Shutterbug Sez: 35mm STILL beats Digital 35mm Size Pictures:
ERNReed
>In talking about the DCS 760...a 6 megapixel camera they [Shutterbug] say:
>
>" Is this camera a replacement for a film camera? Id say yes, IF
>(again my emphasis) you do not plan to produce images bigger than
>11 x 14..".
I don't know if it's just me, but if I intended to produce an image bigger than
11x14, not only wouldn't I choose digital, I wouldn't choose 35mm. I'd enlarge
a 35mm Reala negative TO 11x14, but no further -- and no other. I'd choose
medium format.
Horses for courses, people. Horses for courses.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"They call me Mrs Reed"
http://members.aol.com/ernreed
If you aren't spamming, avoid the junktrap
ERNReed
>>Shadetree posted (among other things):
>>>In talking about the DCS 760...a 6 megapixel camera they [Shutterbug] say:
>
>>>
>>>" Is this camera a replacement for a film camera? Id say yes, IF
>>>(again my emphasis) you do not plan to produce images bigger than
>>>11 x 14..".
>>
>>I don't know if it's just me, but if I intended to produce an image bigger
>than
>>11x14, not only wouldn't I choose digital, I wouldn't choose 35mm. I'd
>enlarge
>>a 35mm Reala negative TO 11x14, but no further -- and no other. I'd choose
>>medium format.
>>
>
>You CAN do larger with 11 x 14 with 35mm with a scanner like the Nikon
>Coolscan 4000.....but that is not the point.
er, actually, I was referring to how large a print I'd make with an enlarger,
but as you say, that's not entirely the point.
But what I was saying is that this statement:
>>>In talking about the DCS 760...a 6 megapixel camera they [Shutterbug] say:
>>>" Is this camera a replacement for a film camera? Id say yes, IF
>>>(again my emphasis) you do not plan to produce images bigger than
>>>11 x 14..".
says to me that the digital can't replace a *medium-format* film camera, but
does not *address* 35mm vs. digital since neither is (IMO) suitable for images
larger than 11x14. A comparison between 35mm and digital at 8x10 print size
would be more relevant.
I am comparing film and
>digital...not 35mm and medium format. There is NO doubt that medium
>format is better for doing enlargements than 35mm...there is no
>argument there...but there are some here that thing that SLR digitals
>have surpassed the quality of 35mm...because they say so. The facts,
>however, do not back them up.
"Film" is too general. After all, film comes in a variety of sizes and
different formats suit different uses. (oversimplifying slightly): Large format
is best for large enlargements. Medium format is best for large enlargements
with some portability of equipment. 35mm has its strengths also. As does
digital. Now, if digital can produce an acceptable 8x10, then it can replace
35mm for *some* -- I say again, SOME -- applications.
Bob Fowler
news:tdfrnt4ff6dqsvrvv...@4ax.com...
> On 18 Aug 2001 00:48:30 GMT, ern...@aol.comjunktrap (ERNReed) wrote:
A couple of points (besides the one on top of my head)...
> >Shadetree posted (among other things):
> >>In talking about the DCS 760...a 6 megapixel camera they [Shutterbug]
say:
> >>
> >>" Is this camera a replacement for a film camera? Id say yes, IF
> >>(again my emphasis) you do not plan to produce images bigger than
> >>11 x 14..".
> >
> >I don't know if it's just me, but if I intended to produce an image
bigger than
> >11x14, not only wouldn't I choose digital, I wouldn't choose 35mm. I'd
enlarge
> >a 35mm Reala negative TO 11x14, but no further -- and no other. I'd
choose
> >medium format.
I have to agree. If I know in advance that I'll be needing 11x14 or larger,
the smallest format I'll use is 6X6. If the required print is over 20X24,
most likely I'll use 4X5 or 5X7.
