shooting Provia 100F, the detail is slightly higher than the *istD, but i get what i consider objectionable grain. other people don't notice on prints up to 11x14, but i do and for me, that grain, unless i am using it for artistic effect, is something i don't want. Velvia increases the detail noticeably and decreases the grain, but only the best lenses can make effective use of it. i never minded Velvia's color rendition, but i did mind its low latitude and high contrast. getting good color on the scans was something i never was happy with. there always was a slight color cast except in full daylight and it took far too much effort to get good color balance. warming filters helped, but they just moved the point on the color temperature scale.
for much less effort and cost, i can go to 11x14 or 13x19 using the *istD, get more accurate color rendition, and be much more sure i got the shot i wanted. there are few times i think that a film shot would have given better results. having a film body with me just for those few shots hasn't been worth it for me in my day to day shooting. when i was in the Canadian Rockies last winter, i took only the *istD because i had to travel light. when i was in the Adirondacks last summer for a week, i had film with me, but the number of times i was sure that i would get a spectacular image was zero. i never broke out the film at all. instead, i got very good images only on the *istD.
Herb....
----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long)
Digital compares favorably with a good film image. No, in fact, a 6.1 megapixel digital image is better than almost any 35mm film image. That's true even with great scans and expert printing. As Herb notes, perhaps only Velvia can equal or better it. It quickly becomes obvious once you've worked with both for a considerable amount of time.
