Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Digital vs. 35mm comparison.

Reply
Thread Tools

Digital vs. 35mm comparison.

 
 
Raphael Bustin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-29-2006
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:26:17 -0700, fishfry
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed). com>,
> http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
>> I have a very old Canon Ftb SLR with a 50mm 1.4 lens. It takes pictures
>> at a certain quality level.
>> Digital cameras have lesser or greater quality of picture based in part
>> on the number of meagpixels used for each frame.
>>
>> My question is this: What megapixel level do I need for equivalent
>> precision in a digital camera to replace my film camera?
>>

>
>Your FTb from 1975 will blow the socks off any digital you can buy for
>any amount of money.


This statement ceased being true about three or four years ago.

>Such is the current state of the art. Plus, you can
>go to photo swap meets and load up on great FD lenses for hardly any
>money.


Not even film cameras last forever. I've got a small collection
of dead Nikon SLRs.



rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
teflon nonstick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-29-2006
On 29/6/06 09:36, in article e803f1$pcg$(E-Mail Removed), "Randy
Berbaum" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> There is no hard and fast, final definate winner in all categories.


He didn't ask for a "winner in all categories", yet everyone's turning
themselves inside out trying to give one - and failing.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
teflon nonstick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-29-2006
On 29/6/06 08:20, in article
FaLog.93075$(E-Mail Removed), "David J Taylor"
<(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

> So, if you want a simple answer /any/ of today's quality cameras are the
> equal of 35mm. It's just that some are more equal than others!
>
> David


Which is a good answer, without all the baggage.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-29-2006
Raphael Bustin wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:26:17 -0700, fishfry
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >In article <(E-Mail Removed). com>,
> > (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> >
> >> I have a very old Canon Ftb SLR with a 50mm 1.4 lens. It takes pictures
> >> at a certain quality level.
> >> Digital cameras have lesser or greater quality of picture based in part
> >> on the number of meagpixels used for each frame.
> >>
> >> My question is this: What megapixel level do I need for equivalent
> >> precision in a digital camera to replace my film camera?
> >>

> >
> >Your FTb from 1975 will blow the socks off any digital you can buy for
> >any amount of money.

>
> This statement ceased being true about three or four years ago.
>
> >Such is the current state of the art. Plus, you can
> >go to photo swap meets and load up on great FD lenses for hardly any
> >money.

>
> Not even film cameras last forever. I've got a small collection
> of dead Nikon SLRs.
>

I have a Canon film SLR that also died. But in the case of the film
camera we did not realized it was having problems until we got the film
back from a vacation. With a digital camera at least you have a good
chance of noticing the camera is dead before taking more then a handful
of photos. Both digital SLRS are still going strong with more shutter
clicks then we ever put on any of our film cameras.

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-29-2006
On 6/29/06 6:17 AM, teflon nonstick posted the following:
> On 29/6/06 08:20, in article
> FaLog.93075$(E-Mail Removed), "David J Taylor"
> <(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
>
>> So, if you want a simple answer /any/ of today's quality cameras are the
>> equal of 35mm. It's just that some are more equal than others!
>>
>> David

>
> Which is a good answer, without all the baggage.
>


Your opinion on others' opinions is what makes this a great ng, as is
this opinion on your posts.....

--
john mcwilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
teflon nonstick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-29-2006
On 29/6/06 15:47, in article (E-Mail Removed),
"John McWilliams" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On 6/29/06 6:17 AM, teflon nonstick posted the following:
>> On 29/6/06 08:20, in article
>> FaLog.93075$(E-Mail Removed), "David J Taylor"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> So, if you want a simple answer /any/ of today's quality cameras are the
>>> equal of 35mm. It's just that some are more equal than others!
>>>
>>> David

>>
>> Which is a good answer, without all the baggage.
>>

>
> Your opinion on others' opinions is what makes this a great ng, as is
> this opinion on your posts.....


Absolutely!

 
Reply With Quote
 
Lionel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-29-2006
On 28 Jun 2006 04:49:26 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) opined:

>I have a very old Canon Ftb SLR with a 50mm 1.4 lens. It takes pictures
>at a certain quality level.
>Digital cameras have lesser or greater quality of picture based in part
>on the number of meagpixels used for each frame.
>
>My question is this: What megapixel level do I need for equivalent
>precision in a digital camera to replace my film camera?


