What's the megapixel equivalent of 35mm film ?
05 February 2003, 05:54 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 3,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05 February 2003, 07:12 PM
#4
BANNED
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 9,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget it.......... It aint going to happen for less than £7k at the moment!!! Digital has a long way to go before it matches true 35mm when enlarging etc.
05 February 2003, 09:44 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a subject that generates a lot of debate amongst photographers. Some people claim that 20+ MP is necessary to extract all the detail from a 35mm frame, while others point out that a good image between 4 and 6MP can be enlarged to A3 size and beyond and look better in many ways than any film.
There are some interesting articles on www.luminous-landscape.com comparing high-end digital SLRs with the best that 35mm and medium format has to offer - they're quite enlightening.
Fact is, almost all cameras are limited by the quality of the lenses rather than the sensor anyway; my 3MP camera easily resolves the difference in sharpness between a £100 lens and a £1000 lens.
Andy.
There are some interesting articles on www.luminous-landscape.com comparing high-end digital SLRs with the best that 35mm and medium format has to offer - they're quite enlightening.
Fact is, almost all cameras are limited by the quality of the lenses rather than the sensor anyway; my 3MP camera easily resolves the difference in sharpness between a £100 lens and a £1000 lens.
Andy.
Trending Topics
05 February 2003, 10:05 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have one 50x70cm enlargement from my Fuji 6800z 3mega pixel camera(running in 6mega pixel mode) and it's really quite good.
Have done loads of A4 prints but realise that now it's the lens rather than the pixel count that is delivering the the quality.
For PC use, I'm very happy with a Fuji 3megapixel but now I've got the bug, I want 'prosumer' quality!!!! Could be $pendy!
Have done loads of A4 prints but realise that now it's the lens rather than the pixel count that is delivering the the quality.
For PC use, I'm very happy with a Fuji 3megapixel but now I've got the bug, I want 'prosumer' quality!!!! Could be $pendy!
05 February 2003, 10:25 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm - Interesting.....
In late 2000 I bought my first digital SLR, the Canon EOS D30, a 3 Megapixel camera. I was very impressed with the image quality and began to use it for some of my wildlife work. I still primarily used medium format for all my landscape work.
Then in mid-2002 I upgraded to the Canon EOS D60. This cameras clearly surpassed 35mm film quality in every respect and so I retired my film-based Canon EOS 1V. But I still continued to do my landscape work with medium format and film.
In September 2002 I started working with a pre-production version of the Canon EOS 1Ds, an 11 Megapixel full-frame digital SLR. I found image quality to be so good that I started using it for my landscape work as well as almost all of my other types of photography. The 1Ds surpassed my Pentax 645nii system by a considerable margin and so this was sold shortly after I took delivery of my own 1Ds in November, 2002.
Then in mid-2002 I upgraded to the Canon EOS D60. This cameras clearly surpassed 35mm film quality in every respect and so I retired my film-based Canon EOS 1V. But I still continued to do my landscape work with medium format and film.
In September 2002 I started working with a pre-production version of the Canon EOS 1Ds, an 11 Megapixel full-frame digital SLR. I found image quality to be so good that I started using it for my landscape work as well as almost all of my other types of photography. The 1Ds surpassed my Pentax 645nii system by a considerable margin and so this was sold shortly after I took delivery of my own 1Ds in November, 2002.
05 February 2003, 10:40 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£6,100....for the body only! 
!
Wait a year or two and it the megapixel count will go up but there is no reason to assume that decent lenses will ever become 'cheap'!
[Edited by WaxBoy - 2/5/2003 10:41:29 PM]
!Wait a year or two and it the megapixel count will go up but there is no reason to assume that decent lenses will ever become 'cheap'!
[Edited by WaxBoy - 2/5/2003 10:41:29 PM]
06 February 2003, 08:27 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wondered because I bought a D60 which seemed better than my EOS 5 with the same lenses which surprised me - but seems to be consistent with what other people have found.
I hadn't really thought about it too much until I read Andy's post, but it makes sense that the lens is the limitation on most cameras. More pixels just means that you record the same poor quality image in more detail.
I guess mega pixel count will become kind of topic as what BHP your car has....... it's only part of the story !
I paid £1700 for the D60 body - which is a fair wedge of cash and I know its like buying a PC - there will be something twice as good for half the price in a year or two - but you just have to accept that and get over it.
