20D - enough pixels for macro/landscape?

[chris_whitted]

So nice of a couple of you to hijack this gentleman's thread. Observations:

1) take a deep breath, re-read your post twice before clicking submit

2) 2x number of pixels != 2x the detail

3) definitions of resolution vary, Bob Atkins has a good one somewhere I can't find right off hand

4) all pixels are not created equal

5) you can't win an argument on the internet; state your view, make a rebuttal or two, and move on

6) thanks for the link Daniel

7) I really agree with Leszek (see below)

8) Rockwell may be an ass a lot of the time, particularly if you don't take his kind of person/outlook well; that doesn't mean he's wrong

 

Now, as for the original question, as I said Leszek has it pretty much right on. I have a Minolta 5400 (1st gen), and I can produce a roughly 42 megapixel image with it. I've been learning quite a bit lately, and have just started trying out different kinds of films, so I don't have a lot of experience with scanning the expensive stuff. Based on the experience I *do* have, I can pull more detail from 35mm film than an 8mp sensor.

 

I still just bought a 20D anyway. Why? Workflow. It takes approximately three to four hours per image going the film route. That's doing a *maximum* quality scan, then doing all the basic correction and cleanup (and if you try that with a scanner that doesn't have ICE, forget taking more than a couple more rolls for the rest of your life). Even with that, there is still quite a bit of noise in the image, so you get to reduce it and sharpen it and... Well you process out a lot of the detail you picked up in the first place. :) A drum scanner would be better, but then that's just one more cost.

 

My suggestion, take your film body in and something to shoot on a macro scale. Take a few with the film body, take a few with their demo 20D. Then find out the results for yourself - how long does it take to get that extra detail, and is it worth it?

[andrew robertson]

Whoa, is 16.7 megapixels not more than twice 8 MP?

 

Is not 16 ounces twice 8?

 

Linear resolution gain, in any direction, is not twice. I could hardly see anybody argue that

a 3x3 inch square is only 40% the area of a 4.5x4.5 inch square, though. Resolution is a

function of pixels in a square area, not how many pixels are on a side.

[pbizarro]

I will try not to comment on the amount of noise that is going on in this thread... The following is my experience:

 

1. I shoot Velvia 100F, I scan it in a Coolscan IV, get very nice A4 prints in my Epson R300;

 

2. I shoot with Powershot Pro1, get less noisy prints in my Epson R300;

 

3. I sell both results in a local art gallery, they are both nice;

 

4. The 8 megapixel sensor easily surpasses the film results at A4 size.

[chiswick_john]

It's definatley possible to squeeze more resolution in high contrast fine detail areas from good film if you drumscan or print in the darkroom with good equipment than 6-8mp DSLR's can. However this is just not a practical workflow for anybody. Take a step back from this whole digital vs film wrangle and view the problem in pure photographic terms - if you want to extract maximum detail from any scene you should be using medium or large format. 35mm is designed for speed and versatility and not maximum image quality. A 6x7 or 5x4 outfit can be had very cheaply these days and scanning this film on a cheap (but 1/2 descent) film capable flatbed from Epson will yeild more resolution, lack of noise and smothness of tone than the very best of 35mm or 6-8mp DSLR's.

[StuartMoxham]

Because you shoot films like velvia I think you are right on the limit as to what will give the better results. I think that in the end the 20d will have cleaner output and will be easier than scanning all that slide film but velvia has that certain look that you obviously like and you may struggle to get that look so you could end up prefering the look of scanned velvia slides. If you shot 400 ISO color print films and were looking for a cleaner image less grainy image the 20D would give you that but it could be the wrong choice for you in this case. You need to test this one for yourself I don't know if you could rent one for a day to try out but that is what I would do if I were you.

[._._z]

SL, you responded that macro with 8x10 was superior. But you seem to have no

experience with it, nor could you answer my questions. Thanks anyway.

[sl attanapola]

Actually I was talking about landscapes....

Maybe I should have made it clear

[._._z]

Maybe so, especially since my question to you -- which you responded to -- was about

macro.

[beepy]

This is starting to look like the Leica forum...