Re: 35mm film VS digital

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Stormin Mormon, Sep 1, 2008.

  1. My little Lumix cost about a hundred bucks, on sale. I've gotten prints
    equal to my 35 MM. Love the ability to select the mega bytes per frame. I
    usually take still pics 0.3 mb, though I do use more MB for group photos,
    etc. Where more detail is needed.

    --
    Christopher A. Young
    Learn more about Jesus
    www.lds.org
    ..


    "Bob Donahue" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current crop
    of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film. (Remember
    grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm film.)

    --
    Bob D.
     
    Stormin Mormon, Sep 1, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Stormin Mormon

    Ken Hart1 Guest

    "Nicholas O. Lindan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Stormin Mormon" wrote:
    >
    >> My little Lumix ... prints equal to my 35 MM ...
    >> usually take still pics 0.3 mb

    >
    > Er, that's 320 x 200 pix.
    >
    > I would really like to know what '35 MM'
    > camera you have.
    >
    > --
    > Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
    > Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
    > http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm
    > n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
    >


    I was wondering the same thing myself. I have a crappy 300Kpixel (0.3Mpixel)
    camera that I got for box tops (well, not box tops, rather the barcodes from
    cigarette packs), and it really and truely sucks!

    OTOH, I often make 11x14 and 16x20 prints from my 35mm negs, and if the negs
    were shot correctly (good exposure, focus, and held steady). the prints can
    be very good.
     
    Ken Hart1, Sep 2, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Stormin Mormon

    Scott W Guest

    On Sep 1, 4:58 pm, "Ken Hart1" <> wrote:
    > "Nicholas O. Lindan" <> wrote in messagenews:...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > "Stormin Mormon" wrote:

    >
    > >> My little Lumix ... prints equal to my 35 MM ...
    > >> usually take still pics 0.3 mb

    >
    > > Er, that's 320 x 200 pix.

    >
    > > I would really like to know what '35 MM'
    > > camera you have.

    >
    > > --
    > > Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
    > > Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
    > >http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm
    > > n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

    >
    > I was wondering the same thing myself. I have a crappy 300Kpixel (0.3Mpixel)
    > camera that I got for box tops (well, not box tops, rather the barcodes from
    > cigarette packs), and it really and truely sucks!
    >
    > OTOH, I often make 11x14 and 16x20 prints from my 35mm negs, and if the negs
    > were shot correctly (good exposure, focus, and held steady). the prints can
    > be very good.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    I think Stomin Mormon might be trolling just a bit, since he cross
    posted this to the 35mm group.

    But I do have to point out that 0.3MB is not the same as 0.3MP.

    Depending on the content of the image you can get a good looking 8x12
    inch print from 0.3MB, but from 0.3MP not a chance.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Sep 2, 2008
    #3
  4. Stormin Mormon

    Jim Guest

    On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 19:20:14 -0400, "Nicholas O. Lindan" <>
    wrote:

    >"Stormin Mormon" wrote:
    >
    >> My little Lumix ... prints equal to my 35 MM ...
    >> usually take still pics 0.3 mb

    >
    >Er, that's 320 x 200 pix.
    >
    >I would really like to know what '35 MM'
    >camera you have.


    I think he means 0.3 megapixels. That means a 640*480 pixel image.
    Still way too small for recent or even decade old monitors and with
    the cheap cost of memory cards these days, taking small pictures like
    that will only lead to regret in the future, if not already.

    Jim
    www.inghamcam.info
     
    Jim, Sep 2, 2008
    #4
  5. Couple of them. I mostly use the Olympus Trip 40, point and shoot. With
    flash, takes two AA cells.

    --
    Christopher A. Young
    Learn more about Jesus
    www.lds.org
    ..


    "Nicholas O. Lindan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    "Stormin Mormon" wrote:

    > My little Lumix ... prints equal to my 35 MM ...
    > usually take still pics 0.3 mb


    Er, that's 320 x 200 pix.

    I would really like to know what '35 MM'
    camera you have.

