How many megapixcels equivalent to 35 mm in quality

How many megapixels does a digital camera need to produce an 8" by
10" print equivalent in quality to what one would get from a 35 mm camera
(or for that matter a larger format) shooting a top of the run film, such
as a major brand 100-125 ASA color (or black and white) film.

The bottom line, if I replace a film camera with a digital, and want the
same quality enlargements, am I talking about the current models now
available (costing perhaps $500 to a bit over $1000), typically with
roughly 10 MP, or am I talking about something not designed for other than
professional use such as the $8000 Canon with 21 mp, or perhpas something
yet to be invented.

Aaron Kuperman

On May 29, 9:51*am, a...@loc.gov (Aaron Kuperman) wrote:
> How many megapixels does a digital camera need to produce an 8" by
> 10" print equivalent in quality to what one would get from a 35 mm camera
> (or for that matter a larger format) shooting a top of the run film, such
> as a major brand 100-125 ASA color (or black and white) film.
>
> The bottom line, if I replace a film camera with a digital, and want the
> same quality enlargements, am I talking about the current models now
> available (costing perhaps $500 to a bit over $1000), typically with
> roughly 10 MP, or am I talking about something not designed for other than
> professional use such as the $8000 Canon with 21 mp, or perhpas something
> yet to be invented.

Whats film I think it dissapeared along time ago. I think my 4 yr old
5mp sony does as well as my old canon A1 with a 1000$ lens and
Kodachrome 25. A new dslr and good lens kills 35mm film, Ive heard the
Canon with full frame sensor equals medium format quality. For $150 an
old Fuji F30-31 would outdo 35mm by a large margin and its small. Most
P&S probably out do film now in sharpness, but a Dslr has the best
quality. If you have 1000.00 check out the new Canon rebel 450 at
www.dpreview.com If you want real portable there are alot of cheap
P&S that do well. But Film has a dynamic range that probably still is
hard to reach compared to Kodachrome and maybe some films.

ransley

On Thu, 29 May 2008 14:51:29 +0000, Aaron Kuperman wrote:

> How many megapixels does a digital camera need to produce an 8" by 10"
> print equivalent in quality to what one would get from a 35 mm camera
> (or for that matter a larger format) shooting a top of the run film,
> such as a major brand 100-125 ASA color (or black and white) film.

If your criteria is printing an 8x10 - about 2mp suffices, IMHO. If you're
actually querying about matching 35mm you'll get a bunch of answers, most
of which will probably range from around 8mp to 20mp.

>
> The bottom line, if I replace a film camera with a digital, and want the
> same quality enlargements, am I talking about the current models now
> available (costing perhaps $500 to a bit over $1000), typically with
> roughly 10 MP, or am I talking about something not designed for other
> than professional use such as the $8000 Canon with 21 mp, or perhpas
> something yet to be invented.

ray

On May 29, 11:17*am, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 14:51:29 +0000, Aaron Kuperman wrote:
> > How many megapixels does a digital camera need to produce an 8" by 10"
> > print equivalent in quality to what one would get from a 35 mm camera
> > (or for that matter a larger format) shooting a top of the run film,
> > such as a major brand 100-125 ASA color (or black and white) film.
>
> If your criteria is printing an 8x10 - about 2mp suffices, IMHO. If you're
> actually querying about matching 35mm you'll get a bunch of answers, most
> of which will probably range from around 8mp to 20mp.
>
>
>
>
>
> > The bottom line, if I replace a film camera with a digital, and want the
> > same quality enlargements, am I talking about the current models now
> > available (costing perhaps $500 to a bit over $1000), typically with
> > roughly 10 MP, or am I talking about something not designed for other
> > than professional use such as the $8000 Canon with 21 mp, or perhpas
> > something yet to be invented.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Years ago I saw a maybe 12x18 blow up done with a Nikon 3mp dslr, I
was amazed at what I saw. Id rather have 8mp of a quality sensor than
12 on most P&S, the old fuji F30 was better than the new replacement
f50?

