Canon eos 20D vs. Canon eos elan 7e

[mewannafastpc]

so yea which would give you better picture quality and better enlargements?
keep in mind canon eos elan 7e is using kodak Professional portra 160NC, or kodak professional 100UC, not regular stuff

thanks

 

[logo29a]

20D will give you better enlargements.

Many film purists will make the arguement that the individual film photosites are smaller than the pixels in an CCD or CMOS array. However, each photosite in a piece of film is either on or off. It requires quite a few of its surrounding photosites to make up a given value as is percieved by the human eye. On the other hand, each pixel in a CCD or CMOS imaging array can have a value of anywhere from 0 to 255 in most cases.

About the only time you'll get more resolution from 35mm film is when you are snapping pictures of a resolution chart as it is only black and white.

 

[mewannafastpc]

oooh damn
i thought the molecules on the film would be smaller....damn technology goes so freaking FAST!
guess i gotta start saving for that DSLR

 

[Tim_axe]

When you mention enlargements, comparing different film/sensor formats is difficult. For example, a 14x9 inch print would be about 10x enlargement for a 35mm negative. With the 20d and the "1.6x crop" sensor, that would be a 16x enlargement.


Anyways, this is the same sort of argument that 35mm film and medium format people use against each other. A medium format image enlarged the same amount as a 35mm image reveals less resolution...but the resulting print size from MF is gigantic compared to the 35mm film. Similarly at a given print size, the 35mm must be enlarged more than the MF, resulting in the MF having a better print...


That said, when you go into high ISO shots (ISO 1600+), digital is pretty much considered the king. Some people do landscapes with tight-grained film, although in the end it just comes down to convinience and other factors.

Afterall, if you only have really crappy photo/print shops in your area, the potential of your film prints is heavily limited by their (limited) expirence. Here digital could make sense. But if the shops have cheap digital printers or bad color management & settings, your digital prints will suffer heavily. Etc.

Fortunately with digital you don't need to worry about keeping the chemicals fresh. I've had darkroom chemicals wear out on me and it is frustrating. Digital is just much easier in this aspect...


You are in luck though if you decide to move to the 20d in the future. Your existing EF lenses will work on Canon's Digital SLRs

 

[Rooster]

Today, I just bought a 20d. I tried it out yesturday with thoughts of getting one maybe next week. But I couldnt sleep thinking about it. So I got it. With the 18-55 kit though. But in all, the image quality is superb. I couldnt begin to comapre it to the elan 7e. As I have no idea of the quality of it's images.
ISO 3200 isn't to impressive aside from it being freakin ISO 3200. Really noisey, but a good tradeoff for shoot in minimal light. But ISO 1600 produced superb quality. And Man oh man the burst mode is amazing. Even with the flash it shoots at 1 per second.

 

[mewannafastpc]

the elan 7e is a film camera so what really matters is the film, i just put that up there so you know where im going from. What is the burst on that, was there a pause when it was writing stuff from the buffer or does the camera go on and on? could you give me a picture of 3200iso? or something?

 

[Rooster]

Well I just starting shoot at nothing at ISO 100 and the shutter at 1/30. They came out dark of coarse, but the camera just shot away. No stopping..well it did for about 1/2 a second after about 23 shots...but then started right back on with the 5fps. It appears that it writes as it shoots. Emptying the buffer as it fills it. So quick and smooth. I can't wait to get this thing outside tomorrow. I just ordered a Canon 580 EX Speedlight along with a Sandisk ultra2 1gig cf card. The 20d and this flash comunicate back and forth to achieve the best flash output automatically. We'll see how that turns out.

 

[Tim_axe]

I'm using a Digital Rebel (300d), but here is an ISO 128000 equiv shot. (About 2 stops more than ISO 3200) It was shot in RAW, so I'll give you the interpertation of the 2 different RAW converters I use...


First is an ISO 256000 (+3 EV) interpertation by RawShooter Essentials. It actually ends up looking like 2 stops compared to the other intepertation, so it should really be ISO 128000...or maybe even ISO 6400...

