Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 18:34:06 +0000
From: bsandyman@xxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Digital Threshold Question
I keep reading hype that digital has arrived. For instance some clever person
has figured out how to do a better color sensor. (This was in a recent edition
of Discover.) The article went on and on about how it made digital as good as
film, without any mention of the other drawback, resolution.
I have always thought that digital would never equal film simply because a
molecule of photo sensitive material would always be smaller then even the
smallest CCD element.
I loosley followed a thread on this list about how at ~15 MB digital
would equal
film. The gist being (if I understood correctly, which is by no means certain)
that further resolving power on the part of the digital sensor was
wasted due to
the lack of resolving power of the optics. In other words the sensor would not
get more information, because more information would not make it thorugh the
lenses. Since the optics are the information bottleneck at this
point, then the
difference between film and digital becomes moot (as far as resolution is
concerned).
Is this right?
Can some one point me to apropriate literature so I can read up on it myself?
I am not going to give up my film gear, and very likely will get more. I just
want to know if I have good reason not too, or if I am just going to
have to be
stubborn.
Feel free to respond off list. I don't want to start a war, I just want to be
informed.
Digital is here, right now, and has been for some time. I recently
took the plunge and bought an EOS D60 to be able to work with a pro
motorsports photography group next year (that Mike V also knows).
Yes, I have gone over to the dark side. I'll tell you what, though,
that D60 is a beautiful camera, and for a "plastic" wonderbrick, it
is beautifully executed and implemented, and VERY well thought out
for real world use; I am impressed and I am a diehard Olympus guy. I
gotta hand it to Canon, they have their sh*t together; this camera is
joy to use. I *really* like it, and the image quality I get from it
is pretty extraordinary. I was shooting some beach/surf scenes at
Bodega Bay last weekend during a sunset, and shot both with my OM-2S
and the D60. The OM-2S did not get any exposures right (shot on
"Auto" ; it was pretty dark), but the D60 nailed the exposures
bang-on.
For pro journalists, for example, no one shoots film anymore in the
U.S. Just ask David Hume Kennerly. All the newspapers and most
magazines shoot strictly digital now. You can't get a roll of film
developed at Associated Press anymore. It's very tough to get photos
sold to magazines, for race tracks, or into print or on web-based
magazines or motorsports sites unless you're shooting digital. Mike
Veglia is an exception, but all the mags want digital these days, for
the most part.
-Stephen Scharf
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 21:35:14 +0100
From: jochen.schiffler@xxxxxxxxxxx (Jochen Schiffler)
Subject: [OM] OT - Awesome Digital Photography
Hi,
to add some additional ammo to the 'film vs. digital' debate I recommend a
visit to the website of 'Max Lyons'.
For quite some time now I'm planning to buy an EOS 30 film camera and never
thought of digital. After I accidently found Max' website while looking for
Can*n lens reviews my decision for the EOS 30 lost some of it's power and I
wish I could afford an additional D 60 (or G3 to start with) ;-)
Dunno whether some of you already know his website http://www.tawbaware.com/
or http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/index.html for the galleries but it's
worth a deep dive.
This guy shoots exclusively digital and besides his 'normal' pictures he
creates breathtaking panoramic images by stitching and stacking multiple
high-resolution shots together (resulting in 6-40! megapixel images). When I
saw them for the first time I was (usually I hate to say this) blown away.
You may argue about the changes color and parallax error correction tools do
to the original images but for me the results matter and Max' results are
truely awesome. In fact the blended images (one set of images for the
highlights combinded with a set for optimised shadow detail) show more
detail due to a higher dynamic range and IMHO they look more like the human
eye would see the scene.
I was intrigued by his 'Digital Scotland" gallery and this is one of my
favourites (if the link is split in two or more lines, you may have to
copy/paste both parts to the address field of your browser):
http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/cgi-bin/image.pl?showFileName=SCO_0369-SCO
_0372_Eilean_Donan_Castle_Pano.jpg&gallery=9
Besides the panoramic images Max Lyons simply takes great photographs and I
really don't care if they're digital or not.
A shame there's no digital SLR that eats Zuikos (or did I miss something
important).
Nonetheless I'll always keep my film camera(s).
'digital' regards
Jochen
I agree...his photos are amazing...I need to find out how he does
that, as I have a D60 now, too.
Maybe he'll be willing to discuss how he does that.
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 13:49:36 -0800
From: Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] Digital Threshold Question
No, I can't explain this either, but my E-10 images continue to amaze
me, even compared with those from medium format (Bronica ETRS).
I also scan my medium format negs with an Epson 2450 scanner. They
> amaze me too, although many have pointed out elsewhere that the 2450
> is no more than just adequate for the job.
<snip>
> John Gruffydd (Mold, Wales, UK)
I suspect what you are comparing is a good, though resolution
challenged digital camera, and output from an unsuitable scanner. You
might, as an experiment, have images from each printed professionally
by a good processor. Or just have an image from the Bronica scanned at
4000dpi and look at the result on your scanner compared to the best
that the E-10 can do.
Yes, Winsor, you might surprised what the E10 can do, too. Don't underestimate
what those E-series cameras are capable of doing. There is more to it
than megapixels.
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 00:24:13 +0100
From: Thomas Heide Clausen <T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] OT - Contax G2?
Never had my hands on a T2. I use a Minox Tlx as take-everywhere :)
Thomas,
Don't ever get your hands on one....you will want it....I put my
hands on one, and bought it there and then.....no regrets!
--
2001 CBR600F4i - Fantastic!
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|