11 megs is better than film!

[Dans_D60]

Not a scientific experiment for sure. Today I was shooting the 1Ds on location where we will be doing a wedding in a few weeks. I do this to prep myself for best locations and find any background distractions before the day of the shoot. Of course, cannot perform this task every time but if the location is close to my home, I try and make it at least a few weeks prior to the event.

Anyway, I was looking over my images today and thought I spotted those nasty dust specs. These little black spots were just under the bridge. So I zoomed in and to my amazement those little black specs are happy little ducks swimming in the pond.

In my film days there simply is no why I could have enlarged this much from a 35mm neg and get the unbelievable resolution and precision. What a great camera!

SUSPECTED DUST SPECS LOCATED JUST UNDER THE BRIDGE - LOOK VERY CLOSE -

http://www.pettusphoto.com/1ds/1.jpg


NOT DUST SPECS – BUT “DUCK SPECS”

http://www.pettusphoto.com/1ds/2.jpg

[Belmondo]

It's right about now you can expect some dweeb to jump in and tell you that he gets much better detail with his 8X10 view camera shooting ASA25 film. Just ignore him.

:roll:

Thos

[GenEOS]

Wow. That's amazing, I think those are spoon bills !!!

[samdring]

Cute Church!

[CyberDyneSystems]

It's right about now you can expect some dweeb to jump in and tell you that he gets much better detail with his 8X10 view camera shooting ASA25 film. Just ignore him.

:roll:

Thos

"Thos",. I thought that guy pissed me off! You just wont let this go! :wink:

ROFL

I think it was Popular photogrphy that did the article,. can't recall,. but in there review of the 1Ds they compared what turns out to be a remarkably similar image to Dan's (it was a grain silo they zoomed in on though) using both a 1Ds and a 1V with some type of ASA100 pro film.

The 1Ds revealed more details in the extreme blow up than the 35mm film did!!!!!!!! :shock: :shock:

[MediaMagic]

I get much better results by using my 8X10 view camera shooting ASA25 film. Of course, I'd have shot the ducks from the edge of the pond.. but that's just me. Nothing like pictures of ducks with gunshot wounds floating in a pond on an 8x10 view camera.

I think i'm probably glad I missed that particular discussion.


Very impressive Dan. I've been wanting to get my hands on one of those to mess with and maybe escape across the border with it.

[Cadenza]

11 MP (4064 x 2704) means that it resolves
about 112 pixels per milimeter of sensor, or
12500 pixels per square milimiter. Does any
one know if ISO 100 film can resolve 12500
particles of grain in a square milimiter of film?

Still, lest we are indeed talking about the
tedious megapixel race, I bet at least 95%
of the people are better photographers using
digital, simply because the instant feedback
encourages experimentation and better
discerniment no mater how many pixels
are involved. And it's more ecological too,
no more dangerous chemicals poured down
the drain in makeshift darkrooms.

[theoldmoose]

And it's more ecological too,
no more dangerous chemicals poured down
the drain in makeshift darkrooms.

Yeah, just acres of landfills filled with empty inkjet cartridges and failed 'test' prints. :twisted:

[theoldmoose]

To add fuel to the fire, check this little jewel out:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/paris-rebel.shtml

It's a passionate piece from Alain Briot (well-known fine art photographer), discovering the joy of knocking around Paris with a Digital Rebel. He dares to compare captures from the DR with medium and large format film, and expresses the opinion that 35mm film is done for, and maybe medium format, as well.

[simonknight]

11 MP (4064 x 2704) means that it resolves
about 112 pixels per milimeter of sensor, or
12500 pixels per square milimiter. Does any
one know if ISO 100 film can resolve 12500
particles of grain in a square milimiter of film?

Still, lest we are indeed talking about the
tedious megapixel race, I bet at least 95%
of the people are better photographers using
digital, simply because the instant feedback
encourages experimentation and better
discerniment no mater how many pixels
are involved. And it's more ecological too,
no more dangerous chemicals poured down
the drain in makeshift darkrooms.

Provia 100F resolves between 60 and 140 lines per mm. That equates to 120 to 280 pixels. My experience is that under ideal conditions (high quality lens, ideal F stop / minimum defraction) such very fine grain films can show detail that requires scanning at no less than 4000 dpi or 157 pixels per mm or about 80 line pairs per mm - consistent with the MTF performance of good lenses.

The other thing to understand is that 11mp refers to the resolution for luminosity only. Color detail is interpolated from RGBG to provide a full 11million RGB pixels and I definitely notice that color rendition is generally better than digital if I shoot velvia or provia.

As soon as you start using medium or large format, the extra film area provides a huge amount of extra information allowing much greater enlargement.

In practical terms however I think most people are going to get as good or better results with a DSLR just based on the ease of use / feedback and the greater exposure lattitude compared to reversal films. When we get to 20+mp I don't think there will be much argument that digital will equal or beat 35mm film from a measurement point of view. I think I'll still shoot velvia some of the time because I like the feel of the images it produces.

[CyberDyneSystems]

To add fuel to the fire, check this little jewel out:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/paris-rebel.shtml

It's a passionate piece from Alain Briot (well-known fine art photographer), discovering the joy of knocking around Paris with a Digital Rebel. He dares to compare captures from the DR with medium and large format film, and expresses the opinion that 35mm film is done for, and maybe medium format, as well.

In the long haul,. he's right.

I happen to be aquainted with a gentleman who happens to be the foremeost offset printer designer in the world,.

He is also a passionate B&W large format photographer.

Or,. was.... :roll:

I had not spoken with him for some years,. and had no idea at what stage of "The state of the art" he had currently jumped too.. but he was allways ahead of the curve..

So when I saw him this november.. (at my dear departed Granmothers Funeral no les :( ) I asked him if he had gone digital "yet"?

His reply..?

Well,. I should have known.

"Oh yes,.. I've been using this little Canon for some time.. I think it is the best camera I have used.. "

Thrilled that he too had chosen Canon,. I was suprised it could be a digicam.. so I started to brag about my 10D ..

..only to find out that his "little Canon",. is none other than the 1Ds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyway,. the point is,. if Richard Benson, Dean of the Yale Art School, thinks the 1Ds is good enough,. we need to sit up and take notice.

[Ballen Photo]

Not a scientific experiment for sure. In my film days there simply is no why I could have enlarged this much from a 35mm neg and get the unbelievable resolution and precision. What a great camera!

SUSPECTED DUST SPECS LOCATED JUST UNDER THE BRIDGE - LOOK VERY CLOSE -


Dan, Great shot!
You dont have to convince me. I was playing with my 10D right after I got it, and decided to do a crop test.
Lens used was an older 28-105(Not the plasticky one) and I didn't use Raw either, but here are the results;
http://www.fototime.com/F8ADD973DCD0D6B/standard.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/4B4746F19B03D23/standard.jpg
Getting these results with only 6.3 MP makes me painfully aware of what you can do with 11. Wanna trade? :D
..........Bruce