Next up we have an ISO 128000 (+2 EV) interpertation by Canon FileViewer. It doesn't try to hold back the noise, and it shows. It is also a lot more effective than RawShooter Essentials in brightening up the scene.

The beauty of digital is that you can have a "RAW Image," or "Latent Image" in film-speak, and develop it as many times as you want without changing the RAW image (hopefully we can develop them even better in the future with better software). With film, once you pull it out of the developer & into the stop bath, you are stuck with that negative.

The base-settings were f/2.8 (@ 200mm focal-length), 1/100, ISO 3200. I simply pushed processed from ISO 3200. And it is said that ISO 3200 is just the camera push-processing ISO 1600. Everything else that is lower it can actually do with the sensor.


Links to a couple of 750x325 pixel crops, aka "100%" crops. These are from the highlight area because that is where the most detail is (car grills, etc) and was what I wanted the plane of focus to be..

• Crop from RawShooter Essentials
• Crop from Canon FileViewer

 

[[TQ]]

Why dont you scan in a slide and then come back and tell me an 8mp camera will enlarge it better

 

[mewannafastpc]

i enlarged my 35mm negative to about 20by30
what would give me similar if not better quality at that size? excluding mediumformat and a 16.7megapixel from canon

those pics upthere don't look too noisy for being such a high ISO. At least i can still see the grill and stuff
that's nice

 

[logo29a]

Why dont you scan in a slide and then come back and tell me an 8mp camera will enlarge it better

I've done it and the 8mp can provide a better enlargement.

 

[logo29a]

oooh damn
i thought the molecules on the film would be smaller....damn technology goes so freaking FAST!
guess i gotta start saving for that DSLR

The film photosites are smaller, but only by a small amount. As I mentioned earlier, in order to get a percieved lumanance/color value, film requires many adjacent photosites. A digital pixel (aka well) usually only requires a few.

Ignore crop sizes as they are irrelevant with enlargments. They only determine the field of view with a given focal length lens.

 

[mewannafastpc]

oh so the 8mp canon is now clearer than 35mm film??
alright got cha thanks

 

[nweibley]

I must say I am constantly shocked by the prints this 8mp 1.6x crop sensor produces. I "only" have the "lowly" 350D because I would rather throw money into glass than a temporary body, and I must say, the lens makes all the difference. I just started getting my first L glass with the 100-400L and there is absolutely no comparison to my non-L glass. So, before you sweat over the body and the pixels, make sure you've got the glass to deliver the resolution.

 

[[TQ]]

oh so the 8mp canon is now clearer than 35mm film??
alright got cha thanks

No...

 

[nweibley]

Ignore crop sizes as they are irrelevant with enlargments. They only determine the field of view with a given focal length lens.

Well.... crop sizes can be important. When you consider the little tiny huge crop factor sensors in point and shoots, you have to also consider the noise you are introducing. On the APS-C sensors noise is really good, but still... a FF sensor technically should be lower noise. Still, the DIGIC II plus the 8mp sensors are really awesome about noise, so it's not so much of a worry.

 

[logo29a]

No...

Umm...yes. The latest generation sensors also work considerably better at higher ISO; or they produce less noise atleast.

Why don't you provide some evidence to support your claims? You're starting to sound like film fan-boy. 35mm will be all but dead in a few more years. Some or Europes largest distributors are alread making announcements to that effect. Large format film will likely be around for a while, but 35mm is on the way out.

 

[logo29a]

Well.... crop sizes can be important. When you consider the little tiny huge crop factor sensors in point and shoots, you have to also consider the noise you are introducing. On the APS-C sensors noise is really good, but still... a FF sensor technically should be lower noise. Still, the DIGIC II plus the 8mp sensors are really awesome about noise, so it's not so much of a worry.

Why would a FF sensor have lower noise? The size of the sensor array has nothing to do with it. It's the size of the individual photosites that has more to do with it and the quality of their build. Other contributors are well size, dark current, and QE.

 

[[TQ]]

Umm...yes. The latest generation sensors also work considerably better at higher ISO; or they produce less noise atleast.

