A simple question...

On 19-Jul-08 18:32:22, Jennifer Usher said
I have been wondering..what was the first digital camera that was considered
to be a true replacement for film? I mean, I remember some years ago that
there was a lot of talk about this. That digital would reach the point of
being as good as film. When did this happen?

Well the people selling digital cameras tend to say it every time a new
digital camera has been released - I remember being told by a professional
photographer in fact that the the Nikon D1X offered better resolution than
a 5x4 film camera - which is clearly daft.

There are subjects that show up problems with digital sensors where you
get a lot of small right angles/rectangles like a cityscape where these
details mesh in with the sensor grid and cause problems - and there are
other situations where film doesn't do so well, so I dont believe there
is a complete answer to the question. And, are we saying better than 35mm
or medium format etc?

For me, in a rule of thumb kind of way, the around 5 megapixel Nikon D1X
was fine for 35 mm quality but not up to medium format, while the D2X at
12.4 megapixel doesn't make me long for my Hasselblad, and its a lot moore
convenient given the way the world works. I'm not saying its better, mind.



All the best,
Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)

I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga
Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html

Jennifer Usher wrote:
"Ray Paseur" wrote in message
...

I have an Epson 9800 printer - Roll paper 44 inches wide and as long as
your picture is tall. I have printed several very high quality digital
photographs at or near that size. Most were captured with the Canon 5D,
some with other cameras. So I would suggest that your digital cameras can
go somewhere well beyond 16x20 - more like up to the size of a bus stop!

Okay....I will keep that in mind.

I remember years ago (something like close to 30) there was a company that
was doing prints from Kodachrome slides that were incredibly large (like a
bus stop size) using laser scanning. Of course, the cost for one print that
size was a bit out of my range. But it was impressive.

Unless you are using exceptional film, any consumer 10MP camera matches
film just fine as of a few years ago. If you can afford to stitch a
panorama, digital easily wipes even large format away. No need to wait,
jump in.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Ray Paseur wrote:

@Jennifer: Kodachrome and its ilk, and especially film negatives will
deteriorate - literally rot - over time.


Kodachrome most certainly does not deteriorate, in the dark,
kept where you yourself are comfortable (not the unairconditioned
garage in Houston), it will last, unchanged, for over 100 years.
Negatives made on Kodak still color film since about 1965 will
also last quite nicely, maybe not unchanged in 100 years, but still
just fine. I have Kodacolor 35 mm from 1967 and Ektacolor large format
from 1970 that are today just as easily printable as the day they
were developed. Only E4 and earlier Ektachrome has proven
problematic, of post-1955 Kodak films.

And they most certainly do not "rot". Only early nitrate
based films rot. Consumer films have been acetate or Mylar for
many, many decades.

When did still films stop being nitrate based?

Doug McDonald

Jennifer Usher wrote:


And they most certainly do not "rot". Only early nitrate
based films rot. Consumer films have been acetate or Mylar for
many, many decades.

Well, that is not completely true. If it is not properly stored, acetate
film base can deteriorate rapidly, resulting in the so-called "vinegar
syndrome." At 65 degrees and 50% humidity, the lifetime is about 50 years.
Even if the film is stored under optimal conditions, around 15 degrees and
50% humidity, it will only last about 150 years. And the release of acetic
acid destroys the dyes in color films.

Really? I've got Kodachrome, vintage 1948, that actually was stored
in a garage in Houston for decades and is still just fine.

Doug McDonald

Jennifer Usher wrote:
"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...

Unless you are using exceptional film, any consumer 10MP camera matches
film just fine as of a few years ago. If you can afford to stitch a
panorama, digital easily wipes even large format away. No need to wait,
jump in.

Oh, I will...

BTW, it appears we are almost neighbors. In fact, some of your pictures
are very close to where I live.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jennifer_usher/

Ha! Some familiar scenes in there :-)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/2096610759/

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam