[WTM]

For you techies who still have any interest in the debate over film vs digital, here is a site that does some great tests. Lots of fun. http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/498472.html I just bought a digital but plan to carry my analog kit too. Digital hasn't quite swept the field yet.

[MCaver]

Most of the pros I've talked to and read about still use slide film, then scan it with a slide scanner. After that, it's all digital -- from editing to printing. Most of them seem to be waiting for digital cameras to surpass the estimated 20mp of a scanned slide before they switch.

[Far Fig Newton]

Have you talked to any cons lately?

[Sore Feet]

The crux of this arguement is that you need a really really good scanner to get the quality to surpass digital shots from film. For those of us who can't afford those kind of toys, digital supplies a cheaper alternative that produces almost as good results. One thing I also notice there is that they're comparing an 8x10 with a 300D Raw, which isn't exactly a fair comparison, since a), it's unprocessed, and can be cleaned up to be just as sharp as the 8x10, and b), it's not a pro-level camera, where as something like the Hasselblad H1 with a Kodak DCS Pro Digital back is. I've read and seen comparisons of 4x5 and 8x10 negatives against the 14-20 megapixel medium format cartridges, and they're easily as good. I've also read of people who are making enlargements up to like 4x6 feet from the 300D and Sigma SD10 by using advanced interpolation algorithms, so we're pretty much on the teetering point right here. I imagine within 5 years, we'll have a 35mm body that'll shoot better than 8x10s.

[WTM]

------------ Sore Feet stated:

[Andrew]

WTM, if I looked the correct product up, the Kodak Pro Digital Back will cost you a cool $12,000. The Hassy H1 body itself is ~$2,000. You're definately not messing around with this outfit.

[WTM]

[hikermike]

I use mostly digital camera mainly because of weight and I try to ultra backpack, which is a "religion" requiring rules. I still miss a lot of things available with film. Instant photos,(i.e., push the trigger and the pix is taken instantly, not 1-3 secs later), good flash, proper use of filters which is a BIG issue! Also durability and cost. Quality of lenses, the problem of parallax and pincusioning with digital cuz of the size of the ccd's Also the ultimate topic of archiving, will this or that format or media still be around in 5, 10 or 20 years?

[Sore Feet]

[WTM]

Looks like we've changed the subject a bit

[Tom]

Yeah, whatever. Megapixels aren't the whole story. It's the quality of the pixels that matter, not necessarily the quantity. Quality pixels can be res-ed up.

[Sore Feet]

^ What Tom said. 300 dpi is almost excessive too, most people that I've talked with who print their own images (I get mine done at a lab presently...once I get a good printer, the smaller ones will be done at home) feel that 240, or less in some cases, is plenty. Just out of curiosity, anyone know how big a negative you need to get the resolution of a picture from a 300 megapixel camera printed at 300 dpi? As I said before, I have nothing against film (except print film at least ), but digital just has more flexibility.

[connie fir]

Darn, here I am still trying to get the best hi-fi out ofo my turntable with tube amplifier and gold plated speaker connectors and now I have to look at updating my camera?

[WTM]

Sore Feet:

[Tom]