Jim,
Glad the link helps and thanks for telling me about it!
Singh-Ray makes a filter designed by an acquaintance of mine, Tony Sweet, so
there's a small personal connection with the company.
Best Regards,
Bernie Kubiak
-- Original message --
From: James L.
Most UV filters are just glass, with IR coatings - glass will filter
some UV, I seem to recall less than 20%. Singh Ray did make a real UV
filter but it wasn't cheap and I don't know if he is still in business.
Jim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The focal length is a bit over 600mm. I use a barlow,
Singh Ray is still around: www.singh-ray.com/index.html but I don't see a UV
filter in their catalog.
Bernie
-- Original message --
From: James L. Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Most UV filters are just glass, with IR coatings - glass will filter
some UV, I seem to
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Geoghegan
Sent: Thursday, 12 July 2007 2:21 AM
To: Hanna, Mark (x9085)
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography
Yes, there are all sorts of ways to define the perfect comparison test
depending on what's most relevant to the way each
I have a Tak FS78 and quite a few accessories for such antics, but you
can't use them on the fly. This is a panorama I just finished last week,
with the distance varying from 15 to 20 miles.
http://www.lazygranch.com/images/ttr/june2007/ttr_pano_1.jp2
You will need a jpeg2000 viewer such as
Ah, but you're redefined the scope of reach! Just how long is the lens
you used for this project? Or, just how small is your sensor? I can see
that you don't need high spatial frequency, scintillation pretty much
wipes out resolution at that distance. Great job though! I am
surprised and
The focal length is a bit over 600mm. I use a barlow, so the focal
length is around 3000mm effective. The images are from Astia 100f
(35mm), scanned on the Minolta 5400 II, but reduced by two.
Obviously, the image is tweaked quite a bit in photoshop. The raw image
is very blue. I use a long pass
One other detail I'd like to mention is that I really prefer the aspect
ratio of 4/3. A subjective matter, naturally. I think it is really silly,
this craze in movies and television for the very wide screen, which may suit
the sweeping landscape, but very often looks ridiculous and sacrifices
On Jul 10, 2007, at 6:23 AM, Berry Ives wrote:
Does anyone know what is the market share of FF digital among
professional photographers working digitally today?
It seems to me that most working pros are using the 1.3x crop Canons.
I see those more than just about anything else. Of course, the
I simply see no advantage to have a smaller sensor. I don't see how I
spent pixels. This makes no sense to me.
Nikon has an option on some models where you can toss the outer area of
the sensor to save space on the memory card.
R. Jackson wrote:
Sure, but you spend pixels of your total sensor
-resource.com/NEWS/1175724860.html
Bob G
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gary
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
A cropped sensor really doesn't give
Well, yes, but the resolution of the sensor is still the resolution of
the sensor, so unless the FF sensor has an increased resolution
equivalent to the difference in factor difference, the smaller sensor
does provide a greater reach per resolution. Also, the camera is
smaller and likely lighter.
Exactly. I agree. Unless the FF is higher res the main advantage of FF
is lower noise and in the wide angle department.
Art
R. Jackson wrote:
Sure, but you spend pixels of your total sensor resolution to get
there.
On Jul 10, 2007, at 9:37 AM, gary wrote:
A cropped sensor really doesn't
Let's say you have two sensors, each 12 MP. One is FF the other smaller
using 1.3X factor. To get the same multiplication factor with the FF,
you have crop about 1/4th of the area out, which means you have reduced
the resolution by that much. If the FF is about 1/4th higher res to the
smaller
I think you need to strictly define reach.
Arthur Entlich wrote:
Well, yes, but the resolution of the sensor is still the resolution of
the sensor, so unless the FF sensor has an increased resolution
equivalent to the difference in factor difference, the smaller sensor
does provide a greater
On Jul 10, 2007, at 1:28 PM, Bob Geoghegan wrote:
Some 2006 Japan-only figures put the 5D at a low single-digit
portion of
DSLRs overall (and DSLRs are only about 5% of digital camera unit
sales).
