yet another film versus digital debate

"I don't think is is reasonable to 'dis DPReview either. Their tests are fairly well standardized and they don't gush over everything they review"

 

The not gushing over everything bit is certainly admirable, but it looks as though their dynamic range test has more to do with the limits of 8-bit jpegs than the cameras. (Also, Canon's in-camera jpegs and DPP converter throw away the top few stops of the Canon dSLR dynamic range, so he couldn't possibly test the dynamic range.)

 

"better off testing a backlit transparent target"

 

Well, if I had such a target, yes. You are right that the paper target is problematical; that's why I took two exposures, one to check highlight performance and one to check shadow performance. I think that that's the right idea, and I think that within its limited range, the Kodak gray scale does what I need.

 

"Also, the -3 exposure pic was broken."

 

Actually, they're both broken: I had intended to shoot at ISO 200, but actually shot at ISO 400. Oops*. Pbase occassionally fails to display images. Sigh. Maybe it'll reappear.

 

*: It's not that much of an 'oops', though: as I understand it, the 5D's dynamic range is about the same from ISO 50 to ISO 400. The photon shot noise only catches up with the A/D converter noise above ISO 400.

Frankly, I give up on this site for now. There is a lot of anti-film sentiment...and in some

suprising ranks too. I use both, will continue to use both. But if I were told I could only use

one, I would prefer film.

 

To the viewer, the image is most likely the most engaging thing to consider.

 

But to the photographer, often, the journey, the choice of the medium and the way one

approaches using it can be a very engaging thing to consider as well. In 1950, Kodak

introduced Tri-X Pan film. In the years that would follow, more technically improved black

and white films would appear on the market.

 

But funny thing...Kodak still makes Tri-X and people will still use it over T-Max 400, Delta

400, HP5 and digital.

 

For many, digital has not replaced film, but has been added along side of it.

 

The worst thing about digital is hearing all the doom and gloom pixel measuring about it

bieng something akin to the second coming.

 

It is *SO* not....

Canon's white paper states what it states to prevent itself from getting badgered and possibly sued. It's the same reason why most food manufacturers provide .1 gram more food in the package than the label indicates.