> I've been keeping my OM-1 film cameras safely stored, and a few
> years ago had them converted to silver oxide batteries. I do so not
> for nostalgic reasons but rather to have them readily available should
> the need arise for high-definition photos that would require
> resolution beyond what pedestrian digital can provide.
> High-resolution films such as Tri-Pan-X [sic] continue to
> outperform the resolution of most if not all digital formats.
I've never compared B&W silver with B&W digital, so perhaps I should keep my
nose out of this. But I have compared color.
My Olympus E-500, with a measly 8Mp, and working at half resolution, takes
photos that can be blown up to at least 12x16 without loss of sharpness or
detail. You have to poke your nose against the image to see any "loss" of
quality. Try that with silver-based materials.
Around severn years ago, one of the photo mags compared a top-line digital
camera with Fuji Velvia. Guess which won.
When the 5D (not the 5D2) was introduced, several owners opined that its image
quality approached 6x4.5. (You can find these remarks in the posted reviews.)
The 5D has a lousy 12Mp.
The confusing thing about silver vs digital is that digital is many times
better than theory predicts it "should" be. I've never seen a satisfactory
answer to this seeming paradox. Nor have I seen anyone attempt to rationally
address the question.
The belief that digital is inferior to silver is wishful thinking.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|