I agree to that, but raw resoloving power still goes to 35mm slides.

Why don't you provide some evidence to support your claims? You're starting to sound like film fan-boy. 35mm will be all but dead in a few more years. Some or Europes largest distributors are alread making announcements to that effect. Large format film will likely be around for a while, but 35mm is on the way out.

I could ask the same of you...

This is not a simple question with a simple reply.

If i could afford it i would much rather shoot film if nothing more for it's broad tonal and dynamic range.

Proof though? A quick google search yields this site
http://www.ltlimagery.com/film_v_digital.html

Note the bottom of the page please.

I agree with you that the DSLR market is going to push film out the window but it has little to do with resolution and everything to do with ease of use, practicality, and cost.

I own three digital cameras, there is a reason for it.

 

[[TQ]]

Why would a FF sensor have lower noise? The size of the sensor array has nothing to do with it. It's the size of the individual photosites that has more to do with it and the quality of their build. Other contributors are well size, dark current, and QE.

It is not the size of the photosites, but their density.

It would be assumed that a FF sensor would have a smaller pixel density, i'm assuming this is where he is coming to this conclusion. However i'm pretty sure the 5D's pixel density and the 20D's pixel density is about the same.

Pixel density plays a HUGE role in digital noise.

 

[logo29a]

I could ask the same of you...

This is not a simple question with a simple reply.

If i could afford it i would much rather shoot film if nothing more for it's broad tonal and dynamic range.

Proof though? A quick google search yields this site
http://www.ltlimagery.com/film_v_digital.html

Note the bottom of the page please.

I agree with you that the DSLR market is going to push film out the window but it has little to do with resolution and everything to do with ease of use, practicality, and cost.

I own three digital cameras, there is a reason for it.

I've already provided support for my argument. Scroll up to find it.

Next time, instead of posting a link to a lengthy article, just post the relevant parts as quotes and provide a link for reference. Most of us don't have enough time to read articles of this length. The article totally ignores the points I outlined in my above argument.

Lets keep in mind that this isn't about which is better, but which can provide the biggest enlargements.

There is a lot more to it than dpi and total dots. Film requires many neighboring dots to produce a given tonal value. Digital only requires 1 pixel. Because of this, digital can equal film prints at a much lower dpi. If film requires 10 'dots' to record a tonal value, digital only requires 1, and the dot count remains the same, who has the upper hand?

Just look at the photos from this shootout between a 1DS and medium format: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

The 1DS trounces the 6x7 Pentax. I've experienced the same results with smaller digitals vs 35mm. Anything above 8Mp has no problems being about to out enlarge 35mm.

 

[logo29a]

It is not the size of the photosites, but their density.

It would be assumed that a FF sensor would have a smaller pixel density, i'm assuming this is where he is coming to this conclusion. However i'm pretty sure the 5D's pixel density and the 20D's pixel density is about the same.

Pixel density plays a HUGE role in digital noise.

It is absolutely about the size of the photosites. Their size determines their well capacity. Once a well is full, electrons a freed and bounce around. These usually end up filling neighboring wells. This doesn't always happen once the well is full. Smaller well allow electrons to fly around more easily to begin with. This is one of the primary causes of noise.

Why would that be assumed? If you can achieve a given pixel density, why forsake total pixels for the sake of a physically larger sensor?

When manufacturers do go with larger sensors without increasing total pixels the gaps between pixels does not grow larger. Instead they use larger pixels that completely fill up the sensor. This is because larger pixels can be made more sensitive to light without the noise of smaller pixels.

 

[logo29a]

Large, low pixel count sensors are generally used for low-light photography such as astrophotography. Just look at SBIG. They primarily use sensors with physically large pixel wells because they perform so well in low light.

 

[[TQ]]

I've already provided support for my argument. Scroll up to find it.

Next time, instead of posting a link to a lengthy article, just post the relevant parts as quotes and provide a link for reference.

So it's expected for me to read your stuff but you cant read mine?

Lets keep in mind that this isn't about which is better, but which can provide the biggest enlargements.

