PDA

View Full Version : nikon dslr's



nknlvr
03-14-2005, 12:30 AM
All Things Being Equal(film Speed, Etc.) Is The Resolution Of The D70 Equal To Or Better Than A Nikon 35mm Slr Using Nikon Lens?

Samuel Lo
03-14-2005, 06:49 PM
All Things Being Equal(film Speed, Etc.) Is The Resolution Of The D70 Equal To Or Better Than A Nikon 35mm Slr Using Nikon Lens?


How to compare? What kind of Film (positive or negative film?) are you using? How large of the print out are you going to have? OK, honestly and generally speaking, the print from a SLR, e.g. F80, will be a bit nicer than from D70, because the depth of view, and colour saturation, is still better on the film than D70's CCD. I found that only the output of Kodak's DSC pro and Fujifilm's S3 pro (not including the large format digital back) can be comparable to film. Others just look a bit too "digital". Of course the image from D70 is already very good, but you ask a kind comparison, there is still a little bit different.

sherlock
03-14-2005, 08:57 PM
Hey,

I believe that this topic has been covered in great detail before in these forums. But just to give my 2 cents....

Film is still gives much higher resolution images then even the highest megapixel digital camera, no matter what anyone says. This may change in the future, but as for now, if razor sharp prints at very large sizes you need film. (for smaller sizes this doesnt matter- a 4x6 print from a 2 mp camera can be compared to a 14mp camera and still look amazing)
Film is also more color saturated and holds the detail in shadows better. Nothing can beat the saturated greens and reds of Fuji Velvia 50 slide film. Digital is still very good in this category, but film is still better.
There is soooo much more that I could talk about here, but I'll let the pros do it, if you want to read more Ken Rockwell has a whole big page on Film vs. Digital here (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm)
Hope all of this helps, and if I'm wrong, plz someone let me know!


Andrew S.

Samuel Lo
03-15-2005, 02:17 AM
Hey,

Film is still gives much higher resolution images then even the highest megapixel digital camera, no matter what anyone says. This may change in the future, but as for now, if razor sharp prints at very large sizes you need film. (for smaller sizes this doesnt matter- a 4x6 print from a 2 mp camera can be compared to a 14mp camera and still look amazing)
Film is also more color saturated and holds the detail in shadows better. Nothing can beat the saturated greens and reds of Fuji Velvia 50 slide film. Digital is still very good in this category, but film is still better.

Andrew S.


AGREE! I think most of us feel that film is better, but, most of us are using DC because of its convenience, not a higher quality image.

D70FAN
03-15-2005, 01:41 PM
Hey,

I believe that this topic has been covered in great detail before in these forums. But just to give my 2 cents....

Film is still gives much higher resolution images then even the highest megapixel digital camera, no matter what anyone says. This may change in the future, but as for now, if razor sharp prints at very large sizes you need film. (for smaller sizes this doesnt matter- a 4x6 print from a 2 mp camera can be compared to a 14mp camera and still look amazing)
Film is also more color saturated and holds the detail in shadows better. Nothing can beat the saturated greens and reds of Fuji Velvia 50 slide film. Digital is still very good in this category, but film is still better.
There is soooo much more that I could talk about here, but I'll let the pros do it, if you want to read more Ken Rockwell has a whole big page on Film vs. Digital here (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm)
Hope all of this helps, and if I'm wrong, plz someone let me know!


Andrew S.

You are not specifically wrong, but maybe 16MP in a full frame 35mm format comes pretty close to the density of good 35mm pro film. Even Velvia has an equivalent Photoshop plug-in available. And the Fuji Super CCD II is oh-so-close to getting all of that shadow detail. Just a skoshy more dynamic range...

Professional studios seem to be stampeding to the new 22MP medium format backs from Phase One, and Fuji, so we may be seeing the light at the end of the resolution tunnel.

When Arizona Highways Magazine changes to digital, then we will know that film is truely passing. I'll let you know. ;)

Samuel Lo
03-15-2005, 06:21 PM
You are not specifically wrong, but maybe 16MP in a full frame 35mm format comes pretty close to the density of good 35mm pro film. Even Velvia has an equivalent Photoshop plug-in available. And the Fuji Super CCD II is oh-so-close to getting all of that shadow detail. Just a skoshy more dynamic range...

Professional studios seem to be stampeding to the new 22MP medium format backs from Phase One, and Fuji, so we may be seeing the light at the end of the resolution tunnel.

When Arizona Highways Magazine changes to digital, then we will know that film is truely passing. I'll let you know. ;)


Nowadays although the film camera is still exist, it is fading out. I think many DC users still get a film cam, but how many still use it frequently? My 135 film cams haven't been used for nearly 2 years, the film cams still in use are only the 120 format camera. Journalist switch to DC long long ago, Studio photographer use Digital back for the 645, 6x6 and 675. You're right: you never go back once using DC!

nknlvr
03-17-2005, 03:29 AM
Thank you all for your comments. Read Mr. Rockwell's comments with great interest. Now the decision to go digital is far more difficult to make! Figures.