Exact match. Not showing close matches.
'[OT]: 35mm film vs Digital'
I thought, as this thread had been going for some time now, that this might
be interesting reading.
The site addresses this issue by doing good compares and using the
mathematical background of image-calculus.
I'll leave it up to you do decide what's better, I for one like digital in
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
|Replying to both related posts under this better heading:
> The site addresses this issue by doing good compares
> and using the mathematical background of image-calculus.
> I'll leave it up to you do decide what's better ...
That's an utterly superb site - bears closer and extended study.
Note that a summary of their conclusions on digital resolution versus film
are pretty much the same as in Lee Jones excellent post on February 28th viz
"5MP cameras haven't quite got there yet in all circumstances whereas
the newest 10MP+ models are probably better than 35mm film in most
but not all cases."
Summary is in my words but that's what I hear them saying.
I think I'm going to be pretty happy with a 5MP for my purposes.
> Get with the times russ...
> 5 Mpix has been available for ages now and 6 Mpix is available too.
I'm (fairly completely) aware of the state of the art and what's available
and what it costs.
I'm not liable to go above 5 or 6 MP for now due to both cost and
The difference between 5 or 6 MP is liable to be swamped by a particular
Note that the 5 MP Nikon 5700, Sony F717 and Minolta 7Hi all appear to use
the same sensor. No one of these cameras excels in all 3 areas showing that
how you integrate the sensor is critical and can be challenging.
> For *way* too much money, you can get 11 Mpix and the astronomers use 16+
> Mpix in their systems.
You can already buy 20+MP film backs to go on standard 35mm cameras; and
copy cameras and the like have been available in 25 to 40 MP for some years.
Prices are, as you suggest, astronomical :-)
> Manual override is available in all cameras not
> designed as compact-cameras. After all, you don't find a 35mm compact, 3x
> zoom camera with manual focus either. You need to look a bit closer at
> reality. Putting manual focus on any of the compact cameras would often
> mean letting user twist the lense. This would probably break the sheite
> rather quickly as it's not robust enough.
I'm well aware of what's available but haven't (yet) actually tried all the
major protagonists in the flesh. I hope to. Some make very sad attempts at
implementing manual control compared to what they are capable of doing. The
ability to accommodate true manual interaction with zoom and focusing or
zooming of lenses that are also motor driven has been demonstrated for well
over a decade in video cameras (based on eg my rather old Sony CCD350 video
camera) . Their fixed frame brethren seem to be lagging by a decade or so in
this regard. The Minolta Dimage 7/7i/7Hi seem to make one of the best
attempts in the focus area by giving you a focus ring at the base of the
lense which is "fly by wire" connected to an electronically controlled focus
mechanism. (IMHO) the human hand has much better control of fine position
using rotational opposition of thumb and forefinger than in slider controls
or using in/out rocker switches (as used on my present digital camera). The
Minolta also has ONLY manual zoom control which seems to offer almost no
disadvantages while eliminating a source of battery drain and improving time
to first picture (as no zoom control needed).
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2003
, 2004 only
- New search...