The 1Ds would be a smaller fraction still.
Well, the 1Ds is what, about $7000 retail? And the
to amaze me, as good as my old
Mamiya M6451000S.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: Wednesday, 11 July 2007 9:47 AM
To: Hanna, Mark (x9085)
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Let's say you
I'm a person that needs reach, if you define reach as getting shots of
distance objects. Now generally a person who needs reach is using a
telephoto lens and possibly combined with a teleconverter. Such a setup
doesn't put out a lot of light, so the bigger pixels are certainly an
advantage. Also,
] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 7:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Let's say you have two sensors, each 12 MP. One is FF the other smaller
using 1.3X factor. To get the same multiplication factor with the FF
: film and scanning vs digital photography
Let's say you have two sensors, each 12 MP. One is FF the other smaller
using 1.3X factor. To get the same multiplication factor with the FF,
you have crop about 1/4th of the area out, which means you have reduced
the resolution by that much
I wish they were a bit more scientific in their analysis. For instance,
Canon makes more than one 300mm lens.
Bob Geoghegan wrote:
Hmmm, 12 MP but in different sizes. Consider the Nikon D2X(s) vs Canon 1D
mkII or 5D.
http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev00.html
On Jul 7, 2007, at 7:51 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
The M7 doesn't get close (without going to heroic efforts),
polarizers are a
pain, it doesn't really do portraits. It's a two-trick pony (43 and 65
(three if you like 80mm))
Actually, my preferences are 65mm and 150mm. The 43mm and 50mm
You're right, Olympus is taking forever to bring out the new model, which
has probably cost them some market base, but I'm waiting for it. The leaked
info sounds great. The 14-35mm f2.0 lens is taking even longer, and isn't
expected until next spring, rumor has it. It would seem to me odd that
From: Berry Ives [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You're right, Olympus is taking forever to bring out the new model, which
has probably cost them some market base, but I'm waiting for it. The leaked
info sounds great. The 14-35mm f2.0 lens is taking even longer, and isn't
expected until next spring, rumor
On Jul 7, 2007, at 7:34 AM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
But you are forgetting to take the other aspects of the format
difference
into account.
This seems like an assumption. ;-)
For the same pixel count (to a rough first approximation, 10 is
about the
same as 12.7), a 4/3 camera's pixels
Uh, this should be deeper...sorry. ;-)
On Jul 7, 2007, at 12:08 PM, R. Jackson wrote:
But since DOF is two stops shallower you don't need to stop the lens
down as much to get the same effective DOF.
From: R. Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So a birder, for example, will have a two-stop DOF advantage over a
FF guy right out of the gate just because of his format of choice.
Add in the faster Zuiko f/2.0 lens at ISO 100 and he can use a higher
shutter speed at a lower aperture all day long.
It
On Jul 7, 2007, at 1:29 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
It don't work that wayg.
The 5D user shoots at ISO 400 with the same image quality (photon shot
noise) and same shutter speed and sees the same DOF (and same
background
blurring effects) at f/4.0 as the 4/3 user does at f/2.0.
It is
I have been trying to follow this thread, with some difficulty -
probably my old age. But to keep perspective and depth of field equal,
when comparing Full Frame with smaller formats, lens focal length,
circle of confusion, or blur circle, size must be adjusted
proportionately. Control of
On Jul 7, 2007, at 3:59 PM, James L. Sims wrote:
Control of chromatic aberrations become
proportionately more restrictive. Then there's Lord Rayleigh's
Criteria
regarding Diffraction Limit is just as true today as it was when he
published it. Therefore, with today's APO lenses, we can
From: R. Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Again, if you are using a 10MP 4/3 camera, then the comparison is
with the 70-200/4.0 (IS).
I know you like that f/4 comparison, but like you said earlier, with
the A/D converters as they are you aren't seeing a dynamic range
advantage at low ISO, so the
From: James L. Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have been trying to follow this thread, with some difficulty -
probably my old age. But to keep perspective and depth of field equal,
when comparing Full Frame with smaller formats, lens focal length,
circle of confusion, or blur circle, size must be
On Jul 7, 2007, at 5:15 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
The 5D doesn't deliver a dynamic range advantage
(at low ISOs), just a two stop sensitivity advantage across
comparable ISOs.
