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

"steve.ravner@att.net" <steve.ravner@worldnet.att.net> · Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:06:01 -0400

<x-charset iso-8859-1>A real "eye opener"!

=Steve=

----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Kelsall" <bktimes@jps.net>
To: <epson-inkjet@leben.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 8:59 PM
Subject: RE: Olympus D10 & Canon Eos D3 (I need help)

> You may find this link interesting, a digital vs film comparison using the
> same zoom lens with Canon EOS 1V & D30 bodies.
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm
>
> -BK
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-epson-inkjet@leben.com
> > [mailto:owner-epson-inkjet@leben.com]On Behalf Of Allan Eddy
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 6:31 AM
> > To: epson-inkjet@leben.com
> > Subject: Re: Olympus D10 & Canon Eos D3 (I need help)
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> -
> 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.

</x-charset>