Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 29, 2002, 2:20 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 298
Default

Don't get me wrong! I think Steve's Digicams is great.
Steves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2002, 3:59 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

well i will definitly say my piece on this subject.
1-no digital camera will currently beat the image quality of properly exposed Kodachrome image
2-a d60 cannot be compared to any slr much less a f5 or eos 1. its capabilities are hampered by the technology it has. it is slow and limited. it is incapable of taking high res shots above 3-4 in 1 second and then it hits the buffer. and stops. for any high speed work its a dog. why do you think there is a d1h and x there are other issues too. the versitility is not there that film cameras have.
3- by the virtue of you saying it is better you are decribing both camera and "film" together. you loose the capability and qualities of certain films and are stuck with one type because it is built into the camera forever. is it truely neutral and true colors?
4- i see a market in a short time for photoshop plug ins: kodachrome, fujichrome velvia. rs100 and ektachrome 100 push 2stops.

everybody is entranced with digital. its still missing lots of stuff. mostly quality of image information to complete with good film.

i'll add later i'm going to play soccer with my daughter.

[Edited on 9-6-2002 by sjms]
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2002, 4:42 PM   #43
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,139
Default

Quote:
1-no digital camera will currently beat the image quality of properly exposed Kodachrome image
Quote:
2-a d60 cannot be compared to any slr much less a f5 or eos 1.
These statements say much more about your experience than about reality. It's more than obvious that there are still many areas of digital equipment which you have yet to explore.

I'm wondering whether you actually "have" a D60, or you simply have "read" about a D60 and drawn conclusions based on your experiences with consumer grade equipment?

It's certainly O.K., to have opinions about these things - we all do. However, an opinion based on experience is probably more worthwhile as a means of helping others make a decision.

If you actually had a D60 and had experience with D60 prints, you most likely would hold a different view about this. One doesn't compare a D1H and a D60 for their relative abilities to shoot sports. The D1H wins - hands down. One doesn't compare a Rebel and an EOS-1 to shoot sports. The EOS-1 wins - hands down! Neither would one compare a D1H and a D60 for image quality and resolution. The D60 wins - hands down.

To say that a D60 can't be compared to "any SLR" makes no sense whatsoever, so to continue a discussion on this level serves no practical purpose other than as a platform to express your feelings about film superiority on a digital forum - which also makes little sense to me, unless you enjoy masochistic exchanges?

I don't ....

Best regards,

Lin

[Edited on 9-6-2002 by Lin Evans]
Lin Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2002, 5:12 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

i noticed you left out the d1x in the quality comparison. your right a 2.7 mp will not stand up to a 5-6 mp. thats obvious. but a d60 would gag after a few frames so it can buffer while a f5 is still firing at a substantially higher rate with a better chance of in focus shots of course. and yes i have tried the camera. i rent and try out such items in order to determine whether its worth it yet. my inlaw has an d100 its alright but not worth my money at this point. i generally don't talk without at least handling the equipment first. i'll put a slide in a 4000d scan it and produce a image that will surpass anything that is out today in crispness and quality then a digital camera today. remember above an 11x14 the pixals start to show and down goes the quality. a scanned image is 65MB of useful info this allows for much higher detail in a smaller print and larger. i don't thak that can be argued.

this is not about nikon vs canon. it is strictly quality issues.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2002, 5:31 PM   #45
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,139
Default

There are "so" many things you have yet to learn about digital - the problem is where to start:

First, the output from a six megapixel digital must be increased in resolution to print at large sizes. Nobody would dream of printing a poster sized image from a six megapixel digital capture without interpolation. A variety of interpolation algorithms are available to "keep" the quality to significantly larger print sizes than ANY scanned 35mm color negative or transparency.

Second, digital photography equipment is available to capture a native 150 megabyte image. The printed output is superior to even medium format color film prints. The equipment is not very portable and it's expensive, but there is no comparison as far as sharpness of image and the amount of enlargement possible.

D60 images can be printed MUCH larger than 35mm color film or transparency because they don't crash and burn at around 16x20 from grain. Even D30 3 megapixel images have been printed at huge poster sizes and the prints are beautiful! Obviously, it's necessary to have sufficient capture pixels to properly define detail boundaries, but for some work such as portraits, 75 inch prints can be beautiful from even the D30. You "can't" do that with 35mm color film.

Probably a single picture is worth thousands of words, so I'll just point you to a New York photographer who routinely makes D30 and D60 prints at sizes only matched by large format film. Is the quality there? It certainly is to him and to many thousands of us who make our living with the camera and who have replaced 35mm color film with six megapixel digital.....

Lin

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read....essage=2153316
Lin Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2002, 12:00 AM   #46
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 126
Default Go Girl, Go

Thank you, Lin, for eloquently expressing exactly how I feel. I wouldn't have believed it either 18 months ago when I got the first of 5 digital cameras. My D-60 and previous E-20 images are giving me 8x10's that are incredibly better than my Nikon and Canon negatives and slides scanned on a Nikon IV. They aren't even in the same ball-park.

I have been so busy learning all my new gear that I haven't tried larges prints yet. I do know that my pro-lab 11x14's from negatives and slides pale beside my digital 8x10's.

