[Eric]

The CCD that Sigma uses is a good example of doing more with the same number of pixels because they use the 3 seperate color sensors do get more bang per megapixel. I think the bottom line for me is that theoretical maximums with professional film scanners and $10,000 cameras aside, I get better output in the real world with digital rather than scanned slides. That may not be true at the top end professional level but I think it is already true at the consumer and prosumer levels. That's not to say that digital is close to as good as film now; I'm just a weekend amateur but my best slides clearly exceed anything my G2 can do. However once you add the scanning into the mix, even scanning them at 3600 dpi or whatever I still cannot get results onto my computer that compare to straight out of the camera digital stuff. And that's with a moderately outdated digital; with a nice DSLR it would be even more pronounced. I think the whole "Digital will be the Death of Film" by 20xx is a bit over the top. But if you are ultimately going to put your stuff, slides or digital pics on the web or in digital format I think the scan and slide thing isn't really worth it. Throw in the cost of processing and digital is the winner to me. When I got on short day trips, winter, ocean or whatever say a nice flat trip less than 10 miles, I will often actually take both my Nikon and my G2. G2 for the vast majority of shots since I can burn compact flash for free and film slides for those occasional ones where I am looking at a shot that has me muttering "Wow" about nature before I click the shutter.

[Trevor]

Eric, I enjoyed viewing your gallery. You are furnishing some quality shots. Did you use slides or digital on the majority of those images?

[hikermike]

As I said before, Wait a year if you can, as bigger ccd's are coming out now, so in a year the prices should be down. Also, even though most cameras use the same ccd's, different cameras interpret the information they obtain from those ccd' s diferently so there is a difference between cameras. You didn't waste your money getting a 5 meg camera, you will get better pix overall from it. With post production software you have more information you can throw away. For instance, you're assuming that the picture you took was perfect. That's not reality. Say you want to crop it. Now these are made up numbers so no one get hot about the math. You want to print at 300dpi, and you took the pix at 300 dpi for a 5x7 shot. You decide to crop off 1/2 of the picture becuz of a poor foreground and a distracting background. You now are left with 1/4 the numper of pixels in your print, which if you still want to print it out as a 5x7, will only give you 75 dpi, just about newspaper quality! It's also possible that your more expensive camera may interpret information better, have a better lens, or more features. Just check out multiple review sources before you buy. Keep in mind, 1 magazine review is not enough as they all have their biases, and I know of one that got a bad review by a magazine simply becuz they refused to provide a camera for free.

[Newt]

Ditto on the Gallery Eric. Some nice photos. Newt

[Eric]

Thanks guys. I'm still just getting my stuff online but it is coming along. Trevor, almost all of my photos in those galleries are digital. There are a couple in my Granite Mtn gallery that are slides but I think that all the rest are G2 photos.

[misterf]

Did anyone notice that this study is comparing a $5000 Leica setup to an $800 Digital Rebel with an $80 consumer zoom attached to it, not to mention the high-end large format setups. The whole thing was a totally ridiculous exercise in high-end purchase justification. I want to do a study where me and Mr. Large Format guy hike up to Camp Muir. Me with a Digital Rebel and a 24mm Canon prime, and he with his Gandolfi Variant 8x10. Then, after coming back down we drive to our homes and I print out a nice 8x10 of the view that night while he waits until Monday morning at 10am to go to ProLab and stand in line for 20 minutes to drop off his large format film. Then they tell him his film won't be ready for 8 working days. Maybe a few weeks later and for $100 he'll get a nice 24x36 print that he can zoom in on with a microscope and show how much more detail he got in the print, assuming he made it up to Muir with a 10 lb. camera. I'm creating a silly scenario here but you get my point about large format snobs I hope.

[Steve]

A digital camera is still bound to the same optical rules as a film camera: If you've got a crappy lens you'll get crappy results. A friend of mine is a professional photographer and has spent ~$30,000 on his equipment (I think roughly $10k on lighting) and states he gets better quality pics even after scanned than the best digital cameras. That said I would choose a $1000 camera with a 20% lower resolution than spend huge sums for a setup I could not appreciably appreciate.

[sooperfly]

[WTM]

Large format snob? Actually, the reason I am attracted to LF is not it's snob appeal but its simplicity. I have a 4x5 setup which I built by hand at a cost of $200. Can you say that about a digital? Simplicity. Good LF lenses can be had second hand for a couple hundred dollars. This format (LF) is for people who do not appreciate being caught up in the never ending cycles of obsolescence and hype. But, to be honest, I also carry a digicam for catching shots of wildlife on the trail. The LF comes out only after I set up camp and am free to wander around without a pack. I feel I have the best of both worlds. P.S. To get my LF chromes developed, I walk a couple of blocks to the local Crown Image - they send film to Prolab by messenger and I have it back in a day or so. No hassle at all.

[Sore Feet]

I'm not sure I agree about the lack of simplicity of Digital, but I don't see anything snobbish about LF, I wanna get a LF setup eventually too.

[WTM]

Ya. There is simple and there is simple. Digicams can be very simple to USE. Just leave em on auto and click, click, click. That's what I do. But LF is simple in basic CONSTRUCTION. Just a flexible box with a lens and film holder. Even some of the most useful lenses for LF ( Tessars and Dagors.and Biogons ) are simpler in design than those used in digicams. I can ray trace a Tessar and have some idea of whats going on optically. The large film size allows such simple lenses to excel in spite of their simplicity.. . But large format can be complex to use if you consider movements (tilts, shifts etc)

[seattlechronic]

You have to be kidding me...there is nothing snobbish about LF. I shoot 8x10, 4x5, 645 and Digital...They all have there place...A lot of times I scout with my Digital...Canon D30 with Various L Glass. Most of the Time I carry both my Contax 645 with the some of the Best Glass out there and the d30 with a 28-70L..I don’t mind carrying the extra weight...One great shot will keep me going for a long time...I carry a gitzo 1325 tripod with an acratech head every time and always will. The 8x10 doesn’t leave the house or car very often but I have carried it quite a way on a few occasions...My toyo 45A with Three Lens, 110xl, 150apo, 210apo come in under 10 pounds with about 4 more pounds of misc gear and well worth the extra weight in the pack and always turn out awesome scans on my epson 4870 or Lab prints....Ivey downtown also process my slides in 2 hours..The digital revolution spurs a lot of Film vs digital BS...Just get out there and shoot...Most people can't tell the difference in the Prints...Just have a good time... P.S. -- Nothing touches My 8x10 Velvia Trans..They are really close to my heart! Here's a D30 shot from The LAst Trip

Eric Floyd http://www.floydphotography.com

[Kirt]

Hey Eric this photo in your gallery.....is that looking North to the Tri-Cities? K

[polarbear]

Sheesh, where is Damsel Adams when we need her?? Oh for the days of guest posting! 100 years from now when they are still debating digital vs. analog, and whether vinyl sounds better than the latest digital audio format that just went obsolete the day before tomorrow, it will still be all about lighting, texture, composition....

[Eric]

Kirt, the photo is looking a little bit more to the East than North but I think after looking at a map that you are right about it being Tri-Cities. You have good eyes. The little peninsula jutting into the water appears to be the edge of the McNary National Wildlife Refuge just South of where the Snake River meets the Columbia. I guess then the more urbanized areas would be suburbs like Finley, Hedges etc and the line of demarkation on the West side of the river would be from the aqueduct that runs parallel to WA 397 and the Amtrak tracks.