Tech Support Guy banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,470 Posts
WOW a $30K that takes pictures almost as good as 35mm
I am a big fan of digital technology, but anyone wanting that fine detail should stick with real film. At a local photo display of wildlife the photographer estimated his film camera was equal to a 100pix digital.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,469 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
WOW a $30K that takes pictures almost as good as 35mm
I am a big fan of digital technology, but anyone wanting that fine detail should stick with real film. At a local photo display of wildlife the photographer estimated his film camera was equal to a 100pix digital.
But I can take 100pix and it costs a fraction of that film pic. Especially now as relating to above post about Kodak.

I am just getting into photography, so I love my digital Canon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,832 Posts
WOW a $30K that takes pictures almost as good as 35mm
I am a big fan of digital technology, but anyone wanting that fine detail should stick with real film. At a local photo display of wildlife the photographer estimated his film camera was equal to a 100pix digital.
Unless the photographer you mentioned was using a very large format he was blowing smoke. Large format isn’t usually practical for wildlife.

There was a very good series of tests several years ago. They kept film in the chemical process and compared the resulting large prints to digital. 35mm 100 ASA Kodachrome gave the same detail as a 6Mp digital SLR with an APS sized sensor. Velvia was equivalent to 11Mp. Medium format varies by format but falls in the 25Mp range with most film.

Digital photography sites usually come up with numbers more advantageous to digital, but they usually convert the film to digital for the comparison. That one site was the only one I’ve seen that did the comparison in a way that was fair to film.

You specified “detail” and digital is up to film in detail unless you want to use an 8 X 10 negative. It isn’t quite up to film in dynamic range unless you use HDR, and of course HDR isn’t always appropriate for wildlife and other potentially dynamic situations.

I think most National Geographic photographers are using digital now. Film is unfortunately on its way out. And digital does have some advantages. That Leica will capture medium format detail with 35mm speed and convenience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,470 Posts
My comment was of course with "tonge in cheek"
I also am a fan of digital, but my gosh $30k for any camera !
I just got a wonderful Nikon coolpix camera with 10megapix and done some interesting comparisons with old film pictures. I scanned some tiny areas of film photos (the eye of a person in a crowd about 30' away) and blew it up to vview on my PC. The outline was still very crisp. I viewed a similar area of a picture taken with my digital (a goldfinch bird) and the outline was obviously pixelated. Although both film and digital have their place, my opinion is still that film makes the best large blowups.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top