Welcome to Motorhomefacts, we are a thriving motorhome community (Largest in Europe). Why Not JOIN NOW and get instant access to more of the website. It costs nothing to join and only takes a few minutes. We have 200,000 different people visiting our site monthly and this amount of motorhomers in one place guarantees a fast response to any questions you may have. We also have unique facilities not found elsewhere such as our Online Logbook, stopover tracker, Motorhome directory with Ebay type feedback and the largest repository of motorhome campsites reviews found anywhere
An impressive test, but I am not really surprised at the result. It confirms a point of view I heard recently.
Many years ago a very young man in a camera shop sold me a Nikon F4S amongst a lot of other expensive gear. He was also a committed Nikon and Fuji Velvia user and his passion was wildlife photography. A couple of months ago I bumped into him again and he said he had switched entirely to digital and found the quality "far better" than Velvia. In particular he stressed the comparative lack of grain at higher ISO equivalent sensitivities. As he is now a pro photographer, that is quite important in many wildlife situations with long lenses and failing light. To be able to shoot at ISO 400 instead of ISO 50 gives you quite an edge.
Makes me want to upgrade my D70 but I can't really justify it.
It pleased me as well. I am a pro portrait photographer and we made the switch 8/9 years ago. We were one of the first in our area and we received quite a few frowns from fellow pros. One even said it will only be good enough for budget work - wonder what he uses now!
Didn't they miss something out though - for the film to have been imported into the printing system it would have had to go through a high resolution scan. This would mean that in reality you are merely comparing a digital camera to a digital scanner.
Didn't they miss something out though - for the film to have been imported into the printing system it would have had to go through a high resolution scan. This would mean that in reality you are merely comparing a digital camera to a digital scanner.
That's absolutely correct, but thinking back to the days when I took part in monthly camera club competitions, you could see the grain in a Kodachrome 64 or Velvia 50 slide if projected to a large size. On an ISO 100+ it was quite obvious even on a screen 5 ft wide. And projection is probably the fairest test of the slide. If it were projected to 'fill an industrial wall' the grain would be very noticeable.
I remember 8 or 9 years ago when Patrick Lichfield extolled the virtues of digital. He changed in 1999. It was then that I thought...."there's something in this digital lark"....
Didn't they miss something out though - for the film to have been imported into the printing system it would have had to go through a high resolution scan. This would mean that in reality you are merely comparing a digital camera to a digital scanner.
That's absolutely correct, but thinking back to the days when I took part in monthly camera club competitions, you could see the grain in a Kodachrome 64 or Velvia 50 slide if projected to a large size. On an ISO 100+ it was quite obvious even on a screen 5 ft wide. And projection is probably the fairest test of the slide. If it were projected to 'fill an industrial wall' the grain would be very noticeable.
They didn't seem to comment on the grain, more the colour shifts. They also didn't mention the film stock. I also thought the scan looked washed out in places. If the grain was there in the first place and the scan was good enough then the grain would be in the scan.
I'd say that the conclusions were pretty worthless and to the usual standards of cheap television.
I think if you were to throw a decent Medium Format or Large Format film camera into the ring, every DSLR on the planet would take a serious spanking
But then, all you do is pull your 60 megapixel digital Hasselblad out the bag, and I guess Digital catches up again
Trouble is, a digital blad costs more than most small cars, and some very big cars! I think Medium Format, if you can master it, on film, would be a better choice for quality than any DSLR. Just a personal thought based on looking at lots of photos from both (digital scans v digital photos).
I thought it was a pretty poor test and a complete waste of money other than the entertainment value - which again in my opinion was worse than watching a print in the fixer tray.
I seem to recall back in the old days when I used wet photography that when it came to medium or large format film stock compared with 35mm and less then there wasn't really any difference in resolution. The resolution if you can call it that in an analogue medium was determine by the Silver Halide crystals and was also dependent on the developer being used. Which could be common regardless of film stock size.
Digital sensors have no resolution.
One difference I thought between Film v Digital is the Dynamic Range with Film being better. The programme lead me to believe they thought this not the case - but I wasn't paying much attention to the details - more focused on the leather
I could be wrong here because I never investigated film as much as Digital.
This is one of the most noticeable issues with Digital - now that its easier to measure things like pixel counts; resolution; signal to noise ratios etc - more people are getting hung up on the technical features rather than what the end result looks like.....and they tend to forget the piece of glass in front has an important part to play.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
All times are GMT + 1 Hour Page 1 of 2Goto page 1, 2Next
UK