Sure. I thought I'd already made that stipulation clear. Yes, a
bigger sensor will get you more high-ISO
From: R. Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So IQ is vital to you unless it isn't. Heh...I guess we could go on
for a couple of days with me saying that 645 isn't a serious format
and you can choose to use an inferior format if it suits your needs,
but that doesn't make it worth using. ;-)
Exactly!
Hi James,
Thanks for the formula. I guess we need to go back to glass plates ;-)
Art
James L. Sims wrote:
Art,
There was a depth of focus formula in the American Cinematographer
Handbook that was gospel until proven wrong. The depth of focus, given
a specific blur circle size, is a
Just a detail, Rob, but the Oly E-1 has a weather-sealed magnesium body.
It's quite solid. I don't know if any of their other models have the
magnesium body, or if that feature is reserved for their pro line.
Berry
On 7/5/07 8:52 PM, R.Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 5, 2007, at
Yeah, I had an E-1. I actually gave it to a friend of mine last year
and he's enjoying it. They've just taken so long replacing it that
there's really no choice in a high-end E model right now, though the
leaked document about the E-1 replacement looks promising.
-Rob
On Jul 6, 2007, at 7:00 AM,
Art,
Well, we've sort of done that with digital cameras. They have also put
my old Pentax cameras out of service, and after all the work I did
fabricating a pressure plate that kept the film reasonably flat. At my
age, I'm also an advocate of image stabilization - I'm taking sharp
pictures,
I don't disagree with much that you stated. A good deal of the extra
file size in a scanned silver halide image is just grain artifacts, and
offers no image information. However, if the same processing that is
done to digital images in camera were done to the film image, a lot of
the grain
major disagreement.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Jackson
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 9:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On Jul 4, 2007, at 6:37 PM, [EMAIL
concerning grain and grain
structure in an image.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David J.
Littleboy
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 12:22 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:28 PM, Arthur Entlich wrote:
However, if the same processing that is done to digital images in
camera were done to the film image, a lot of the grain could be
suppressed.
Yeah, but would you want to suppress the grain? I did a test for a
video camera manufacturer last
One last point here. Film will probably never be as flat as a piece of
silicon.
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate)
But a pixel is around 6um on a side, so grain is finer than a pixel.
R. Jackson wrote:
On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:28 PM, Arthur Entlich wrote:
snip
Look here:
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/Filmbasics/filmbasics.html
See the 400x magnification? If that level of capture detail existed
On 05/07/2007 David J. Littleboy wrote:
I don't buy it.
AIUI the colour fringing is a combination of chromatic aberration in the
lens and Bayer colour interpolation.
Vignetting is due to the microlenses presenting a smaller effective
aperture to off-axis rays.
You get both together, but
On Jul 5, 2007, at 1:11 PM, Laurie wrote:
While Digital SLRs might know or identify the lens focal length,
aperture
setting, focus, etc., It cannot identify the glass that is used in
any given
lens or the optical properties specific to that particular lens.
Since most
DSLRs allow for
On 05/07/2007 gary wrote:
Seems to me the camera should be able to compensate for the
vignetting.
It knows the lens and the sensor, so it should know the light
falloff.
There are software strategies for dealing with both vignetting and
chromatic aberratuon artifacts, also barrel/pincushion
Of R. Jackson
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On Jul 5, 2007, at 1:11 PM, Laurie wrote:
While Digital SLRs might know or identify the lens focal length,
aperture
setting, focus, etc
From: Berry Ives [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your math is good; I got 26.2 degrees off vertical. But I don't know the
significance of that angle with respect to the sensor tunnels. It sounds
like a rather large angle to me.
