robert goldstein

All I can say is that on my Apple 23" Cinema Display, those images look pretty darn good.

If they were all shot with the kit lens, then we should reasonably expect even better

performance with one of Pentax's better lenses.

I have been a film camera user for a number of years, and, like many others, I am considering moving

to the digital realm. One of my favorite types of photography is landscapes, and I want to be able to

achieve at least as good image quality in 13x19 inch prints as I now do with Astia 100f. However, I

have

read on more than one occasion that DSLRs are still not as good as 35mm film for landscapes. Is

there any truth to this statement?

 

BTW, I am considering one of the new generation of 10MP DSLRs.

 

Thanks,

Rob

Debbie, in case you have not already figured it out, Photo.net is full of Canon users. Like most of us, they are attached to their possessions and gain pleasure and a sense of justification if they can persuade others to choose the same products that they did. So take all the advice that you receive with a grain of salt, and choose equipment because it truly suits you and not because it will make you a member of a particular fraternity.

 

It may turn out that Canon is the best system for you, but do not expect that switching from Olympus will make your photos better or make you a better photographer. If long-term sustainability of a system is your first priority, then Canon or Nikon are the way to go. If you consider yourself a bit of an iconoclast and are willing to bet on the "little guy," then Olympus is a worthy choice. From all that I have read, their cameras are very capable and their selection of lenses, though limited, is more than adequate for most users.

<the scanned file needs to be about 3x the resolution of a deent DSLR withthe the same lens.>

 

Ellis, what exactly do you mean by this? Is it that the scanned file size needs to be 3x that of a DSLR file, or that the film frame would have to contain 3x as much information (e.g. 30MP on film would be equivalent to 10MP from a DSLR)? I suspect it is the latter, but how have you been able to make this judgement?

<I love digital but the obvious answer for noise problems is to shoot film (not very helpful, I know ;-)>

 

Of course, if you scan the film, then you've got noise to deal with. I am very pleased with Noiseware Professional.

I spoke with a customer service representative at Fuji USA last week and was told that Provia 400x will not be available in the US in the very near future. She said the same thing about Europe, where I will be travelling soon. Possibly, Fuji are deliberately concealing the release date so as not to discourage users from buying up the remaining stocks of 400f.

I don't think that the 300dpi rule of thumb went out the window. It is still the

recommended print resolution for close viewing, although you can probably get away with

240dpi. A 150dpi print may look fine from a distance, but not from up close. View

300dpi and 150dpi prints from 12 inches, and the difference will be obvious.

<I make great 13x19" prints with my Epson 2200 printer without interpolation from my 6MP Nikon D70 dSLR.>

 

This would seem to be mathematically impossible unless you are printing at less than 150ppi.

Here is a very interesting and encouraging interview regarding Olympus' plans for future development. Still can't tell whether the E-1 replacement will be revolutionary or merely very good with lots of features.

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1022&thread=20246190

"It's just too strange that this many years after the E-1 introduction they don't even have a

body ready for handling in September 2006."

 

I agree. At this juncture, a mock-up of a possible camera does not inspire confidence.

But Olympus has always marched to the beat of a different drummer. Maybe they will

ultimately produce a jaw-dropping camera that will shame all the skeptics.

Fujifilm's website does not contain any contact information that I can find. I get to this

page which promises such information, but none appears on my monitor. Very

frustrating.

 

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/ServiceSupportContactForm.jsp?

prodcat=852911&catid=464128

"on their web site under 'contact'"

 

I have tried that and can find no useful information or links. Am I missing something that is right in front of my eyes?

I have searched their website extensively and cannot find a telephone number or

e-mail address for customer service. Can anyone point me in the right

direction?

So, does this mean that a RAW image from manufacturer X's camera is identical to that of manufacturer Y's camera if they use the same sensor and same lens?