You're helping me prove my point. Digital photography is much better because it is more practicle and can produce larger prints at higher ISO's. However an ISO 50-100 Slide is going to be able to be enalrged much more so then an 8mp camera.

If you'd just do what i told you you'd notice that you could relate that to 12-16mp.

 

[logo29a]

So it's expected for me to read your stuff but you cant read mine?



You're helping me prove my point. Digital photography is much better because it is more practicle and can produce larger prints at higher ISO's. However an ISO 50-100 Slide is going to be able to be enalrged much more so then an 8mp camera.

If you'd just do what i told you you'd notice that you could relate that to 12-16mp.

No, I did read yours and I pointed out its major flaw. I didn't ask you to read my article. I paraphrased the important parts and provided a link for verification. All I asked was for you to look at the image comparisons. You're grasping at straws now.

I didn't help you prove any point. In fact, this is all besides the point.

Just face it, ya got nothing and you're dead wrong.

 

[[TQ]]

You want me to pixel peep at some compressed images on the web and relate this to printed enlargments...

 

[logo29a]

You want me to pixel peep at some compressed images on the web and relate this to printed enlargments...

I want you to put up or shut up. I want you to quit spewing misinformation.

I have put forth a pretty good argument and all you can muster up is a "nuh-h".

The images are 100% crops so compression wouldn't have enough effect at this size to skew the results.

If the images aren't good enough answer my previous points.

 

[[TQ]]

I want you to put up or shut up.

How old are you really?

I give you a source and you tell me you wont read it because it's too long? You ever heard of credibility. How are we supose to give you credit if you cant even read the counter argument.

Here, allow me to show you some stuff that other people have said:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Most people get better results from digital. Artists print their own work, but if you use a lab for prints you'll have more control and get better results from digital.

Ok...

onvenience has always won out over ultimate quality throughout the history of photography. Huge home-made wet glass plates led to store-bought dry plates which led to 8 x 10" sheet film which led to 4 x 5" sheet film which led to 2-1/4" roll film which led to 35mm which led to digital. As the years roll on the ultimate quality obtained in each smaller medium drops, while the average results obtained by everyone climbs. In 1860 only a few skilled artisans like my great-great-great grandfather in Scotland could coax any sort of an image at all from a plate camera while normal people couldn't even take photos at all. In 1940 normal people got fuzzy snaps from their Brownies and flashbulbs while artists got incredible results on 8 x 10" film. Today artists still mess with 4 x 5" cameras and normal people are getting the best photos they ever have on 3 MP digital cameras printed at the local photo lab.

Ahh, so now we're talking about the average schmuck compared to a true photographer

So why the debate? I suspect the debate is among amateurs who've really only shot 35mm since it's been the only popular amateur film format for the past 25 years.

Exactly...

Today's digital SLRs replace 35mm, no big deal. Most people will get far better prints from a 6MP DSLR like the D70 than they will paying someone else to print their 35mm film.

Please note his wording here

Digital cameras give me much better and more accurate colors than I've ever gotten with print film.

Counterproductive to my argument?

Digital is far more convenient and offers great quality for photojournalism and portraits, and film is king for large prints and reproduction where textures in nature and landscapes are important.

Not really.

One first needs to define just what one is going to do with the photographs. For most things digital is far more convenient if you're shooting hundreds of images, making prints smaller than a few feet on a side and posting on websites and email, and for other things like landscape photography for reproduction and large fine prints film is better.

It's the same reason i shoot film

Ignore me. Just look here for why a magazine like Arizona Highways simply does not accept images from digital cameras for publication since the quality is not good enough, even from 11 megapixel cameras, to print at 12 x 18." Arizona highways doesn't even accept 35mm film, and rarely medium format film; they usually only print from 4 x 5" large format film. Here's

a comment from Arizona Highways after they got a lot of hate mail from amateurs on the previous link.[/quote]

I recomend you read BOTH links he noted.


Ooo, here comes my favorite part.