> You CAN do larger with 11 x 14 with 35mm with a scanner like the Nikon
> Coolscan 4000.....but that is not the point. I am comparing film and
> digital...not 35mm and medium format. There is NO doubt that medium
> format is better for doing enlargements than 35mm...there is no
> argument there...but there are some here that thing that SLR digitals
> have surpassed the quality of 35mm...because they say so. The facts,
> however, do not back them up.
I agree with this as well, however... For a high quality image, I still say
an optically produced print is better than a electronic one. Sure, it's a
lot easier to scan the neg or chrome and manipulate it in Photoshop vs.
doing the darkroom work, but the final product of the darkroom is IMHO
superior.
> I'd love to own a Hassie system...just can't afford one. I'd settle
> for a Mamiya 645...but can't afford one of those either!!
I sold my 'Blad and bought 2 Mamiya TLR's & 5 lenses, I'm a much happier guy
now!
> I love the square format....give me a Hassie and a Coolscan 8000...and
> I'd be in heaven!! Well, maybe if you throw in a Speedotron Black
> Line, a studio, and a very shapely assistant!!
Hmmmmmmm, perhaps a drop-dead gorgeous redhead, 5'8" & 120lbs, who doesn't
speak English...
Hehehehehe
Bob Fowler
Tony Spadaro
I think I'll stand down from this argument for a while - at least until
someone has something intelligent to say on the subject. They better hurry
up though - I don't figure to be using film in 5 years, perhaps only 3,
perhaps less.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"SHADETREE©" <shad...@priest.tc> wrote in message
news:1qarntcjasebhk732...@4ax.com...
>
>
> Shutterbug Magazine, a well respected photograp
>
> hic magazine that is not afraid to tell the truth did a test on
> Kodak's new DCS 760 professional Digital Camera. Here are some
> quotes:
>
>
> "For serious photographers the holy grail of digital SLR cameras WILL
> BE (my emphasis) the one that produces images as good as those
> obtained in a high-end camera using 35mm film."
>
> Notice they said WILL BE!! They have not yet found one that produces
> the quality of 35mm film. Quite clear to anyone that understands the
> English language.
>
> They go on to say there IS some medium format digital backs that meet
> or exceed 35mm film...but that these are "unwieldy or even impossible
> to use outside a studio setup. Indeed, some of the best ones can only
> be used for still life shoots under very controlled situations, as
> they require three separate scans to create one color image."
>
> In talking about the DCS 760...a 6 megapixel camera they say:
>
> " Is this camera a replacement for a film camera? Id say yes, IF
> (again my emphasis) you do not plan to produce images bigger than
> 11 x 14..".
>
> In other words film can produce bigger images than 6 megapixel cameras
> that are SUPERIOR to digital SLR's. They also say that the medium
> format digital cameras can meet or exceed 35mm...BUT they DID NOT
> mention meeting or exceeding MEDIUM FORMAT...much less large
> format film.
>
> They DID say that there are digital SLR cameras that can meet the
> quality of film at 8 X 10 shots....but THAT IS ALL!!!
>
> For those that will say that Shutterbug is a magazine that must kiss
> their advertiser's behind...REMEMBER THIS: They are reviewing
> a Kodak camera and using generic terms when mentioning SLR film
> cameras....is that what you call kissing behind???
>
>
> Give me a digital SLR...and I'll show you my Nikon Coolscan 4000
> with Fuji Provia 100F...
>
> Largest file size for a the Kodak Pro DCS 760 (based in the F5 body):
>
> 18mb
>
> Largest file size from the Nikon Coolscan 4000 :
>
> 130mb!!
>
>
> BTW....true audiophiles will tell you that vinyl is far superior in
> sound quality to digital CD's. Records are making a comeback.
> Film is not even sick yet.
>
>
> SHADETREE©
>
>
>
> "Thou shalt not commit an adult tree!"
>
> 2nd Timmy Tree, Chapter 2, vs 8
>
> Book of Shade
>
> Holy Wood of God
>
Yossarian
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Gzkf7.133602$TM5.23...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> This gets more assinine with every round.