    --
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
    Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
    http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm
    n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
     
    Stormin Mormon, Sep 2, 2008
    #5
  6. The camera says it's 7.something megapixel, so it does fairly good pics. I
    do use more megabytes for group photos, and once in a while when I'm fairly
    sure I've got a memorable moment.

    For snap shots of the neighborhood, kids, dogs, etc, 0.3 makes reasonable
    pics.

    --
    Christopher A. Young
    Learn more about Jesus
    www.lds.org
    ..


    "Ken Hart1" <> wrote in message
    news:yZ1vk.254$Wd.15@trnddc01...

    I was wondering the same thing myself. I have a crappy 300Kpixel (0.3Mpixel)
    camera that I got for box tops (well, not box tops, rather the barcodes from
    cigarette packs), and it really and truely sucks!

    OTOH, I often make 11x14 and 16x20 prints from my 35mm negs, and if the negs
    were shot correctly (good exposure, focus, and held steady). the prints can
    be very good.
     
    Stormin Mormon, Sep 2, 2008
    #6
  7. For sure, the mega pixel rating is a bit more than 0.3.

    I had a camera from Ebay, which was 1.3 MP, and that took miserable pics.

    --
    Christopher A. Young
    Learn more about Jesus
    www.lds.org
    ..


    "Scott W" <> wrote in message
    news:...


    But I do have to point out that 0.3MB is not the same as 0.3MP.

    Depending on the content of the image you can get a good looking 8x12
    inch print from 0.3MB, but from 0.3MP not a chance.

    Scott
     
    Stormin Mormon, Sep 2, 2008
    #7
  8. You would, then, be mistaken in your thoughts.

    --
    Christopher A. Young
    Learn more about Jesus
    www.lds.org
    ..


    "Jim" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> My little Lumix ... prints equal to my 35 MM ...
    >> usually take still pics 0.3 mb

    >


    I think he means 0.3 megapixels. That means a 640*480 pixel image.
    Still way too small for recent or even decade old monitors and with
    the cheap cost of memory cards these days, taking small pictures like
    that will only lead to regret in the future, if not already.

    Jim
    www.inghamcam.info
     
    Stormin Mormon, Sep 2, 2008
    #8
  9. Stormin Mormon

    Marvin Guest

    Stormin Mormon wrote:
    > The camera says it's 7.something megapixel, so it does fairly good pics. I
    > do use more megabytes for group photos, and once in a while when I'm fairly
    > sure I've got a memorable moment.
    >
    > For snap shots of the neighborhood, kids, dogs, etc, 0.3 makes reasonable
    > pics.
    >


    Perhaps 0.3 Mb is the size of the jpg. file.
     
    Marvin, Sep 2, 2008
    #9
  10. That's the setting I use. However, my windows computer says most of the pics
    are about 0.150 MB.

    --
    Christopher A. Young
    Learn more about Jesus
    www.lds.org
    ..


    "Marvin" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:_cvk.353$393.331@trnddc05...

    Perhaps 0.3 Mb is the size of the jpg. file.
     
    Stormin Mormon, Sep 4, 2008
    #10
  11. "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >The camera says it's 7.something megapixel, so it does fairly good pics. I
    >do use more megabytes for group photos, and once in a while when I'm fairly
    >sure I've got a memorable moment.
    >
    >For snap shots of the neighborhood, kids, dogs, etc, 0.3 makes reasonable
    >pics.


    You do realize that you are talking apples and oranges? Size of a sensor
    in megapixel and size of a generated JPEG file are two very different
    things.
    A camera with 0.3 MPixel would make photos with a truly lousy
    resolution.

    > Learn more about Jesus


    Learn more about digital photography:
    http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/Resolution_01.htm
    http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/Compression_01.htm

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Sep 4, 2008
    #11
    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. Martin Riddle
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    102
    Martin Riddle
    Apr 23, 2014
  2. Paul Ciszek
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    108
    J. Clarke
    Apr 26, 2014
  3. RichA
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    127
    Whisky-dave
    Apr 29, 2014
  4. Joe Kotroczo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    97
    Joe Kotroczo
    Apr 25, 2014
  5. Joe Kotroczo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    101
    Joe Kotroczo
    Apr 25, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page