When does the IQ of digital beat film? How many megapixels do you need to print bigger than you could with a film camera? Could a 30D print larger or less than film before one of the two start losing IQ? Am I making sense?
crazyskillz07 "invisible to everyone"  2,874 posts Joined Aug 2007 Location: Long Island, New York More info | May 04, 2008 21:38 | #1 When does the IQ of digital beat film? How many megapixels do you need to print bigger than you could with a film camera? Could a 30D print larger or less than film before one of the two start losing IQ? Am I making sense? -Turk- Blog
LOG IN TO REPLY |
May 04, 2008 21:47 | #2 I believe they say somewhere between 25-30MP to equal film. 5D Mk IV | 24-105L | 85 1.8 | 70-200L 2.8 IS MkII | 100-400L MkII
LOG IN TO REPLY |
DocFrankenstein Cream of the Crop  12,324 posts Likes: 13 Joined Apr 2004 Location: where the buffalo roam More info | May 04, 2008 21:47 | #3 What film? There are published resolution data of different emulsions for different films, usually in lines per mm. Once you find that, you have a rough idea. National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
DDWD10 Goldmember  1,676 posts Joined Mar 2008 Location: College Station, TX More info | May 04, 2008 22:17 | #4 In terms of very high ISO shooting, the general consensus is that modern DSLRs outperform film. At lower ISOs, however, digital is no match for the sheer detail of film (at least for now). 30D | X-Pro1 | X10 | Q
LOG IN TO REPLY |
monokrome Goldmember  1,185 posts Joined Jan 2008 Location: NoVa More info | May 04, 2008 22:20 | #5 When you shoot B&W.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Rankinia Senior Member 449 posts Joined Mar 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia More info | May 04, 2008 22:21 | #6 I was shooting typical kodak film, in particular ISO 400. My 30d kills it with enlargements. The grain of the film on enlargements I didnt like. 1ds, 30d, 17-40/4 180/3.5, mt-24, 580ex2
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Grentz Goldmember  2,874 posts Joined Apr 2007 Location: Midwest, USA More info | May 04, 2008 22:33 | #7 I dont know how accurate is, but the first graph on this page is interesting a long with the rest of the info: Search.TechIslands.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
BigBlueDodge Goldmember  3,726 posts Joined May 2005 Location: Lonestar State More info | May 04, 2008 22:57 | #8 Honestly, I don't think anyone knows. I've heard so many estimates that range from 8mp to 50+MP for digital to match the IQ of film. This seems to be a subjective comparison at best, because no two people compare on the same metric. For example, some will compare on resolution, other compare on ISO performance, others compare on dynamic range, etc. There may be areas where digital may beat film, but I have yet to hear one major source come out and say unilaterally that the current crop of DSLR are better than their film counterparts. David (aka BigBlueDodge)
LOG IN TO REPLY |
cdifoto Don't get pissy with me  34,092 posts Likes: 48 Joined Dec 2005 More info | May 04, 2008 22:59 | #9 When? Oh I'd say about 2004. Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here
LOG IN TO REPLY |
cdifoto Don't get pissy with me 34,092 posts Likes: 48 Joined Dec 2005 More info | May 04, 2008 23:00 | #10 DDWD10 wrote in post #5461555  In terms of very high ISO shooting, the general consensus is that modern DSLRs outperform film. At lower ISOs, however, digital is no match for the sheer detail of film (at least for now). I wonder how many of today's P&S buyers would agree  My P&S can resolve the dingleberries on a gnat's ass. Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here
LOG IN TO REPLY |
numbersix fully entitled to be jealous  8,964 posts Likes: 109 Joined May 2007 Location: SF Bay Area More info | May 04, 2008 23:05 | #11 cdifoto wrote in post #5461774 When? Oh I'd say about 2004. Damn! Beat me to it again! "Be seeing you."
LOG IN TO REPLY |
cosworth I'm comfortable with my masculinity  10,939 posts Likes: 21 Joined Jul 2005 Location: Duncan, BC, Canada More info | May 04, 2008 23:08 | #12 You beat 35mm film once you buy a 1Ds Mk.I. (2003) Since it comes damn close to medium format. people will always try to stop you doing the right thing if it is unconventional
LOG IN TO REPLY |
RoyWebber Goldmember 3,187 posts Likes: 7 Joined Nov 2006 Location: Corralejo, Fuerteventura....Canary Islands Spain More info | May 04, 2008 23:12 | #13 LOL Canon 7D, 40D,100-400 IS L, EFS 15-85 IS, EFS 10-22-With Faulty USM, 055XPROB+488RC2, 430 & 580 II Flash, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8-
LOG IN TO REPLY |
cosworth I'm comfortable with my masculinity 10,939 posts Likes: 21 Joined Jul 2005 Location: Duncan, BC, Canada More info | May 04, 2008 23:19 | #14 DDWD10 wrote in post #5461555 ... digital is no match for the sheer detail of film (at least for now). I have software that kills that thought. Panoramas and composites are dead easy with digital. Film, not so much. people will always try to stop you doing the right thing if it is unconventional
LOG IN TO REPLY |
apersson850 Obviously it's a good thing  More info | Somewhere in the 10-12 megapixel range digital passed the resolution film is capable of, in the 35 mm format. Anders
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such! 2719 guests, 157 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
