Thinking about Karl's comments below, and the article, I realise that I
must never make "big" prints - from my old D100 or even really, from my
new D80.... =-O
Now I accept the maths totally. Can't argue!
But I do make those size prints, and visually I swear that the A3 prints
I have made from my D100 are far far better than the same size prints I
have had made from my older 35 mm Nikons, in terms of colour fidelity,
lack of noise sharpness and detail.
But visually, I would rather look at an A3 print from my old D100 than
one from my 35 mm Nikons or FD Canons. And that is comparing it to f=50
standard lenses on film cameras with 100 ISO film.
Just as everyone complains about image noise in today's digital cameras,
have a look at the grain from similar ISO films. Are they really that
much different? Or worse? Perhaps someone in the group can answer that.
But the D100 produces surprisingly low noise A3 enlargements even at ISO
800 whereas I'd never dare make an A3 print using ISO 800 colour films.
Has anyone in fact compared high ISO digital images to high ISO film
results?
Howard
karl shah-jenner wrote:
..and then there's this
http://news.com.com/2100-1041_3-6156398.html or this
and thinking further, a 3Mp camera yeilds a print of 5x7 inch at full res
- to double this and go to 10 x 14" you need a 12.6Mp camera. See, that's
a huge leap up to simply double the print size in linear length, so
stepping up from a 3 to a 4/5/6/8 Mp camera usually involves a substantial
investment for not a huge benefit in image size. Why make a jump from a 3
megapixel camera to a 6 when all you get is a mere 30% linear length
increase in final image size ?
an answer here perhaps
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
personally I feel the same as Ken does when he writes on the link at the
bottom of the page above "I use both digital and film cameras all the time.
They each serve a different purpose"
k
