How many megapixcels equivalent to 35 mm in quality

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Aaron Kuperman, May 29, 2008.

  1. 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, May 29, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Aaron Kuperman

    ransley Guest

    On May 29, 9:51 am, (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, May 29, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Aaron Kuperman

    ray Guest

    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, May 29, 2008
    #3
  4. Aaron Kuperman

    ransley Guest

    On May 29, 11:17 am, ray <> 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, May 29, 2008
    #4
  5. Aaron Kuperman

    Steve Guest

    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/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

    Steve
    Steve, May 30, 2008
    #5
  6. Aaron Kuperman

    Mark Thomas Guest

    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, May 30, 2008
    #6
  7. 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, May 30, 2008
    #7
  8. Malcolm Smith, May 30, 2008
    #8
  9. David J Taylor, May 30, 2008
    #9
  10. 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, May 30, 2008
    #10
  11. Malcolm Smith wrote:
    > 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,

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

    The top of the page indicates that the last update was September 17, 2005,
    and that most of the text was written in 2002 and 2003. Six years is a
    long time in digital photography. There are considerably more recent
    cameras and lenses than the article mentions, reflecting different takes
    on the strength of anti-aliasing filters, for example, and I suspect that
    the Foveon was seen in a more favourable light then than now. The growth
    of pixel count in small-sensor cameras has been much greater than the
    article suggests.

    More recent articles include those by Roger Clark and Emil Martinec.

    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/index.html#sensor_analysis

    http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/index.html

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, May 30, 2008
    #11
  12. I am familar with Roger Clarks work and have fount it very interesting and
    useful. I hadn't cone across Martinec but have printed out his paper and
    will read it tonight. I quoted the Norman Koran work as directly answering
    the OP's question of when digital equals film (if I have quoted correctly)
    and I havn't seen anything in Rogers work before exactly on this topic.

    I am putting together some of my ideas on sharpening which I should get on
    my web site in a few weeks and find this type of web information very useful
    (particularly Roger Clarks writing on visual acuity) and interesting.

    All the best
    Malcolm
    Malcolm Smith, May 30, 2008
    #12
  13. Aaron Kuperman

    tomm42 Guest

    On May 29, 10:51 am, (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.



    One of the interesting things about a digital image, is that they
    enlarge better than film. Where with film you may say that from a 35mm
    frame with a good enlarging lens 11x14 to 16x20 were considered max
    enlargements. I have seen many lousy 16x20 enlargements from film, not
    always the fault of film, bad lenses and bad technique also enter into
    the equation. Digital images even scanned film images enlarge better
    than traditional projection enlargement. You see 8mp digital images
    going out to acceptable 20x30 enlargements, enlarge 8 or 10mp to 16x20
    and you have a very nice image.
    It has been said here that trying to compare film to mp is like
    comparing aplles to oranges, this is very true.

    Tom
    tomm42, May 30, 2008
    #13
  14. On May 29, 9:51 am, (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.


    Depends on WHICH 35mm film, and how it is processed. The resolution
    of films varies tremendously. Since the number of "pixels" in an
    image goes as the square of the linear resolution, that is a BIG
    variation in the number of pixels.
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, May 30, 2008
    #14
  15. On Sat, 31 May 2008 00:10:23 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

    > "Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> 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

    >
    > People who have actually looked, find that 12.7MP (i.e. the 5D) looks
    > very similar to _645_ slide film, and 24x36mm is nowhere close to
    > either.
    >
    > http://www.ales.litomisky.com/projects/Analog versus Digital%

    20Shootout%20(Hasselblad,%2035mm,%20Canon%205D).htm
    >
    > http://www.shortwork.net/equip/review-1Ds-SQ-scantech/


    Point of Order: The links you site as well as all the others sited in
    this thread, and all those I've read, but not mentioned here, do NOT
    truly compare digital to film. Instead they compare digital to digitally
    scanned film, and therein lies the caveat. Any advantages film might or
    does have would be negated either partly or wholly by the scanning
    process. In reality, you are comparing a digital "original" to a copy of
    an original. Is that an equitable comparison? I think not.

    A true test of digital vs film would be direct out of the camera to
    photographic emulsion 20X prints with only overall color balance and
    density corrections permitted, and only during the printing process;
    then second 20X prints where any manner of manipulation is permitted to
    make the best possible prints.

    I have never found such a test in all my searches: The film is always
    scanned.