ransley

On 29 May 2008 14:51:29 GMT, (Aaron Kuperman) wrote:

>How many megapixels does a digital camera need to produce an 8" by
>10" print equivalent in quality to what one would get from a 35 mm camera
>(or for that matter a larger format) shooting a top of the run film, such
>as a major brand 100-125 ASA color (or black and white) film.
>
>The bottom line, if I replace a film camera with a digital, and want the
>same quality enlargements, am I talking about the current models now
>available (costing perhaps $500 to a bit over $1000), typically with
>roughly 10 MP, or am I talking about something not designed for other than
>professional use such as the $8000 Canon with 21 mp, or perhpas something
>yet to be invented.

There is a lot of good information comparing the relative quality of
digital vs. film (not just megapixels) here:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html

Steve

Steve

G Paleologopoulos wrote:
> "Joseph Meehan" <> wrote
> news:483f1311$0$30162$...
>>
>> You are trying to compare apples and orange. The answers you are
>> going to get will mostly be all good and accurate answers, they will
>> still be opinions. Mostly good opinions.
>>
>> Quick and dirty, I would put it about about 8-10 MP.
>>
>> "Aaron Kuperman" <> wrote in message
>> news:g1mfth$1p466$...
>>> How many megapixels does a digital camera need to produce an 8" by
>>> 10" print equivalent in quality to what one would get from a 35 mm
>>> camera
>
>
>
> Since when have megapixels been equated to quality???

Since marketing guru's needed just one number to throw at people...

So why not add your view, then?

> My undertanding was that dynamic range
Good (ie large) digital sensors have a dynamic range that is comparable
to the best print film (about 9-10 stops) but the 'heel and toe'
behaviour is different, so it is difficult to directly compare and some
folk still maintain that print film has the edge. (However, ask those
folk to *show* how they get more than 9 stops out of a negative, and
things go quiet).

The better large sensors and full-frames, imo, definitely offer better
usable dynamic range. And digital processing techniques like HDR allow
much more convenient manipulation of dynamic range, depending on your
subject matter.

The fact that the OP didn't mention what he shot or what films he used,
tends to suggest that this might not be a very serious enquiry.

> color accuracy
Digitals are more accurate and repeatable, but you will hear those who
refer to the plastic look.. Which is more about low noise and lack of
grain, I think, or perhaps that they have only seen web-sized images.

However, if you like the very distinctive look (aka 'inaccuracy' (O of
some films, eg Velvia, Reala, Kodachrome, NPS/NPH, etc, you may find it
hard to emulate those...


> absence of noise
Noise in digitals looks quite different to grain in film. Most small
sensor cameras have significant issues at anything over 200 ISO
equivalent (just like film..) but larger sensors (ie those in DSLRs) run
rings around high-speed film.

As to the original question, here's my opinion, assuming a reasonable
sized sensor...

Normal 100-200 print film - 6-8 Mp
Pro quality 100-160 print film - 8-12 Mp
Slide film* (Velvia, Kchrome) - 12-24 Mp

* - plus a good lens, tripod and lots of light.. (O:

Mark Thomas

There is a highly technical web site by a guy whose name is Norman Koren (I
think correct spelling) re this question - If I remember correctly his
conclusion is around 8Mp to equal 35 mm film. You should be able to google
this article but it is heavy going. the reason the Mp is so low is digital
sharpening (which seems to challenge many of those those on thiese groups).

Of course other posters have pointed out that this is not the only
consideration. A very important factor is the size of the sensor with
DSLR's much larger than most point and shoot cameras and therefore DSLR's
will have markedly less noise.

Anyway look up Norman Koren
Malcolm

Malcolm Smith

Try this link

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html


Malcolm

Malcolm Smith

Malcolm Smith wrote:
> Try this link
>
> http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html
>
>
> Malcolm

Thanks for that pointer - useful information but a little stale.

Cheers,
David

David J Taylor

I would be intereested in you pointing me to something less stale!
Presumably to be stale you must have seen soemthing more recent to make
Nornam Koran article stale.

Malcolm

Malcolm Smith