You might do the math for, say, the Contax G-series 21mm Biogong. (The
rear
There seems to be two main issues with depth of focus with film. One,
when the image is captured within the camera, and two, when it is then
reproduced, either as a print, or made into a digital file.
With 35mm frames, in my experience, the second one is not that
significant as long as the
On 7/5/07 5:44 PM, David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The 4/3 sensor is 1/4 the area of the FF sensors, and not really a serious
format. If one is concerned with image quality.
I think that for you to say this is equivalent, in the film world, of saying
that 35mm cameras are not
On 06/07/2007 Arthur Entlich wrote:
Does anyone know if there is a chart which shows depth of focus at the
film plan versus aperture of lens used?
No, but the plane of focus itself is not flat, it's usually a section of a
sphere that is only part corrected to flatness. This becomes an issue
I thought the lens design has elements to compensate for field
flattening. In any event, the predictably flat silicon focal plane has
to be better than the lottery of film.
Tony Sleep wrote:
On 06/07/2007 Arthur Entlich wrote:
Does anyone know if there is a chart which shows depth of focus at
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I thought the lens design has elements to compensate for field
flattening. In any event, the predictably flat silicon focal plane has
to be better than the lottery of film.
Tony Sleep wrote
That's fine. But there are thousands of professional and serious amateur
photographers out there that do not have that restriction. I shot 4x5 for a
while, and there is no denying the beauty of large format for certain types
of images. I discovered a small spider web once on a barb of a wire
On Jul 5, 2007, at 4:44 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
The 4/3 sensor is 1/4 the area of the FF sensors, and not really a
serious
format. If one is concerned with image quality.
Technically, there's merit to what you're saying. Given a the current
10 megapixel 4/3 sensor with a 4.7 micron
Art,
There was a depth of focus formula in the American Cinematographer
Handbook that was gospel until proven wrong. The depth of focus, given
a specific blur circle size, is a trig function of the cone angle Tan
½Angle = .5 x f# ÷ Lens Focal Length. Without special pressure plates
or
On Jul 1, 2007, at 6:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes because you are mixing apples and oranges in your comparison.
The D200
and D2X produce a 35mm equivalent first generation capture; it does
not need
to be converted into a digital file after the capture by a second
external
process.
On Jul 3, 2007, at 11:47 PM, R. Jackson wrote:
On Jul 1, 2007, at 6:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
... At 4800 dpi a 35mm scan is 6255x4079.
That's over 25 megapixels. I can't really tell the difference between
a 4800 dpi scan and a 6400 dpi scan, so I never go higher than 4800
Thanks, Rob. I might follow along, partly because I also have a lot
of prints - old family photos mostly - to scan.
--
Sam
On Jul 4, 2007, at 6:44 AM, R. Jackson wrote:
I'm using an Epson V700. It's been a pretty nice machine so far. I've
scanned about 500 negatives and slides over the past
On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Most of the DSLRs mentioned
may be less than 25 megapixels but they shoot in Camera RAW
formats, which
can be adjusted in a number of ways if needed before converting the
Camera
Raw format to an interpreted value standard image format,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Secondly, some artifacts produced in the scanning process by prosummer
scanners operated by layoperators may not be readily remedied or correctable
at all in some cases.
And I'm sure THEY don't want to do any corrections, even if possible.
Mike K.
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Jackson
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 3:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Most of the DSLRs
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael
Kersenbrock
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 5:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Secondly, some artifacts produced in the scanning process
I sent this message out on July 2nd, but I don't think it got posted, at
least I never received a copy... so I'm trying again.
If it did get posted, I apologize for the redundancy.
Art
Original Message
Subject:Re: [filmscanners] film and scanning vs digital photography
I'll say again something I have stated many times in the past. Humans
are analogue, not digital. We work on a cellular level and most of our
cells aren't lined up in perfect grids, far from it. We, both
evolutionarily and through learning, ignore random patterns in our
vision (and other
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To put it simply, when you capture an image with a DSLR camera, you are in
effect directly scanning the image transmitted by your lens into digital
electronic form; you do not need to go through a second process in order to
convert the analog capture on film into an
On Jul 4, 2007, at 3:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have not used VueScan in years and am unfamiliar with its current
raw
output. When I used it the raw scan was 16 bit non-linear scan
without any
software processing applied at all output as a TIFF file.