[qoute]ADVANTAGES: back to top

FILM:

IMAGE QUALITY

RESOLUTION: A glass plate from 1880 still has more resolution than a Canon 1Ds-MkII. Film always wins here when used by a skilled photographer. One source of confusion is [url=http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml]here, which uses bad scaince using prints too small (13 x 19") to show the difference. Also note that you're not even seeing the actual prints, but screen resolution images (about 72 - 100DPI) at that site. He throws away most of the resolution of the film. (It doesn't matter that his film was scanned at 3,200 DPI and it's completely irrelevant that the printer was set to 2880 DPI, since all that resolution was down-converted for your screen.) As I keep trying to say, if all you want is 13 x 19" inkjet prints made on a $700 Epson by all means get an $8,000 1Ds. If you want to feel the texture of every grain of sand on a 40 x 60" print, stick with 4 x 5" as photographers do. [/quote]

Yay, they even rip your cited article apart for me.

If you do fret the pixel counts, I find that it takes about 25 megapixels to simulate 35mm film's practical resolution, which is still far more than any practical digital camera. At the 6 megapixel level digital gives about the same sharpness as a duplicate slide, which is plenty for most things.

Thats almost 8 mp

Of course I use much bigger film than 35mm for all the pretty pictures you see at my website, so digital would need about 100 megapixels to simulate medium format, or 500 megapixels to simulate 4x5,

Not entirely releviant to this discussion, but it does put things into perspective i think.

OK, I've had it with this idiocy. back to top of article Here are the examples I've been too busy shooting to waste my time scanning and posting. We all know the other websites showing a big name digital SLR looking as good as film resolution. Baloney. You may not realize that those sites are actually sponsored by those camera companies and the guy running them doesn't really know how to get good results on film. He then only compares them at such low resolution that you can't see what film's resolution is all about. It takes skill to get optimum resolution on film.

These are two crops out of this image, one shot on a brand new digital camera and the other on a cheap film camera with a 50 year-old lens:

Again, not using 35mm, but still puts it into perspective doesnt it?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/images/filmdig/McGeeIndex.jpg

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/images/filmdig/4990scan.jpg

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/images/filmdig/digital.jpg

Scanners always get better. Film shot today will be scanned better tomorrow.

Excellent point.

DYNAMIC RANGE: Film has a huge advantage in recording highlights. We take for granted the fact that specular highlights and bright sunsets look the way they do in painting and on film. Digital has a huge problem with this (see disadvantages under digital below.)

So true.

Thats just one article, would you like more?

 

[mewannafastpc]

I must say I am constantly shocked by the prints this 8mp 1.6x crop sensor produces. I "only" have the "lowly" 350D because I would rather throw money into glass than a temporary body, and I must say, the lens makes all the difference. I just started getting my first L glass with the 100-400L and there is absolutely no comparison to my non-L glass. So, before you sweat over the body and the pixels, make sure you've got the glass to deliver the resolution.

i dunno where to find the resolution of different lenses, the lens i have right now is a 24-85MM f/3.5 canon usm lens do you know resolution on that? and another cheap 300mm lens

 

[logo29a]

How old are you really?

I give you a source and you tell me you wont read it because it's too long? You ever heard of credibility. How are we supose to give you credit if you cant even read the counter argument.

Here, allow me to show you some stuff that other people have said:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Are you really trying to invalidate my argument based on age? It's really just a disguised form of name calling.

If you had read anything I've said, you would know that I DID read your link and I ALREADY discredited it. Besides, if you had fully read it, it doesn't fully support your argument anyways.

Ok...



Ahh, so now we're talking about the average schmuck compared to a true photographer

This is a red herring and has nothing to do with which can produce better enlargements. Are you trying to use it to descredit my argument by saying that digital photographers are all average schmucks?

Please note his wording here

How would this prove that a professional couldn't do the same?

Counterproductive to my argument?



Not really.



It's the same reason i shoot film

a comment from Arizona Highways after they got a lot of hate mail from amateurs on the previous link.

Everything quoted here has either nothing to do with the argument that sensors above a certain pixel density can produce better enlargements than film, or they provide only anectdotal evidence. There is NO fact or theory behind it.

Ooo, here comes my favorite part.

