Re: Olympus D10 & Canon Eos D3 (I need help)

[Allan Eddy <fujieial@erols.com>]

Thank you! I often forget when I post to these sites that only a few of the
digital vs conventional pundits have spent the time with real film, cameras,
lenses and such to
really understand how far things have come but still aren't there yet. I have
seen images from the Foveon 16 million CMOS in a Hasselblad (no price yet) and
these approach 35mm at "wall-size" prints but there are issues beyond resolution
(noise, etc) that still need work. It is still exciting to see how fast things
are progressing. I remember when it took over half an hour to make a color print
and "reversal" film (transparencies) had to be exposed to light during developing
to make them positive.

"Daniel L. Taylor" wrote:

> >> I find it interesting that even the highest resolution
> >> "megapixel" CCD or CMOS still don't come close to the once "inferior" 35mm
> >> format.
> >
> > I'd say that Kodak's 660 series cameras easily compete (and probably exceed)
> > good 35mm film.  Many would argue that good lower res versions like the
> > Nikon D1 are at least comparable.
>
> I did a lot of research and photo comparisons prior to investing in SLR
> equipment earlier this year. I would have to agree with the first post. I
> haven't seen anything to convince me that small format CCD's are even close
> to 35mm film in terms of resolution or tonal range.
>
> 35mm film frames can hold >20 megapixels (tripod shot) by conservative
> estimates. I've seen one convincing test that indicated an upper limit of
> around 48 megapixels. By contrast, small format CCD's capture 3-4, and
> that's after interpolation to fill in missing color data.
>
> Few digicam shots strike me as having really vibrant and smooth color prior
> to touch ups. Probably because so many older digicams have 8-bit CCD
> elements. Newer ones are better, but I still get the impression that they're
> not capturing the full range that can be captured by film and slide
> scanners.
>
> It's not that digital is bad. I've seen some beautiful digital shots from
> the latest cameras. But beautiful and superior are two different things.
>
> Of course I'm ignoring the question of when images are "good enough". Many
> have decided current digitals are, and that's fine. Personally, I would like
> to see true 6 megapixel color images (i.e. 18-24 megasensor CCD) in a 35mm
> format so that existing lenses have the same focal lengths and DoF. That's
> going to take a while.
>
> I do agree that lens quality is ALWAYS important. The ability of even cheap
> lenses to resolve detail may exceed CCD's at the moment. But color, flare,
> distortion...these qualities of a lens will show up even in a 1 megapixel
> print.
>
> Daniel L. Taylor
> Owner, Taylor Design
> Macintosh and PC consulting and software.
> Web: http://www.taylor-design.com/
> E-mail: support@taylor-design.com
>
> -
> Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
> subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.

-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.