The quick answer is that once you've gotten used to working with the
quirks of digital, rather than the quirks of film that you're
currently used to, any of the 8 megapixel (or higher) Canon SLRs
should give you better (probably much, much better) quality under
almost all circumstances.

The long answer is that it depends totally on whether you're shooting
to print, & at what size, or shooting to scan, & at what resolution,
whether you're working with a lot of light, or low light, the contrast
& grain of your favourite films, & many, many other factors.

At one end of the scale, if you mostly shoot generic colour neg film
at a 1/60th, for 4x6" prints of your family, 3MP is more than you
need. At the other end, if you were shooting landscapes with ISO 25
ultra-high resolution colour slide film, tripod mounted, with
extensive bracketing for expanded dynamic range, & wet drum-scanning
your slides, you probably wouldn't be happier with anything less than
16MP.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ernie Willson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-29-2006
Dave Martindale wrote:
> Ernie Willson <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>
>>A rather mediocre 35mm camera/film combination will resolve about 40
>>lines/mm. To put this in pixel terms means that each pixel would be
>>about 0.001 inches on a side. This being the case, a 35mm negative would
>>be about 1000 by 1500 pixels, resulting in a file about 1.5 Mb in size
>>for each color. As I see it since there are three primary colors to
>>include (red, green, blue), then the file size would be about 4.5 Mb.
>>This would be for an adequate but not superior 35mm image.

>
>
> You're losing a factor of 2 in there. Lens and film resolution is
> conventionally specified in line *pairs* per mm, and it takes at least
> two pixels to resolve a line pair. So, for a crude approximation,
> assume 40 lp/mm means 80 pixels/mm. A full 36x24 mm frame at that
> resolution is then 2880 x 1920 pixels, or about 5.5 megapixels. At 24
> bits/pixel, that's 16.6 MB/frame uncompressed.
>
> Video measures in lines/mm, and it seems that digital camera
> review sites have adopted the same terminology. But the optics and
> film world uses line *pairs* or cycles (which are roughly equivalent).
> One line is half a line pair or half a cycle.
>
>
>>An outstanding 35mm lens, with very high resolution film, at best
>>aperture can resolve nearly 120 lines/mm. Using the same logic as
>>outlined above, the equivalent digital file would be 9 times as big, or
>>about 40Mb.

>
>
>>So, as I see it, depending on the particulars, a digital image of say 5
>>to 40Mb could be equivalent to a 35mm negative.

>
>
> Now multiply all those numbers by 4 to get a more correct answer.
>
> Dave

Dave,
You are right about the line pair/mm. My bad!
Thanks
EJ in NJ
 
Reply With Quote
 
ColinD
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-30-2006


ColinD wrote:
>
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> >
> > I have a very old Canon Ftb SLR with a 50mm 1.4 lens. It takes pictures
> > at a certain quality level.
> > Digital cameras have lesser or greater quality of picture based in part
> > on the number of meagpixels used for each frame.
> >
> > My question is this: What megapixel level do I need for equivalent
> > precision in a digital camera to replace my film camera?
> >
> > John Culleton

>
> Put the card back into the camera and view the images there. The
> display should tell you how many shots there are on the card, and let
> you view them.


Bugger. Wrong thread. Meant the next one. {

> Colin D.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-30-2006
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 08:36:49 +0000 (UTC), Randy Berbaum wrote:

> For many of us here (this IS a digital photography group afterall), for
> our particular used and tastes, digital is at least satisfactory if not
> "the best in this situation". Of course if you ask in a film-centric group
> you may find a higher percentage of people with an opposing opinion.


Yes. And with the passage of time the percentage of fanatical
film-o-philes in that film group may even increase. As the group's
membership shrinks, of course.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Most 35mm format lenses can't cover 35mm full frame DSLR? einst_stein@yahoo.com Digital Photography 8 06-03-2005 11:25 PM
digital back on MF vs digital 35mm? ColdCanuck Digital Photography 6 01-14-2005 11:00 PM
Question of 35mm vs digital enlargements? Wayne Digital Photography 122 08-11-2003 11:06 AM
35mm negs to digital you suck Computer Support 9 08-08-2003 04:28 AM
Help - digital transfer of 35mm film o r b s c u r e DDJ Digital Photography 2 07-11-2003 05:14 PM



Advertisments