    Maybe, I'll do it myself. I have a friend who has a Canon 5D. Now all I
    need to do is find someone with a Canon film camera, so the same lens can
    be used. Or I could just use my 30 year old, all manual Nikons for the
    film part, but that might bias the test toward film due to the vast
    superiority of old manual Nikkors over today's plastic, loosie-goosie AF
    lenses. ;-)

    Stef
    Stefan Patric, May 30, 2008
    #15
  16. Aaron Kuperman

    Guest

    On May 30, 10:40 pm, wrote:
    > Mark Thomas wrote:
    >
    > > As to the original question, here's my opinion, assuming a reasonable
    > > sized sensor...

    >
    > > Normal 100-200 print film - 6-8 Mp

    >
    > This I believe


    Good!

    > > Pro quality 100-160 print film - 8-12 Mp

    >
    > What do you mean by this? I have always felt, and felt strongly, that
    > "pro" film was always inferior to the latest generation "drugstore" film,
    > simply because the latter was always a generation later.


    I'm referring to those films specifically for professional use, eg NPS/
    NPH/Reala and Kodak Supra, maybe even Portra. Ie, the ones at the top
    of this table...
    http://cacreeks.com/films.htm

    I admit to having not done scientifically valid direct comparisons of
    high grade scans of those films with digital images, but my impression
    of what could be done with those films from my wedding and portrait
    shooting days back before digital, and my experience since then with a
    variety of digital formats suggests that it would need a bit more than
    6-8 MP to match the enlargability. But note that I am ONLY referring
    to absolute resolution here - NOT dynamic range, etc.

    > I will admit that Ektar 25 was very special indeed, and under the
    > absolute best conditions just might beat an 8 MP digital
    > in certain ways, especially ultimate resolution limit at
    > low MTF readings.


    As, imo, would Fuji NPS/NPH and my favorite 'odd' print film, the
    remarkable Konica Impresa 50.
    I miss it almost as much as K25..

    > > Slide film* (Velvia, Kchrome) - 12-24 Mp

    >
    > This I disagree strongly. The "impression" of superiority here was always
    > the exceptionally high contrast of slide film. The down side was
    > hopelessly bad dynamic range.


    ?? But I am specifically referring to resolution only here. I
    addressed the topic of dynamic range elsewhere in that post, and of
    course you are right that most transparency film is contrasty and has
    very limited drange.

    A nailed K25/Velvia slide (with good technique) will clearly outrun an
    8Mp image in terms of detail/resolution.
    Here, the much quoted Roger Clark site indicates he puts Vevlia at
    between 10 and 16 Mp.
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

    But in many ways we are comparing apples and bananas, so your point is
    taken.
    , May 31, 2008
    #16
  17. Aaron Kuperman

    Mark Thomas Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
    >> 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

    >
    > People who have actually looked


    David, there is a rather unkind implication in that (and one I dispute,
    but who would believe anything written on usenet anyway..)

    > find that 12.7MP (i.e. the 5D) looks very
    > similar to _645_ slide film, and 24x36mm is nowhere close to either.


    Huh? I don't follow this - you refer to a 5D (which is full frame
    24x36) and 645, and then say 24x36 is "nowhere close to either"? I
    presume you mean 35mm film is nowhere close?

    Yes, the 5D is arguably a bit beyond all 35mm films, but "nowhere
    close"?? It depends on what films and under what shooting conditions,
    and this is just one full-frame camera - not exactly representative of
    all 12Mp cameras. I *didn't* nominate particular selected cameras nor
    did I or the OP specify full-frame. If you are going to do that, the
    comparisons change.

    Also, I was using ball park figures in regard to resolution only,
    because I referred to other issues like d-range and noise/grain
    elsewhere in my post (the bits you cut out). Saying it "looks very
    similar" is obviously taking all that other stuff into account.

    > http://www.ales.litomisky.com/proje...tal Shootout (Hasselblad, 35mm, Canon 5D).htm


    As above, this is a full-frame camera. Where are the samples from other
    12Mp cameras?

    > http://www.shortwork.net/equip/review-1Ds-SQ-scantech/


    And again, another full-frame. I agree, full-frames are in the league
    of medium format, but not all cameras are full-frame...

    At Roger Clark's site, he agrees that Velvia needs 10-16 Mp for a rough
    resolution equivalence, very much in line with what I posted. I defer
    to your extensive experience in these matters and am totally in
    agreement with almost everything you post, but I think moving the
    discussion so that it only includes full-frame is a bit odd!


    mt
    Mark Thomas, May 31, 2008
    #17
  18. Aaron Kuperman

    Scott W Guest

    On May 29, 4:51 am, (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.


    Oh good, a digital vs film thread, I was getting really tired of
    nothing but Bret vs D-Mac threads.