> I think I'll stand down from this argument for a while - at least until
> someone has something intelligent to say on the subject. They better hurry
> up though - I don't figure to be using film in 5 years, perhaps only 3,
> perhaps less.
When do you think I'll be able to buy a digital SLR that can match the quality
of a serious-amateur camera (Elan 7 or Nikon N80 or equivalent) for the same
price I paid for my Elan 7 ($500 give or take)?
And even better, won't this drive prices on high-end 35mm SLRs even lower, which
would fuel a decent sized 35mm "underground"? Perhaps even bringing down prices
of some medium-format cameras...
JR
> When do you think I'll be able to buy a digital SLR that can match the quality
> of a serious-amateur camera (Elan 7 or Nikon N80 or equivalent) for the same
> price I paid for my Elan 7 ($500 give or take)?
>
> And even better, won't this drive prices on high-end 35mm SLRs even
lower, which
> would fuel a decent sized 35mm "underground"? Perhaps even bringing down
prices
> of some medium-format cameras...
My personal opinion is that we are about 5 years away from the $500
digital SLR that will be comparable to todays mid line SLRs. We should
see high end digital SLRs with 35mm film quality in 2 years. I say 2
years because I do not think that it will be in the next generation of
cameras, but the generation beyond that.
I agree that if you want large prints, use the largest negative you can to
begin with, so yes larger than 11x14 makes sense to use a larger format.
But what if I only have a 35mm camera? I do make 13x19 prints regularly
with my Epson 2000P from scanned 35mm film. If I am using Provia 100F,
there is virtually no grain. So if I have a 35mm film camera and
occasionally print at 13x19, digital is some years away from exceeding my
current system. Therefore it isn't for me now.
This is the point I think Shade is making. For some people, digital is
not there yet. It is very clear to me at least and I don't know why this
is such a widely debated issue here. No one is saying that you can't get
great shots with a digital camera. The best CURRENT digital SLR does not
yield better results than the best 35mm film. It is not yet a mature
format. For others that do not make large prints or shoot primarily for
the web, or email purposes, digital is the current answer. In a few years
photographers will have a more difficult choice. should I move to digital
because the quality is comparable to 35mm? Then the situation may be
reversed. Some WON'T make the move because 35mm is enough quality and
they don't want to change the way we make photos. Why are MF cameras
still made and used when you can use just about any modern SLR in manual
mode and essentially have the same result? It just isn't the same.
I think that once the photographic world at large looks as digital as
another format and not one set up to replace 35mm film then we as
photographers will be better off with more options than ever. This is the
future of photography, more formats than ever to get great results with, a
pretty bright future if you ask me....
JR
ERNReed
>I think that once the photographic world at large looks as digital as
>another format and not one set up to replace 35mm film then we as
>photographers will be better off with more options than ever. This is the
>future of photography, more formats than ever to get great results with, a
>pretty bright future if you ask me....
Yes! Exactly.
Edward Craft
> This gets more assinine with every round.
> I think I'll stand down from this argument for a while - at least until
> someone has something intelligent to say on the subject. They better hurry
> up though - I don't figure to be using film in 5 years, perhaps only 3,
> perhaps less.
That's the move. The good news is those whose experience is limited to
reading magazines won't have anything at all to say for another month.
Regards,
EC
EDGY01
combination! (The square format is just fine).
Dan Lindsay
Santa Barbara
Tony Parkinson
news:1qarntcjasebhk732...@4ax.com...
>
> Shutterbug Magazine, a well respected photograp
>
> hic magazine
>
Ah, a Photo Hick magazine !! That explains a lot !!
8^)
Jack A. Zucker
bread and butter of their business.
--
web: http://w3.gwis.com/~jaz
"SHADETREE©" <shad...@priest.tc> wrote in message
news:1qarntcjasebhk732...@4ax.com...
>
>
> Shutterbug Magazine, a well respected photograp
>
JR
<j...@gwis.com> wrote:
> What else are they going to say. Film based camera and accessory ads are the
> bread and butter of their business.
