On Sep 19, 2006, at 11:56 PM, Jens Bladt wrote: > I am considering selling my MF ( 6x6) gear to help finance the K10D. > Does the new 10MP camera with 22 bit colour depth mean it's time to > ditch > the 120-roll film equipment? > Can I get the same image quality and resolution with the K10D?
Answer 1: Since there are no examples of the production K10D output available yet, there is no way to make a judgement in absolute terms as to the quality of its image capture. Answer 2: In terms of linear resolution (ability to retain detail), that depends upon what you're shooting and how you're shooting it (what equipment, etc) in medium format. In terms of tonal resolution, 12bit linear tonal scale may not present as many tonal steps as a medium format negative in theoretical terms, but in practical terms ... what you can see ... I doubt you'll see much difference. Assuming, of course, that you know what you're doing with RAW conversion processing... Answer 3: It depends on the type and size of your intended output. For prints ... Digitally printed prints improve in perceptual tonal value and sharpness as they become larger up to the onset of visible pixelation. Given that a measure of what is visible is somewhat arbitrary, pick an output density that gives something on the order of a .003 inch dot as being the perceptual limit and you get 300ppi, or about a 13x8.5 inch (33x22 cm) image area. Experience demonstrates that this is a very very high standard, higher than necessary for most cases of large prints since people view them from greater distance than small prints, so relax it to .006 inch dot for 165 ppi and you get a print with 23.5 x 16 inch area (60x40cm). Film images printed optically generally stand up to 16x magnification before degrading too much. 16x magnification of a 6x6cm negative generally means a maximum print size of 36x36 inch or 92x92 cm. So in practical terms, if your interest is making prints in the size range up to A3 Super (13x19 inch), the K10D is a viable alternative to 6x6cm film cameras presuming the image capture quality is up to snuff. Similar calculations and the intent to produce prints in the range up to A3 size were the basis of why I decided to sell off my MF equipment in 2004 with 6Mpixel bodies. > PS: [costs] [snip] The cost analysis is too dependent upon your use of the equipment to make a simple answer, but if you want a simple answer it's tied to how many exposures you make in the time period that you consider a camera to be useful. For me, a DSLR body reduces operating costs (by reducing consumable cost of film and processing) to such a degree that typically after a year of use I consider it free and no longer worry about depreciation. Whatever its residual value at the end of a year is bonus money. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