    If an 8x10 in print is as large as you are printing then there is a
    wide range of digital cameras that will give you that.

    There are lots of samples from digital cameras at review sites, you
    can print one of these and see what you think.

    For me once I got an 8MP digital I gave up on film, I could get a bit
    more detail from film, but only if the detail was very high contrast,
    prints taken with a 8MP DSLR look sharper to my eye then of the same
    scene taken with a film SLR.

    Scott
    Scott W, May 31, 2008
    #18
  19. "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote in
    message news:...
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> ?? But I am specifically referring to resolution only here. I
    >> addressed the topic of dynamic range elsewhere in that post, and of
    >> course you are right that most transparency film is contrasty and has
    >> very limited drange.
    >>
    >> A nailed K25/Velvia slide (with good technique) will clearly outrun an
    >> 8Mp image in terms of detail/resolution.
    >> Here, the much quoted Roger Clark site indicates he puts Vevlia at
    >> between 10 and 16 Mp.
    >> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
    >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    >>
    >> That's not been my experience.

    >
    > Having been alerted to this thread (I haven't been reading this
    > newsgroup), I see my work is being misrepresented.
    >
    > Please read the above web page, not just stopping after looking at Figure
    > 1.
    > Spatial resolution is only one component of image quality.
    > Signal-to-noise ratio is important and is noted in the figure
    > caption to figure 1.
    >
    > Move further down the page to the Apparent Image Quality (AIQ) section.
    > Figure 3 shows that the 5D has similar image quality to 6x7 cm
    > fine-grained film, and well above the 35mm fine grained film. These
    > values come from measured film and digital properties, both resolution
    > and noise. So, it is not surprising that it matches David's and
    > other's objective experience.
    >
    > Regarding dynamic range and exposure latitude, "film people" commonly
    > confuse digital's dynamic range because it exposes differently.
    > This is a partially complete page that shows some differences:
    > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/exposure_latitude-1
    > (For the film people out there, I still shoot film, mainly 4x5.)
    > While print film has great headroom, it falls apart at the low end,
    > where digital still goes strong. Overall, digital cameras with
    > large pixels have huge dynamic range, unmatched by print film, but
    > small pixel P&S cameras come up way short.
    >
    > Roger Clark


    thanks for that Roger :)
    I can see it is much more complicated than just numbers in a graph as some
    would think (Myself included before I joined these groups)

    --
    God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?
    Atheist Chaplain, May 31, 2008
    #19
  20. Aaron Kuperman

    Paul Furman Guest

    frederick wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>
    >> Of course, getting _sharp_ 12.7MP images from the 5D is like falling
    >> off a log (at 35mm and longer; corners on superwides are a problem,
    >> sigh), but it may be a bit harder to get sharp images on 12MP APS-C
    >> cameras, and nearly impossible with 12MP P&S cameras...
    >>

    > I'm not sure - 5d vs APS-C. I've been using both (5d and D300). My
    > comparison of 17-40l @ 18mm vs Sigma 10-20 @ 12mm, the D300/10-20 won
    > for corner performance, edge performance similar.


    Frederick, how does low light/noise performance compare? Dynamic range
    is another area I'd expect full frame to excel with.

    > In that case perhaps
    > enhanced by auto CA correction - so that's a possibility for improving
    > edge performance on Fx too. The Sigma lens is 1/2 the price of the
    > 17-40. The 17-40 was certainly sharp enough to bring up moire centre
    > frame - similar to my old D70. In general though, at 19x13", there's no
    > significant difference, D300/5d.
    > Edge performance at ultra-wide (< 20mm) f/l is IMO an overrated thing.
    > Composition usually means that the 4 corners are at vastly different
    > focus distances - way outside even the huge DOF stopped down. "Normal"
    > wide angle (say ~ 28mm+ ) edge performance can be more critical. YMMV.



    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Jun 1, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Fredy Kuenzler

    Cisco PIX many-to-many NAT problem

    Fredy Kuenzler, Jun 9, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,678
    Walter Roberson
    Jun 15, 2004
  2. Fredy Kuenzler

    Re: Cisco PIX many-to-many NAT problem

    Fredy Kuenzler, Jul 15, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,985
    Kevin Widner
    Jul 16, 2004
  3. David J Taylor

    Re: 8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivalent

    David J Taylor, Dec 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    376
  4. Prime

    Why can't a non-SLR have equivalent quality?

    Prime, Jul 24, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    182
    Views:
    2,661
    John Turco
    Jul 20, 2010
  5. Dave
    Replies:
    40
    Views:
    1,873
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Apr 11, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page