[qoute]ADVANTAGES: back to top

FILM:

IMAGE QUALITY

RESOLUTION: A glass plate from 1880 still has more resolution than a Canon 1Ds-MkII. Film always wins here when used by a skilled photographer. One source of confusion is here, which uses bad scaince using prints too small (13 x 19") to show the difference. Also note that you're not even seeing the actual prints, but screen resolution images (about 72 - 100DPI) at that site. He throws away most of the resolution of the film. (It doesn't matter that his film was scanned at 3,200 DPI and it's completely irrelevant that the printer was set to 2880 DPI, since all that resolution was down-converted for your screen.) As I keep trying to say, if all you want is 13 x 19" inkjet prints made on a $700 Epson by all means get an $8,000 1Ds. If you want to feel the texture of every grain of sand on a 40 x 60" print, stick with 4 x 5" as photographers do.

He makes a pretty bold claim and then cannot explain why this or that is true. Are we supposed to simply take his word for it? He used science to provide support for his conclusions as well as images. He had no agenda here. How do you expect him to display such results on the web? He provided the only two ways possible. Your author isn't doing any more than you are: "nuh ungh".

Yay, they even rip your cited article apart for me.

Hardly. There wasn't a single bit of support for his argument. Nowhere did he even state the premises he used to arive at said conclusion.

 

[logo29a]

As for your dynamic range argument: can we say it all together, and slowly? RED HERRING

I never disagreed with this, and this has nothing to do with which can produce better enlargements.

 

[logo29a]

As for the images you posted: what are they supposed to prove? They are all film scans. There isn't any comparison going on here. He tries to discredit one author by mentioning jpeg compression, while his own images show horrible compression artifacts. The author of the Luminous article used the least amount of compression possible and it shows in his images.

If you can't see compression artifacts you really can't discredit the images.

 

[logo29a]

One more thing, do you really expect anyone to trust a source that comes from a source that won't even accept digital submissions regardless of how good the photograph is? Talk about agenda.

You can quote all of the sources you want, but that doesn't make your argument (or their's for that matter) any more sound.

 

[[TQ]]

As for the images you posted: what are they supposed to prove? They are all film scans. There isn't any comparison going on here. He tries to discredit one author by mentioning jpeg compression, while his own images show horrible compression artifacts. The author of the Luminous article used the least amount of compression possible and it shows in his images.

If you can't see compression artifacts you really can't discredit the images.

For starters they are not all film scans, the first one is a film scan the second is a digital image.

Everything quoted here has either nothing to do with the argument that sensors above a certain pixel density can produce better enlargements than film, or they provide only anectdotal evidence. There is NO fact or theory behind it.

I'm not saying that above a certain pixel count that images wont go beyond what film can produce, i'm simply saying that 8mp is not it.

Come on now...digital photography is great, dont get me wrong, but lets get realistic. The first truely useful (keyword) DSLR's were released around 2001. Film was inveted over 100 years ago. Why do you have to take it so personally that digital is not there yet, but the fact that it is (based on the release of the 5D) only a year or so away is amazing, what may become of photography is downright scary!

 

[[TQ]]

BTW i wasnt discrediting your argument because of your age (which i dont even knwo) it was because you tell me not to post links to articles.

 

[logo29a]

For starters they are not all film scans, the first one is a film scan the second is a digital image.

I was mistaken. Either way there are obvious jpeg artifacts in the digital image it is also enlarged to a slightly larger degree.

I'm not saying that above a certain pixel count that images wont go beyond what film can produce, i'm simply saying that 8mp is not it.

I'm looking for the actual data as to pixel size and grain size to solidify my argument. I believe that you are wrong and that I have the scientific evidence to prove it.

Come on now...digital photography is great, dont get me wrong, but lets get realistic. The first truely useful (keyword) DSLR's were released around 2001. Film was inveted over 100 years ago. Why do you have to take it so personally that digital is not there yet, but the fact that it is (based on the release of the 5D) only a year or so away is amazing, what may become of photography is downright scary!

