 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / June 2006Nikon D200 verus Fuji S3 versus film
This was in the most recent issue of "Amateur Photographer" I saw. In terms of dynamic range, colour neg. film wins handily on the high end with 7 stops of "tolerance" above correct exposure. The Fuji comes in second with 2 stops above the Nikon, but the Nikon wins for the other end, having 2 stops under what the Fuji can deliver and both cameras beat film on the low end. Sunset shots give the Fuji a noticeable edge over the Nikon. The Nikon on the other hand wins easily over the Fuji and Film when it comes to resolution. Overall, the Nikon wins for most categories. But, the FM-2 they used with the film apparently had a much clearer, brighter viewfinder than either of the digitals. > This was in the most recent issue of "Amateur Photographer" I saw. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > with the film apparently > had a much clearer, brighter viewfinder than either of the digitals. All sounds about right, The Fuji is a camera that many wedding photogs say is better than film, did they use the advanced dynamic range setting? The Fuji body is antiquated, slow card write speeds, poor viewfinder even for a prism finder. A full frame camera will always have a better finder, just more area to let light in. I have a D200, bought over the Fuji because of the viewfinder. It isn't bad with an f2 lens attached, but my film cameras are better. I still think a 10mp digital image is better than a scanned 35mm slide which is better than a 35mm scanned neg. The 10mp will also beat some MF cameras. Tom > > This was in the most recent issue of "Amateur Photographer" I saw. > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Tom I'd agree with that, based on what I've seen, but you still get magazine reviewers saying things like, 400 ISO colour neg. film beats 10meg for detail. If this were the case, you'd need a 30 meg camera to beat something like low speed colour negative or slower slide films. > I'd agree with that, based on what I've seen, but you still get > magazine reviewers [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > colour negative > or slower slide films. Last time I shot 400 speed color neg (Kodak VR) photos from my Nikon 995 at 400 had less noise/grain. Pro lab processed. I assisted in a shot of a minor league baseball team AAA, One year we shot it with a Mamiya 645 (iso 160 film) and a Kodak DCS760, the 760s pics were better and used for the team picture, the one you buy in the store. The next year we used the 760 again and someone was there with a Hassleblad. They still used the 760 pic because the printer wanted the file that day. When we saw the Hassy pic, the press agent had it blown up to the size ours was printed, better yes but not by much and consider we were comparing an offset piece to a photo print. I also spent 4 years doing large format printing, we would routinely do 20x30 prints from the DCS760 files. Remember that was a 6mp camera. Tom >> I'd agree with that, based on what I've seen, but you still get >> magazine reviewers [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Tom would you like RichA also needs to do fix your settings on google so your posts would not be so difficult to read especially when you cut n paste other info into your web browser. It is such a pain in the a.s when trying to read your posts and it all looks about as sloppy as I intended this reply to look. Set your lines to at least 72 cpi etc. of don't be so cheap and get an account where you can use a news reader. There are some free Usenet servers that you could also make use of anything would be appreciated. Thank you in advance. :) > > This was in the most recent issue of "Amateur Photographer" I saw. > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Tom You are fooling yourself....10mp is not even close to MF....not for resolution or for detail...the only thing its better at is ease of use....I did a shoot for Disney and used 6mp digital and 6x7 from my Mamiya RZ 67 II....the RZ blew away the 6mp digital, which I knew it would, but I wanted to see some files immediately...but 2 years later I have a D2X and its AMAZING....I was printing 11x17 images on my Epson 4800 and I ran across a scan from the RZ 67....I printed it and compared it to prints made from the D2X and they were close, but the shadow detail was amazing with the film. JR > You are fooling yourself....10mp is not even close to MF.... 10mp is not even close for 35mm with Technical Pan. With a very sharp macro lens having 100 line PAIRS per mm, you would need about 100x2x36x100x2x24= 34.5 mp for B&W only. Even with a more realistic 80 lpm, you are talking about 22mp for B&W. Tien > You are fooling yourself....10mp is not even close to MF....not for > resolution or for detail...the only thing its better at is ease of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it to prints made from the D2X and they were close, but the shadow > detail was amazing with the film. Unless you are doing dodges with Photoshop to bring up the shadow area I would have thought that the D2X would have far more shadow detail then would show up in a print. A print has a much more limited dynamic range what you should be seeing from your D2X. If you look at the prints from the D2X and the original file does it look like the lack of detail is from the image or from the print? Scott > > You are fooling yourself....10mp is not even close to MF....not for > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > prints from the D2X and the original file does it look like the lack of > detail is from the image or from the print? I'm suspecting default jpeg contrast settings. > I'm suspecting default jpeg contrast settings. You may be right, but even then I would expect a good jpeg to have way more range that could be printed. Scott > You are fooling yourself....10mp is not even close to MF....not for > resolution or for detail...the only thing its better at is ease of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it to prints made from the D2X and they were close, but the shadow > detail was amazing with the film. In some ways comparing apples to oranges. Taking a section of the MF film that is the same size as the sensor gives a better comparison. Either that, or taking multiple exposures with sensor so that you get an image size the same size as film. But even there you start running into trouble in making a comparison. A sensor might have more pixels per inch than film, but less resolution because the pixels are so tiny that noise effectively masks the extra resolution. A digital image is always going to look different than an analog one. Ultimately it comes down to a matter of personal preference. > In some ways comparing apples to oranges. Taking a section of the MF > film that is the same size as the sensor gives a better comparison. I respectfully disagree. It is what it is man. If you compare performance between say a Seneca II with a Cessna 172R, you compare the planes "as is". You don`t start saying, "well, the Seneca`s single engine climb performance is inferior to that of the 172R's". Take a decent shot with almost any 6x6 on NPS and a shot on a D200, blow them up and see. Sure, you can digitalize either formats and make them comparable depending on what you do to each, but I am not talking about massive post-processing. I have not done it, but I suspect I don`t even need my Hassleblad; my YashicaMat 124G used to blow away my F4S with an 85mm f2.8. Tien > > In some ways comparing apples to oranges. Taking a section of the MF > > film that is the same size as the sensor gives a better comparison. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > even need my Hassleblad; my YashicaMat 124G used to blow away my F4S > with an 85mm f2.8. Well, you can get into a huge discussion about it. Nothing prevents you from taking a 200Mp photo with the D200. I am perfectly willing to conduct experiments with, say, a Hasselblad HD39, a 6x6, a D2x, and a 1DS MkII and compare them. Um, I am a little short right now, though, so if you could send me the equipment I would thank you profusely. But there is really no need to do that. Luminous Landscape has already done something similar: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml Still, if you wish independent verification, I will be happy to test it for you. :-) > > In some ways comparing apples to oranges. Taking a section of the MF > > film that is the same size as the sensor gives a better comparison. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > even need my Hassleblad; my YashicaMat 124G used to blow away my F4S > with an 85mm f2.8. Well, you can get into a huge discussion about it. Nothing prevents you from taking a 200Mp photo with the D200. I am perfectly willing to conduct experiments with, say, a Hasselblad HD39, a 6x6, a D2x, and a 1DS MkII and compare them. Um, I am a little short right now, though, so if you could send me the equipment I would thank you profusely. But there is really no need to do that. Luminous Landscape has already done something similar: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml Still, if you wish independent verification, I will be happy to test it for you. :-) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.