I've learnt nearly as much about photography in the last few weeks as I did in the previous few years - there really is no substitute for instant comparissons when you're learning. To be able to see back to back the difference in settings is fantastic.
I'm very happy with it
I hadn't really thought about it too much until I read Andy's post, but it makes sense that the lens is the limitation on most cameras. More pixels just means that you record the same poor quality image in more detail.
I guess mega pixel count will become kind of topic as what BHP your car has....... it's only part of the story !
I paid £1700 for the D60 body - which is a fair wedge of cash and I know its like buying a PC - there will be something twice as good for half the price in a year or two - but you just have to accept that and get over it.
I've learnt nearly as much about photography in the last few weeks as I did in the previous few years - there really is no substitute for instant comparissons when you're learning. To be able to see back to back the difference in settings is fantastic.
I'm very happy with it
06 February 2003, 08:54 AM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 13,735
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's generally accepted that it's 10-14MP equivalence, but it all depends on so much.
How the sensor works is also interesting... Most digital cameras will have a G-R-G-B arrangement of photosites. So a 10MP camera has 10 million sites (5 million green, 2.5million red, 2.5million blue).
This is why the Foveon sensor is creating such a stir. It's a 3.3MP camera which actually has 10 million "sites" thanks to each site capturing red, green and blue through multi-layering. The images out of this are damn sharp. When this gets to be a higher output, my feeling is that film will be really on the canvas (to mix metaphors)
The dynamic range of film vs CCD vs CMOS is yet another debate though
Cheers,
Nick.
How the sensor works is also interesting... Most digital cameras will have a G-R-G-B arrangement of photosites. So a 10MP camera has 10 million sites (5 million green, 2.5million red, 2.5million blue).
This is why the Foveon sensor is creating such a stir. It's a 3.3MP camera which actually has 10 million "sites" thanks to each site capturing red, green and blue through multi-layering. The images out of this are damn sharp. When this gets to be a higher output, my feeling is that film will be really on the canvas (to mix metaphors)
The dynamic range of film vs CCD vs CMOS is yet another debate though
Cheers,
Nick.
06 February 2003, 06:05 PM
#20
I think the accuracy of most midrange lenses works out at around 12mp. IE if you had higher resolution, you would juse capture the abhorations of lense with greater detail.
Been a while since I was spec' checking, but seem to remember people saying that 12-16mp was what they would generally consider to be comparable with normal 35mm film (possibly only as loas as 200 ASA though?)
paul
Been a while since I was spec' checking, but seem to remember people saying that 12-16mp was what they would generally consider to be comparable with normal 35mm film (possibly only as loas as 200 ASA though?)
paul
06 February 2003, 09:23 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, all this is ignoring the other differences between film and digital. A good digital image is effectively grainless, whereas any print film will show at least some visible grain that may detract from the picture more than a lack of fine detail. Slide film may be better, but that sacrifices dynamic range and exposure latitude. Digital images can suffer from false colours thanks to the RGB filters, and although the Foveon sensor gets around this, it has other problems of its own.
In any case, I can't help but feel that this is a pretty academic issue unless you're very patient and interested in landscape photography where the subject doesn't move. My photos aren't limited in sharpness by the quality of the lens or the sensor - they're limited by the fact that tripods are heavy, so I can't be arsed to carry one around everywhere!
A.
In any case, I can't help but feel that this is a pretty academic issue unless you're very patient and interested in landscape photography where the subject doesn't move. My photos aren't limited in sharpness by the quality of the lens or the sensor - they're limited by the fact that tripods are heavy, so I can't be arsed to carry one around everywhere!
A.
02 July 2003, 06:24 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since some pro equipment allows one to use interchangeable film or digital backs, the common element will be the lens on the camera. If I recall correctly, lens can be rated on their resolutions in lines per inch and one can then calculate the pixel equivalent resolution of that lens in 35mm format, which would then be the theoretical limit. After that, other considerations like contrast range, color fidelity, exposure latitute will come into comparisons, like the debate between LCD and plasma TV now, with both capable of the same screen resolution. Also, film speed will be an important factor as the slower the speed, the higher the resolution, and for still life, film may have the advantage there.
[Edited by lokokkee - 2/7/2003 6:04:18 PM]
[Edited by lokokkee - 2/7/2003 6:04:18 PM]
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Dream Weaver
ScoobyNet General
4
05 September 2001 12:15 PM