OK, let me try one more time. In practical terms, the ony factors that are really important

in taking a picture with a film *camera* are the lens and the film. What happens

afterwards is up to the person who processes the film and makes the print, but has

nothing to do with the *camera.* With a digital *camera,* much of the processing takes

place within the *camera* itself. This is a fundamental difference between the two types

of *cameras.*

Vinay,

 

Perhaps I can make my point by posing 2 questions. Is it probable that an ancient M2 can

take a picture that is virtually identical to that taken with a brand new M7 using the same

lens and film? The answer, of course, is yes.

 

Now, is it probable that a four year old digital SLR can take a picture that is virtually

identical to that of a brand new digital camera of the same manufacturer using the same

lens? The answer is no. I leave it to you to figure out why.

"First of all your basic assumption is false. The "overall imaging capture chain" with film is:

lens, film emulsion type, individual batch characteristics, individual storage prior to use,

flatness at the presure plate, all the variables of developing, and finally an entire additional

digital capture chain if the film is scanned."

 

Oh, puhleeze! All that really matters in the chain of film imaging is the lens and the film

emulsion. All the other variables are either so well controlled or have so little impact on

image quality as to be of minor significance. That is certainly not the case with digital

capture, which, from the sensor on down the line, has numerous hardware and software

links that affect the image in important ways.

Definitely above average. Way above average. I'm going to look for the book on Amazon.

I used Neat Image for a while but switched to Noiseware Professional, which I have found to be easier, faster and more effective.

I'm with Ted. Scanning an entire roll of film is a massive waste of time.

 

Regarding the relative quality of film scans vs. digital capture, I find this to be a highly subjective matter. Digital cameras render much cleaner images, but the OP has already tried them and has returned to film. A properly done high resolution scan of 35mm Provia, Velvia, Astia etc can hold its own against most digital cameras up to 12MP. But scanning does take time and skill. I use the original Minolta 5400, which I believe delivers the best image quality of all the desktop scanners. Its only drawback is lack of speed, although for slides, it is acceptable. If you can find a used 5400 at a good price, you would have little to lose. I guarantee that you will be delighted with the results.

"I always like the posts that compare the death of film to new film SLR sales. Do they even

think about looking up the number of used SLRs sold?"

 

Gosh, no, I never have thought of looking up the number of used SLRs sold. So if you have

the number, please reveal it to the rest of us. Regardless, when SLR film cameras are no

longer being manufactured, film will, for all practical purposes, be dead except as a niche

item. Personally, I love film, but that's the way I see it.

Wait a second! I cannot believe that Erwin or anyone else can think that the Leica images

are as good as the Canon images based on the examples that he posted. Regardless of

size, the Canon's are significantly better, and it's not even close, IMO. Perhaps a

production model of the M8 will perform better, but that remains to be seen.

"So the M8 will finish of the traditional film camera? They said that too when the first high-

class digital slr's started too appear a couple of years ago."

 

In case you haven't noticed, sales of SLR film cameras are in the basement. How much

longer manufacturers will continue to produce them remains to be seen.

In the digital age, the notion of using a camera forever is unheard of. Will users be willing to pay the Leica premium for cameras that will be replaced every few years? We'll have to wait and see.

This just in from the September/October 2006 issue of "Digital PhotoPro" magazine. In an

article entitled "B&W Comes of Age" written by John Paul Caponigro, there are the

following quotations:

 

"For maximal quality and control, choose color digital capture."

 

"The single biggest paradigm shift in making black-and-white images is that it's best to

begin with color capture. This yields superior flexible control over tonal assignment.

Polychromatic compositions offer the widest range of choices. If you choose black-and-

white capture, you yield a great deal of control over the tonal structure of an image.

Default conversions, whether by film or camera software, never suit specific images ideally

and lock in certain decisions that can't be revised later. Exert the control yourself,

converting color to black-and-white with software after exposure. And keep your options

open by processing and saving the now neutral digital file in color."

 

I believe that this is precisely the point that I have tried to make in this thread. Although

certain curmudgeons may disagree with the concept, at least they should not be able to

dismiss the author as an ignorant amateur.