Correct. You can also save the
I don't have a DSLR, but wouldn't a raw camera image need to be, shall
we say, dematrixed. The output of a film scanner is RGB at every pixel
location, where the DSLR is one color per pixel, with additional post
processing required to get RGB at every location.
R. Jackson wrote:
On Jul 4, 2007,
On Jul 4, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Arthur Entlich wrote:
At some point, the digital image components will be beyond any
human's ability to perceive as discrete components, (other than
with massive enlargement) and then the issue will be moot, and for
some it is so close to that now, that is already
dealing with when processing a Camera RAW file in a
Camera RAW application.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Jackson
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 7:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 6:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To put it simply, when you capture an image with a DSLR camera, you
On Jul 4, 2007, at 6:37 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
most of the automatic
processing that is done by the scanning software has to do with
things that
one can already do in Photoshop such as levels and curves settings,
saturation settings, brightness and contrast settings, etc. and not
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Film grain itself is not actual information. it is the random structure
used to create the image on it's smallest level. Grain occurs in three
random manners. Firstly, each color layer is laid down with the silver
halide grains in a completely chaotic
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gary
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 7:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
I don't have a DSLR, but wouldn't a raw camera image need to be, shall
we say, dematrixed
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Berry Ives
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 12:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Laurie,
What does it mean that:
The D200 and D2X produce a 35mm
From: gary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I suspect the generations effect is why it takes less resolution in a
DSLR to be equivalent to film. That is, the EOS-1Ds Mark II, at
16Mpixels, is considered to be as good as scanned film, which generally
exceeds 30MPixels.
I saw a website that compared drum to a
Laurie,
What does it mean that:
The D200 and D2X produce a 35mm equivalent first generation capture
The film sensor of the D200 is substantially smaller than a 35mm film image,
so I guess that is not what it means. So what is the basis for saying this?
This whole thing about judging
The DSLR digital camera's mentioned are all the higher end models of their
respective manufacturers as well as among the more current models in the
pipeline. Their being selected probably has as much to do with the degree
of noise and distortion of their sensors as the number of megapixels that
I was the one that brought up the topic, based on a speech I attended by
Jim Sugar. He uses
http://marketplace.digitalrailroad.net/Default.aspx
rather than Getty, but believes you should meet the Getty standards. As
I also mentioned, the EOS-1ds Mark II seems to be THE standard.
Jim also has a
Hi Tony,
They misinformed you! I have one here and the front does not rotate
on the EF 50mm f1.4 USM, it simply extends and retracts a little.
You are sure? That is good news!
With kind regards,
Henk de Jong
--
http://www.hsdejong.nl/
Nepal and Myanmar (Burma) - Photo Galleries
Tony Sleep
On Jun 17, 2007, at 3:03 PM, Henk de Jong wrote:
Hi Tony,
They misinformed you! I have one here and the front does not rotate
on the EF 50mm f1.4 USM, it simply extends and retracts a little.
You are sure? That is good news!
With kind regards,
Henk de Jong
--
http://www.hsdejong.nl/
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Henk de Jong
Sent: Monday, 18 June 2007 8:04 AM
To: Hanna, Mark (x9085)
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
Hi Tony,
They misinformed you! I have one here and the front does not rotate
on the EF 50mm f1.4 USM, it simply extends
Thanks Tony, for the link.
US$ 175 (without shipping costs) for an adapter ring is not cheep.
English is not my native language, so some explanations on the website are
difficult to understand.
Am I right that when you apply the adapter ring you focus by hand with
maximum aperture and that the
I am going to raise a different issue regarding the film versus digital
issue for consideration. It has little to do with image quality, but
instead environmental quality.
