graywolf, All I can say, is that I am more than pleased with my 67 stuff - plenty of details (way more than 35mm or 6mp DSLR). I have my little Optio S for quick snaps. At some point I'm sure that I will get a DSLR, but for the time being, I'll stick with film and what it has to offer me (when quality is concerned).
Bruce Friday, September 12, 2003, 11:44:03 AM, you wrote: g> Well, what strikes me is the lack of detail in the digital print. On the g> second site I only got as far as noticing that they were showing g> images of newsprint. If your are going to do that why not compare a g> copier image to a copy film image. However the contrast in the film g> images is better. g> I am getting real tired of digital vs. film arguments by people who have g> no idea what they are comparing. Digital has reached the point where it g> is professionally acceptable (ask TV if his customers have any complaints). g> If quality is the issue film still is better. You say your ultra high g> res digital is equal to 35mm, I raise you 120 film. When you match 120 g> film, I raise you 4x5 film. When digital equals 8x10 film it will be g> too inconvenient to compare larger formats, but there are a few 20x24 g> cameras out there. g> Furthermore, I hope everyone here is aware that what is being compared g> on those sites are digital images of prints made from film and digital g> originals (at least on the first site). That is far far from comparing g> apples to oranges. It is more like comparing banana pudding made from g> apples to another banana pudding made from oranges (both sans the bananas). g> --- g> Paul Delcour wrote: >> This is interesting. What strikes me is the absolute smoothness of the >> digital images and the very very grainy film ones. If all this is correct I >> want the *ist! >> >> http://www.mindspring.com/~focalfire/DigitalvsFilm.html >> >> http://www.tawbaware.com/film_digital.htm >> >> :-) >> >> Paul Delcour >> >>