I'm not taking it personally. I feel that you are doing a disservice to readers of this forum by spreading misinformation. Your first few posts were very troll like.

 

[logo29a]

BTW i wasnt discrediting your argument because of your age (which i dont even knwo) it was because you tell me not to post links to articles.

This is pure BS and you know it. I even encouraged you to post links to articles. My point was that expecting readers to read through several pages of data was a bit extreme and that posting the relevant parts was better.

 

[[TQ]]

a few beers in me an my honesty comes out

I dont hsve a ton of respect for this forum in regards to photographic knowledge. If you were to go to other forms and aks the same question most pepole would tell you that witha quality photographer and expensive equipment you can get larger images from film. It's not something i personally need to present you with "scientific fact" because honestly i've seen it myself. It's all in thew ay you process it.

I am a photographer who gets paid to take photos.
I have taken many photography classes.
I have pritned MANY of my own photos
I have scanned many of my own negs
I have worked in a dark room for 3 years
I have taken photos since i was 7 (thats about 13 years)
I have shot digital for about a year and a half

With thta said, prints from a 35mm neg on an enlarger suck
Prints from a 35mm neg on a good scanner have much potential
Prints from a digital camera are AMAZING

It's all about the time and sadly money you put into it. But the bottom line is that a low ISO slide will give you much better enlargments then most digital cameras. There is a reason why so many pro glamour photographers are still shooting film. No, perhaps not 35mm but they are still using film.

As i stated, digital photography is right around the corner to reaching 35mm/film abilities. And honestly, as we speak right now for the average user they are just fine as it is. However, 35mm and larger film formats is sitll the way to go if you want the absolute in quality with a few exceptions:

1 High ISO images
2 If you own a 12mp + camera

Im not saying film is better, if that was the case i woudlnt own a 4mp camera (which by the way makes awesome 20x30 prints) but there is also a reason i own a $20 holga.

 

[logo29a]

Let's put it this way since I'm still having a hard time finding the article.

There are about 20 Million actual grains on a 35mm piece of film. Some will make the argument that film can record more than the 256 values of digital. While this is true, each tiny grain is actually either on or off. That means that it requires atleast 8 adjacent grains just to get a value of 256. A digital pixel only requires 1 pixel to record a 256 value (8-bit). So a digital sensor requires a little more than a third as many "pixels" to record the same amount of data. You may get more dpi for a given enlargment, but will still have less data there and the enlargement won't look as nice.

 

[logo29a]

a few beers in me an my honesty comes out

I dont hsve a ton of respect for this forum in regards to photographic knowledge. If you were to go to other forms and aks the same question most pepole would tell you that witha quality photographer and expensive equipment you can get larger images from film. It's not something i personally need to present you with "scientific fact" because honestly i've seen it myself. It's all in thew ay you process it.

I am a photographer who gets paid to take photos.
I have taken many photography classes.
I have pritned MANY of my own photos
I have scanned many of my own negs
I have worked in a dark room for 3 years
I have taken photos since i was 7 (thats about 13 years)
I have shot digital for about a year and a half

With thta said, prints from a 35mm neg on an enlarger suck
Prints from a 35mm neg on a good scanner have much potential
Prints from a digital camera are AMAZING

It's all about the time and sadly money you put into it. But the bottom line is that a low ISO slide will give you much better enlargments then most digital cameras. There is a reason why so many pro glamour photographers are still shooting film. No, perhaps not 35mm but they are still using film.

As i stated, digital photography is right around the corner to reaching 35mm/film abilities. And honestly, as we speak right now for the average user they are just fine as it is. However, 35mm and larger film formats is sitll the way to go if you want the absolute in quality with a few exceptions:

1 High ISO images
2 If you own a 12mp + camera

Im not saying film is better, if that was the case i woudlnt own a 4mp camera (which by the way makes awesome 20x30 prints) but there is also a reason i own a $20 holga.

Wow, an appeal to authority. And we're supposed to just take your word for it? What if I said that I was a professional photographer as well and that makes me the end-all, be-all? Who are we supposed to believe then?

You can keep repeating your lie, but it won't become any more true.