For years Kodak and others told us that photographic materials
manufacturing processes, photo chemicals and lab film and
On 10/06/2007 Arthur Entlich wrote:
However, the evolution in digital is rapidly reaching the
point where the current technology is more than adequate for most
people
until that camera fails to work.
I read this week that the leading 8 mfrs of digital cameras expect to sell
89m cameras during
I don't disagree that most compacts are designed to last 2-3 years.
Then again, toward the end of the compact film camera market, they also
were designed with the same lifespan.
Not only has the cost of production of these cameras become cheap but
so has the environmental impact of the
R. Jackson wrote:
It depends, really. Like, I was scanning some old Ektachrome 400
today. The images were coming out at at 4374 x 6400 pixels. That's
about 28 megapixels and the scanner still wasn't clearly capturing
the grain structure. Looking at it closely you can see what looks
like
On 08/06/2007 George Harrison wrote:
Thanks for the link below but I am damned if I can see any images at
all !
George Harrison
If you need convincing, download and print at 16x12 some of the
sample
full res images at http://www.steves-digicams.com/cameras_digpro.html
Select the camera
On 09/06/2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm. Interesting and quite contrary to my own experience and others.
6 mp DSLR's could not hold a candle to a properly scanned piece of
35mm
film in terms of image quality, detail, resolution and
enlarge-ability.
:-) I said it was contentious.
In
On 09/06/2007 James L. Sims wrote:
I think that digital imaging definitely has a place in this list,
Tony.
I have confidence in and great respect for the core group of this
list.
Digital imaging, film scanning and digicams are still evolving. Just
some of the issues are RAW file converters,
On 09/06/2007 R. Jackson wrote:
to fully resolve the grain
structure of film takes WAY more resolution than you need to replace
it as a capture medium.
Yup. At one time I had 4,000 8,000 and 12,000ppi scans of the same bit of
film. 8,000 was clearly better than 4,000 (not hugely, but clearly),
Contentious is an understatement! I don't think we are is disagreement,
and as I suggested it is all about what precisely you are talking about.
At the 6mp level, I think people were willing to sacrifice image quality
for convenience and speed. You've outlined some of that below. And it's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How I wish they could just fit the sensor chip from the Canon 5D (or even
the 1Ds MkII) into the Contax N Digital -- now that would produce be
one h*ll of a camera.
I fully agree and I wish for a long time that Contax makes DSLRs also in the
semi-prof segment.
I still
On 09/06/2007 Henk de Jong wrote:
The Canon 5D looks like an interesting camera body and even more now
I have
read that I could (re)use my Contax, Yashica and Tokina lenses.
A friend fitted Leica R lenses to his 1DS-2.
http://www.cameraquest.com/frames/4saleReos.htm
--
Regards
Tony Sleep
On 6/8/07, James L. Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with you, Tony, Digital cameras, for all practical purposes, has
surpassed the quality of 35mm format film and I believe that happened
with the arrival of the six megapixel camera, a few years ago,
significant cropping, not withstanding
On 09/06/2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This conflicts with
claims that it is beneficial to scan at 4000 dpi or higher
resolutions. Am I likely seeing the limitations of the optics of
my scanner rather than of the information capacity of the film?
Anybody know how well the optics of the
Yes, Astia 100F is very good. In fact, a lot of the current 100 speed
color slide films are very good and competitive. Velvia 100F is also
very good and very fine grained. I use it in 120 size and scanned at
4000dpi on the Nikon 8000, grain is almost invisible. Kodak, meanwhile,
has not been
Actually I don't think your recollection is entirely accurate. If it
was the 1Ds (Mk1), then it is only an 11mp camera. And when you say as
good as, you really do need to explain what exactly you mean. The 11mp
1Ds (Mk1) is overall, probably a touch better than a piece of 100 ISO
color 35mm
16mp 1Ds MkII is the one I recall the camera LL said matched film. I haven't
bought into the 22mPixel rumor. I was told by someone who attended the photo
show in Vegas that it was announced. Beyond that, I have no knowledge of the
camera. I'd be plenty happy with the Mk II. I attended a show
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
