Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (
More info?)
"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
> > "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> David J. Littleboy wrote:
> >>
> >> Higher resolution also is better. 35mm today is better than medium
format
> >> was using film from the 80's and that was a developed technology.
> >
> > The better slide
> > films today are nice, but they're not very sharp (MTF50 is only 45 lp/mm
> > or so) and K25 is ancient history.
> >
> > Ektar 25 and Konica Impressa 50 are also history.
>
> Seems ALL you ever care about is measuable things like lpmm etc.
ROFL. You've completely missed the point of my rants about the lp/mm
counters over on the MF list.
But yes, I care that my image look good when peope look closely.
> On one hand
> all you want is high ISO performance from a Dslr, then compare modern
films
> to 25 ASA ones?
But of course. Slow MF film for quality imaging, DSLRs for low light work.
At ISO 100, even the 8MP dSLRs are only just begining to edge out 35mm;
they're a factor of two to five away from MF. And the inkjet printers are
good enough to actually render that difference, even at A4.
But film become really gross at ISO 400 and up, so it doesn't make sense to
use it, especially since the dSLRs are so much better.
The low-noise dSLRs provide interesting imaging possibilities that film
didn't.
So MF film for quality imaging, and dSLRs for low-light fun makes perfect
sense.
> > Cheap shot: I don't own NeatImage. The 300D's noise is simply not a
> > problem. Yet I've seen you discussing noise reduction tricks in gory
> > detail here.
>
> Because I'm looking for medium format quality from a digicam.
MF is in the 16MP and up range. (If you can get the information from the
film to a print. I'm beginning to suspect that your lab that made your MF
prints was problematic.)
> How do your 11X14's+ look from 6mp? Like 645 images?
Of course not. 6 and 8MP are no where close to MF.
But, FWIW, noise is simply not a problem with the 300D/10D/20D at ISO 100.
That you are finding NeatImage critical says something about the camera you
bought.
> >> Given most are optimized for full frame
> >> sized capture, you don't think lenses optimized for smaller sensors
might
> >> be capable of higher resolution?
> >
> > The lp/mm will be higher, but the lines per frame height will be lower.
As
> > is always the case between different formats: the larger format captures
> > more detail, the smaller format is cheaper and more convenient. Pick
your
> > weapon, but don't tell people that the smaller format is better. That's
> > seriously silly.
> >
> > The ridiculous thing here is that you know all that...
>
> If the smaller sensor is higher rez and the lens can resolve more, it's
not
> a problem.
You've missed the point: the lp/mm may be higher for smaller lenses, but the
lines per frame height is higher for the larger format. The pixels in the
1Dsmk2 are a lot larger (requiring less lens resolution) than the E300, even
though there are twice as many.
I don't expect four times the resolution from the 1Dsmk2 as from the E300, I
expect twice.
> What's nice is then the lenses for the same effective focal
> length are smaller. The 50-200 ZD is half the weight and size of the
> 100-400L, is sharper and is 2 stops faster.
Smaller formats are always more convenient than larger formats. You just
have to decide if the loss of quality is acceptable. You are trying to have
it both ways.
It would be interesting to see your claim tested: I wonder if the 100-400L
(a lens I'm not familiar with) is really so gross that, say, 11x14s (300
dpi) with it would be anything other than a lot better than 11x14s (200 dpi
or so) from the E300 + 50-200.
> > People jumped on the D30 in a big way.
>
> I didn't. Less than 35mm quality for $3000?
Agreed. What was interesting, though, was that it blew the 5MP consumer cams
out of the water. Much better color rendition, in particular.
> >And a lot of people will find they need a 16MP camera.
>
> For what?
Quality prints. 16MP isn't quite 645, but it's a heck of a lot more than
35mm.
>And you think the current lenses will support a sensor this good?
Yes.
> The 100-400L sure doesn't. The curent full fame sensors are more than this
> lens can deal with. I'm sure very few of the canon "line up" can resolve
> well enough for this sensor. It's one reason the ZD lenses aren't cheap.
The Canon prime telephotos have no problem far exceeding the resolution of a
16MP sensor. All the way out to the corners.
> Yes for pixel peepers and people looking at images with a microscope they
> might not be. I've read you do this, most people never would.
People I hand A4 prints to put their noses on them. Interesting images
demand a closer look. And people at galleries walk up to prints; not
grain-sniffing distances, but 12 to 18" is pretty typical. So I'd like to be
able to make prints that hold up at those distances.
> >> > there
> >> > just aren't enough photons and there just isn't enough resolution in
> > that
> >> > small an area whatever the sensor does.
> >>
> >> Maybe not using the old 35mm designed canon lenses?
🙂
> >
> > Cute cheap shot. But wrong.
>
> Then why doesn't the 100-400L lens perform up to the standards of a 1D?
There are lots of lenses that do, so it really doesn't matter if there are
some that don't.
> >> I could easily see them going to either some sort of 3chip system like
> > video
> >> cams use to eliminate the bayer filter or just better, more sensitive
> >> chip technology.
> >
> > Again, the sensors are already photon noise limited. See Roger Clark's
> > notes here. And between the (mathematical) need for a low-pass filter
and
> > the human eye's lack of color resolution, 3-chip systems make no sense.
>
> Because these filters affect the total resolution. Look how shitty the
> resolution is on a TV yet this makes a HUGE difference in video cam
> performance and how clean a low light signal they can generate. You claim
> high ISO noise is such a big deal, that's what 3CCD cameras help.
Comparing low-res video to high-res still photography isn't going to result
in sensible results.
> > But again: in photogrtaphic sensors larger is always better. Always. Any
> > technology that makes 4/3 better makes full-frame that much better as
> > well.
>
> But you assume these large sensors can be made at reasonable prices.
No, I don't. But if they're cheaper than my guitar, then they're
"affordable".
> Larger chips of any sort go up cubically in price by their size.
MF digital is $10,000, APS-C digital is $900. The geometric mean is $3,000.
Quite a bit cheaper than a Gibson L5.
But so? MF is more expensive, heavier, less convenient than 35mm. But it
looks a lot better. If you don't care about the quality, use the more
convenient system. But don't try to tell us that the absolute quality is
better, because it's not.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
/www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
Facebook
Twitter