I was not really trying to pursuade, just to congratulate Walt on his
choice. I am really not sure what you mean by luminance range. If you
are talking about zones as used by Ansel Adams, what is the usual
opinion on slide film, 5 1/2 stops? Here is a Nikon site where what he
calls dynamic range on Nikon digital SLRs range from 6+ to 8+ stops. It
confirms my subjective experience that its exposure range is a little
wider than slide film.
http://www.bythom.com/dslrcomp.htm
I do color and have never processed it in a darkroom. You may be right.
It may be better, but that is beyond my means and dedication. Most of
us use scanners though with film and either print commercially or on
high quality inkjets. In that case, I find my D100 prints up to 13 X 19
to be markedly superior to slides scanned at 4000 dpi and printed at
the same size. Color negative film may be a different story. I don't
know. I made my own comparison for my own way of shooting. A Canon 1Ds
would be better yet. I don't think that anyone has suggested that you
could replace medium format with a 1Ds if shooting for maximum
enlargement, but several people have said that at modest enlargements
up to about 17 X 24 there is no difference in detail between a FF
digital image and film, and the digital image frequently looks better.
Super size enlargements would be a different story.
I know a lot of people take a position on either side of the issue
using all sorts of technical arguments, but even though they are
interesting your subjective response to the image is what is important.
Digital camera sales surpassed film camera sales two years ago. Many
pros including art photographers switched some time ago and not just
for convenience. You can't believe they are all fools.
Several years ago there were arguments that concluded you needed a then
unattainable 8MP to equal 35mm film with alll kinds of math to prove
it. Well you have 8MP now and the pixels themselves are of much higher
quality. Reichmann does an interesting comparison between an 8MP
digicam and the Canon EOS 1D Mark II 8 MP. Even though he argues the
other way, big pixels are better. And 11MP in the Canon and 14MP in the
Kodak. But I admit that I don't know very much. Digital images look
really good to me and I don't think there is any question that a 6MP
sensor bests a 35mm film frame and 11MP more so, but your mileage may
vary.
Winsor
Long Beach, CA
USA
On Aug 3, 2004, at 11:47 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> Sorry Winsor, but you have not persuaded me of its superiority to 35mm.
> It cannot record the same range of luminance and you cannot produce a
> reasonable print of the same size as a scanned 35mm slide, let alone
> one enlarged and processed in a darkroom. And who, of any credibility
> would suggest that it would surpass MF in quality?
>
> A colleague at work has a D60, for which he paid over £2000 sterling;
> that camera is not obsolete, but it is much less attractive to him than
> the latest Canon kit (oh, and it is pretty big).
>
> Chris
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|