It is true, of course, that digital gear is not good at some kinds of work, like action photography. But those limitations should not be confused with image quality.

Perhaps a junior Ansel Adams can coaxe better images from film. I don't know. But, for real people, up to some size I haven't yet determined, digital beats the pants off film.

I haven't seriously worked with my C4040 or CP4500, and I just got my CP5700. I am skeptical that the 4MP will measure up, though I may get a nice surprise. I am sure already that the 5700 will come close to the D60 (witness your recent test).

Thanks again. Some of us know the truth. (Now watch some techy tell me it's because a Nikon IV is no good - LOL)

Bob
Robert Eastburg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2002, 8:35 AM   #47
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,139
Default Gender Bender :-)

Hi Robert,
The name does tend to confuse - but it's a Mr. Lin :-)

Actually, digital has pretty well replaced film for the vast majority of sports action today. You will see three or four EOS 1D's D1H's, or DCS-720X's for every film body attached to the long glass at most major sporting events today. This was not the case a few years ago, but the ice was broken at the Superbowl when there were five SI photographers in the end zone for the last play of the game. Three had bad angles, one wasn't ready to shoot and the only one who got "the" shot was using a Nikon D1. Sports Illustrated was singing the blues because the shot was made with a 2.66 megapixel digital. Genuine Fractals was used to interpolate the image which made a two page spread in the coverage. Nobody could tell which images were film and which were from the D1. From that time, digital has made incredible inroads into sports photography.

Here's a link to some of my coverage shots of the first Denver Bronco's practice this year. These were done with my EOS-1D and 100-400IS at an effective 520mm. ISO 640 - 1/1200th at F11.

The first series is about a 1 second burst of action. The wide receiver and corner are both going for the pass which is in the air. The receiver looks back over his shoulder and the corner steps on his foot by accident - both stumble as the ball approaches. The receiver realizes that he will be short and grabs the corner's jersey pulling him down and short as the ball comes into view during the last three frames. In the last frame the ball has struck the ground and bounced up into the air. The grin is evident on the receiver's face in the seventh frame as he realizes that the corner will not make a pick.

This entire series represents less than one second of actual time and were it a real game rather than a practice, could have been electronically transmitted to the magazine or newspaper and ready for press within moments of capture.

Best regards,

Lin

Click on link below:

http://www.lin-evans.com/football/football.htm





[Edited on 9-7-2002 by Lin Evans]
Lin Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2002, 10:13 AM   #48
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 126
Default Ooops!

Sorry 'bout that. Now I'm going to have to change my whole image of this person who brings so much sense to the forum (LOL).
Robert Eastburg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2002, 12:01 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

ok digital will replace film, not quite yet, but sooner than i anticipated.

the raw resolving power of kodachrome slide film still beats that of any current dslr. by design 42bit to 48bit color depth steps on pro level digitalcameras whereas film being analog produces continuous tone images(theoretically infinite). lpi is still greater too. yes 16x20 is the limit for direct prints. but other techniques allow much larger sizes maintaining acceptable grain levels.

through digital massaging (Pshop)( Genuine Fractal tech) and current printing technology a an 11x14 and even a 13x19 can be produced that will be pretty much indetectable as to which is which. not by my hands though at this point in time.

those 30x40 images do have a level of noise in them and pixalation becomes apparent when viewed close up. which i guess to some people is as acceptable as grain in an analog. the photo in times square required a substantial amount of "processing" and was not viewed close up. POV. just as Kodak did in grand central station for 40 years. and those images were viewed considerably closer and were original transperancies.

to say that the digital camera gives better images than an analog is not techncally valid due to variations of lens and photographer not the differing technologies.

to include a leaf type camera in the conversation was out of bounds it is not the same class of instrument.

what i do accept is what i said in the top of this. it is both a sad and happy time for us. i guess someone has to pay for their r&d it won't be me at this point. i'm with you 100% when they get it to the point where i'm happy.

by the way i understand more about digital technology then you assume.

take it easy on the come backs, its a discussion group not the world according to any of us. i made a simple statement of my opinion. your not defending the realm and there are others on your side too and maybe 1 or 2 who share my side.

info on Vincent Versace

http://www.pcphotomag.com/content/pa.../may/done.html

oh by the way- Have a Nice day.



[Edited on 9-7-2002 by sjms]
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2002, 12:44 PM   #50
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 126
Default

I truly didn't mean to be offensive. It's just that I get tired of those with great technical or artistic interest and skill putting the rest of us down. I admire their talent, but I want them to admit that we are real people too, and our kind of photography is as valid for us as theirs is for them. In fact, we are millions and they are thousands; it is our money that supports the industry by virtue of our numbers and propensity to keep buying equipment whether we need it or not.

For many of us, the test is what a modest enlargement looks like on the wall, not under a microscope and not poster-size. It isn't what we could technically get out of a negative or digital image that matters, but what we seem to actually get. From that perspective, my digitals look better to the naked eye than what I get from film.

Whether a first-rate photographer or artist might get different results, I cannot say.

Regards,

Bob
Robert Eastburg is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:40 PM.