theoretical question

The only way to truly answer that question will be to know the resolution film / slide is capable on its own, before claiming an arbitrary number for it -- probably wrong -- and then state it can't go higher, and then see if it lower then DSLR (bet it won't be, if it's a real value not a guess.

We go to the printer now with a film / slide shot, it all goes to digital immediately, and there you've lost any ability to contest it once you remove the variable -- unless you can push each one to the limit of its resolution under different parameters, you've lost a way to decide or test one..

But besides that - I can't imagine Canon building a lens like these and design only for DSLR -- they must have either in the back of the design draw or the front of the design drawer, the idea that these lenses will work remarkably well in Film cameras and slides FIRST ad FOREMOST, and certainly BETTER than Digital.

I'm not convinced digital sensors are yet capable of producing prints both as good technically and as sound as art as a thing to stimulate our palate as artists ... If we could fine unbiased evaluators in a blind study -- we'd find film / slides the winner over digital captures every time ... thru same camera and lens combination. We have a long way to go with D images -- we need LS, PSE, and a fist full of others to :fix our lack of perfection: in our tried and true media ... And, to me, that proves the lens is far more technically advanced than the sensor ... and the sensor can improve significantly before a lens gets overshadowed by sensor quality or ability.

There is no way to control color reproduction out of a D shot, without PP ... and, there is a slide that will derive perfect color without PP ... all thing being equal on the set up. IMO

I don't get really what you mean by designing for digital or for analog. They design for projecting the optimum image on a plane. Whether that plane is film or a sensor I don't see how you would design a lens to be for or against one or the other.

I also don't see how one can compare the technical advancement of a lens compared to a sensor. It's like comparing the advancement of tires to engines.

I do agree about some of the benefits of film. I still use it from time to time - particularly when I'm working high-key. But digital has it's own advantages as well which some people take advantage of to produce work that would be next to impossible in a pure analog environment.

And while we may need post processing to "fix our lack of perfection" that really is no different than the need for developing processes, enlargers, dodging, burning, etc in the darkroom. And the K-14 process wasn't exactly a perfect non-post processing procedure. Scanning it often created a color cast that required color profiles to deal with it.

Not really an issue for the longer focal lengths, but many of the sorter focal length lenses especially those specifically designed for the approx 22×15mm sensors do incorporate features to optimise them for the needs of digital sensors. Unlike film, digital sensors for example need the light path to be very near perpendicular all the way out to the corners. This can lead to some significant vignetting on digital when the lens design is not optimised. Of course with digital it is much easier to correct this deficency. Generally though lenses are designed with a range of parameters taken into account. Resolution is only one of those. As well as resolution and contrast things like barrel/pincusion distortion, chromatic aberation and astigmatic distortion has to be dealt with, leading to various design comprimises being made. Still there does seem to be improvements to lens designs improving overall quality.

When it comes to sensors the maximum resolution of digital ones is defined by the Nyquist Shannon Sampling Theorm and the sensel pitch of the sensor. Although as I have said the use of the Bayer CFA complicates things slightly. Measuring the resolution possible on an analogue sensor is more difficult as it needs specialist equipment. Again though resolution is not everything when it comes to the design of sensors, analogue or digital. Personally I think the only major advantage film has over digital now is dynamic range, and only when using negative film, monochrome or colour. I still beleive Transparancy film has about the same resolution as a Canon 300D/10D or 5D classic. The DR would also be about the same. Although not being able to process Kodachrome I did process a lot of different types of E6 film, as well as printing Ciba-Chromes from it. Different E6 films had/have different colour renditions, and it is also necessary to keep the processing conditions constant to achive consistent results. Not only that but differences in exposure also have a big effect on the colour/saturation of the resulting slide.

Add to that the work needed to make a good Ciba-Chrome print in the darkroom, which is not a trivial matter. It is IMO actually much easier to produce better results using digital tools and my 300D rather than working in the analogue darkroom with 35mm film. Now if you want to go to a larger format then yes film can become superior to digital, but even then a mixed analogue/digital workflow system seems to be optimum. I think very few are still working in the analogue domain after the transparancy/neg has been developed.

Alan

BigA1007 -- yes, to much of what you say here ... but --

Quote: "I think very few are still working in the analogue domain after the transparancy/neg has been developed."

That's probably true, but not because if quality, it's more because of ease and efficiency. I'd still come down on the side of 'slides' as the truest reproduction medium in the industry if a developer has the equipment and will spend the time with it. Most don't. Most (scan) transfer to digital because of it's efficiency more so than it's effectiveness. JMO ...

With DSLR, much of what you get is how you set up the camera and the idiosyncrasies of each camera model ... where with transparencies, it is what it is on the capture. Generally - of course, individual skills in the field play a part as well as in the darkroom.

monkey44 wrote in post #16889099
With DSLR, much of what you get is how you set up the camera and the idiosyncrasies of each camera model ... where with transparencies, it is what it is on the capture. Generally - of course, individual skills in the field play a part as well as in the darkroom.

?? How you setup the camera certainly had an effect on transparencies. Care to elaborate?

ALso, each model does have its idiosyncrasies, but so did each film. And those films improved over time just like sensors now. Velvia, provia, fortia, astia, sensia were just the fujichrome line. Ektachrome had at least 6 different processes over the years (E-6 being the 6th).

I get it. Iike film too. But there was nothing perfect or pure about it.

kfreels wrote in post #16889803
?? How you setup the camera certainly had an effect on transparencies. Care to elaborate?

ALso, each model does have its idiosyncrasies, but so did each film. And those films improved over time just like sensors now. Velvia, provia, fortia, astia, sensia were just the fujichrome line. Ektachrome had at least 6 different processes over the years (E-6 being the 6th).

I get it. Iike film too. But there was nothing perfect or pure about it.

Elaborate... No, not really - we would / could get into all the 'tech' aspects of each camera and how different (however minor) each one processes D captures. My main point only that you get more consistent truth in color and detail on a transparency than you do in D captures.

In D you can get more distortions, overlap, OOF, etc. due to processor malfunction (talking mfgr inconsistency here - electronic settings) than in transparencies. Could be simply "my opinion" too ... The transparency won't "lie" to you, whereas a D camera might and often does, even if on a minor and almost irrelevant level.

I doubt you'll get too many photographers to admit s/he shoots D because it gives 'better images', but more because of the efficiency and cost effectiveness. I know it's true with me.

It was a hard sell (with me at least) at first, but the cost of film and processing vs D costs (after you buy camera) is a no brainer, and you can 'see image' right away too. Specifically even more apparent (that efficiency, and even more so now with WIFI) in sports journalism. And in sports probably more so than any other journalism area.

But even now, with the tech improvements, the differences become pretty minor. Still, the above comment is probably simply my personal opinion (still) than anything I've actually 'tested' in the field ...

I feel that I have the kit necessary to take good pictures. Now as to technique - back in the day when I was doing dance/theatre photigraphy, I believe that I developed good technique for that type of photography. All the rest - not so much. Now that I'm retired I'm trying to develop new technique with mixed results. I don't take portraits except of dogs and I don't take anything indoors. "Finding the shot," especially in landscapes, is my biggest problem but I'm working on it, trying to improve. Oh well, I'm only 83, hopefully have a few more years to perfect it. <g>