>
> --
Well I decided to look through the August 2001 issue and I was surprised
that there were more adds for Digital cameras than 35mm cameras. Sigma
and Canon were the only film ads. All others were dig. cameras, lenses,
medium format, and lighting. So it looks as if they were going against
their advertising dollars.
JR
Edward Craft
> .and those who come up with opinions without facts rule this
> newsgroup...right Edward??
You don't seem to understand the difference between facts and opinions. That
there is a reciprocal relationship between shutter speed and aperture is a
fact. You won't see it debated here. Opinions are debated here. Opinions
worth taking note of and at least considering - whether one eventually
agrees with them or not - are based on experience coupled with thought. Your
opinions are based solely on what you read. As a result, they are not your
opinions. They are the opinions of the writer you have read. That they are
published does not make them facts. It makes them published opinions. Your
uncritical acceptance of them is caused by and reveals your lack of
independent experience. When you post them you are not so much expressing an
opinion as simply passing down the line someone else's. In effect, you are
merely gossiping.
You get no penalty for lacking experience because you are obviously quite
young. But I will repeat the advice I gave you before. Stretch yourself.
Prevail on whoever around you has good equipment (film and digital, input
and output) to let you borrow or use it for a while. Experiment with it.
Carefully examine the results and think about them. Form your own
conclusions. Then we can talk.
EC
Edward Craft
> Once again your opinion is wrong. I am a 43 year old man that has an
> IQ quite above average. I am quite well read, and have been around
> both film and digital. I don't own a digital camera because it has
> not reached the quality I can obtain with like equipment and a
> very good scanner. I have surrounded myself with pro photographers
> and equipment experts...mainly those that not only sell, but use
> digital and film. Their "opinions" based on the use of every kind
> of digital and film units have convinced me I do not want a digital
> camera yet. My main source is NOT a commissioned salesperson.
> I surround myself with these people because I can learn from those
> that have gone before me...it is a practice going back thousands
> of years...the teacher teaches his students...the expert his intern..
> the apprentice is taught by the master.
I am quite literally ROFLMAO. You're too much. Perhaps your next post should
be titled "Why You Don't Need a Camera To Learn About Photography (Just Read
Magazines!)" Add in a "sez" and a "rules" and you're there, all 43 going on
16 (no offense to the teenagers in the group). Alternatively, try "Wanna
Learn Photography? Don't Take Pictures! Surround Yourself With Pro
Photographers and Equipment Experts!" (Might there be a cash register in
that grouping, by chance?) Now we click ahead to see if anyone has something
useful and informative to say today. Any actual shooters out there? Bound to
be...
C.L.Zeni
>
> Shadetree posted (among other things):
> >In talking about the DCS 760...a 6 megapixel camera they [Shutterbug] say:
> >
> >" Is this camera a replacement for a film camera? Id say yes, IF
> >(again my emphasis) you do not plan to produce images bigger than
> >11 x 14..".
>
> I don't know if it's just me, but if I intended to produce an image bigger than
> 11x14, not only wouldn't I choose digital, I wouldn't choose 35mm. I'd enlarge
> a 35mm Reala negative TO 11x14, but no further -- and no other. I'd choose
> medium format.
>
> Horses for courses, people. Horses for courses.
That's like taking the digital horse and making it run backwards...
Buddy last night was asking me which digicam he oughta buy, what did I
think of the Nikon 990 etc...I told I wouldn't have one of the darn
things. He gave me a blank look...
--
Craig Zeni - REPLY TO -->> clzeni at mindspring dot com
http://www.trainweb.org/zeniphotos/zenihome.html
http://www.mindspring.com/~clzeni/index.html
379 pounds of Samoan dynamite.
LEICALUST
HA HA HA HEE HEE WAAAHHHH HA HA HA HA....... AW stop it, shadetree, you're
killing me with these jokes. (At least I hope it's a joke-- is there really
anyone out there stupid enough to cite Shitterbug as an authoritative source?)
