Sure, the Hasselbad has a 30MP sensor, but it's also on a medium format size--4"x5". It isn't the 35mm digital equivalent. So, its sensors aren't any better, just a helluva lot bigger.

But, with that larger sensor, you can then make a MUCH more GI-FRIGGING-NORMOUS picture.

 

[DarkMatter]

... and really, when it comes down to it, who's going to be able to tell the difference?

I can't find the video, but some UK show did a film vs digital shoot a while back. They used Nikons with the same lenses and both shot with ISO 100. They then blew up the photos to about 5 stories tall and compared. Ditigal won out.

... still looking.

and this is the crux of it, isn't it? For the overwhelming majority of mere photography mortals such as ourselves here....who's going to know? My wife and I do some photo shoots (both people and objects) using a 6 year old 6.1 MP Fuji finePix S5000. We've been able to sell a few prints on occasion. Not a single person has ever said "Hey, this looks like it was done on a digicam. I don't want it.".

I think it comes down to traditionalism and elitism if you ask me. The difference in quality is negligible but the film users get to toss their noses up in the air in a huff over the digi-prints.

edit: one of the aforementioned photos.

 

[LSCYCLING]

Seitz 160 MP portable camera and only $45,000.

http://www.techchee.com/2008/01/21/super-high-res-cam-seitz-160-megapixel-handheld-camera/

 

[Gerard7aa]

I still use my Canon Ae1 oldie film SLR camera at times.
But you can never get immediate gratification with film. With my digital cam its instant and I know whether I got the shot or not.
But oh how I do love film. Especially gloss B&W.

45k for a flintstones camera? (well thats what it looks like to me)

 

[tonyjuliano]

Lots and lots of wrong information in this thread...

Kodachrome slide film (which you cannot get anymore) was probably the highest definition (sharpest) of any 35mm film made. The equivalent MP rating for digitial to this film is approximately 24 MP.

Most good, consumer level 35mm film is equivalent to about 12 MP.

If you are not printing 2 foot high than 6-8 MP is fine for most purposes.

Most professionals today insist that large format, high quality film is superior to anything currently available in the digital world.

 

[silversx80]

Lots and lots of wrong information in this thread...

That depends on the manner and items in which you are scrutinizing.

Kodachrome slide film (which you cannot get anymore) was probably the highest definition (sharpest) of any 35mm film made. The equivalent MP rating for digitial to this film is approximately 24 MP.

Since it isn't available, I don't think it is pertinent information for today's dSLR vs film. Also, that's for an ISO of about 50.

Most good, consumer level 35mm film is equivalent to about 12 MP.

Many variables to account for but I'm guessing that this has something to do with Olympus quitting the MP race at 12 MP.

If you are not printing 2 foot high than 6-8 MP is fine for most purposes.

I've seen much bigger with 6 MP and looks great

Many professionals today insist that large format, high quality film is superior to anything currently available in the digital world.

 

[tonyjuliano]

Ok...

Even though Kodachrome is no longer available it's successor, Velvia, has the same level of sharpness (but slightly less dynamic range).

I am admittadly one of the world's poorest photographers, but this is mostly due to my lack of patience and poor compostion. The technical side, though, I know inside and out.

I was fortunate to have grown up with an older sister, who not only became a moderately famous professional photographer, but also a VP both Olympus and later Canon.

As for what most pro's have to say, show me one Professional Landscape Photographer that shoots digital.

BTW - the 24MP equivalency I quoted was for ISO 100, not 50.