Traditional or Digital??

elrafo · Mar 19, 2005

hi there,

this is a test I did because I still have difficult time to find what is better for me between my 42 megapixel drumscan + traditional Camera, AND a digital rebel like the 350D Eos...

my point was Resolution, BUT I blowed up the 8 megapix sample from 350D website to 24 Megapix, plus Noise and found better results than my scan on a very sharp negative B&W, faces had the same proportions in the frame...

does it means that we don't need a 24Megapix digital Camera to get the same resolution as Film??

is it enough to get a 8 megapix and blowup sometimes to do 20x30 prints??

seems to work!

I would like to have your opinion,

Cheers,

railman44 · Mar 19, 2005

Make your picture smaller. My question is what do you want to do? I'm 35mm. If you like digital go for it.

Mumfandc · Mar 19, 2005

I really don't know, just go by what your eyes tell you is best.

The thing I question is, in the future, how far will most people care about the number of megapixels in digital cameras...and the point where there's very little discernable image quality difference in resulting average size prints (or whatever the end product is).

The new Canon 350D doesn't necessarily make all your other cameras "wrong".

willg133 · Mar 19, 2005

even at 5 megapixels you can get some seriously sharp images....with the 300d at 6.3, i saw a 16x24 that was as sharp as it could be....its not just the megapixels, but the quality of the sensor...my coolpix 5700 (getting replaced with a 300d) has a much lower grade sensor than the 300d

DocFrankenstein · Mar 19, 2005

my 42 megapixel drumscan + traditional Camera....

BUT I blowed up the 8 megapix sample from 350D website to 24 Megapix....

I don't quite get it.

Scanner is 42mp... you scanned it with... how many mp?

Rebel is 8 mp... shouldn't u blow it up to 42 mp too?

Digital rules!

Mumfandc · Mar 19, 2005

willg133 said:
with the 300d at 6.3, i saw a 16x24 that was as sharp as it could be....
...its not just the megapixels, but the quality of the sensor...

Don't forget the lens glass.

I don't know about "as sharp as it could be" though. Those who do very critical controlled tests (with say lens sharpness) would be able to tell these sorts of things.

And sharpness seems like a subjective content also...depends on who's viewing the print. What was considered a technically "sharp photo" back in 1970, may not be so today.

willg133 · Mar 20, 2005

Mumfandc said:
Don't forget the lens glass.

I don't know about "as sharp as it could be" though. Those who do very critical controlled tests (with say lens sharpness) would be able to tell these sorts of things.

And sharpness seems like a subjective content also...depends on who's viewing the print. What was considered a technically "sharp photo" back in 1970, may not be so today.

fair enough, but to be able to make prints 16x24 and have them be adequate enough to be on display at a photo shop (where said picture was hanging) says something. Canon makes a good camera, and if you add a $75 50mm f/1.8 to it you will have outstanding performance for well under $1000 (and no film to buy)

I personally have easy access to a color darkroom right now because of school, but eventually I will not, and I will use my computer. For me, digital SLR is the only way to go.

Bob_McBob · Mar 20, 2005

This has to be the worst film/digital comparison I've ever seen. The film image isn't even in focus!

Hertz van Rental · Mar 20, 2005

Comparing the output of a DSLR to that of drum scanner is the same as comparing 35mm film to 10x8. What point is being made here except to boast about having access to a drum scanner? Big deal. I have a 10x8, so there.

elrafo · Mar 20, 2005

My point is only to have your point of view, is it really now the good moment to go with SLR? I don't want or need to show off with the Drum scan, I need it anyway to archive all my past photos.

I just don't know yet if the best 20x30 I could get would be from a scanned 35mm negative or a blowed up 8mpixel pictures done with a good sensor, sure...

thanks.

elrafo · Mar 20, 2005

I must say for some people who didn't understand, I don't have the 350D yet and need your opinion before buying it

mentos_007 · Mar 20, 2005

'm both... digi and analogue... I use my Zenith for shots at night as well as portraits because I like low ISO, and the digital ISO is not the same as this in analogue cams.

ksmattfish · Mar 20, 2005

elrafo said:
I must say for some people who didn't understand, I don't have the 350D yet and need your opinion before buying it

Yes, buy it. It not only takes better pics, but when holding it you can actually run faster and jump higher.

And everyone can send their obsolete film cameras to me. I will give them a good home.

elrafo · Mar 20, 2005

ksmattfish said:
Yes, buy it. It not only takes better pics, but when holding it you can actually run faster and jump higher.

And everyone can send their obsolete film cameras to me. I will give them a good home.

hu hu

I will never sell my old cameras, I love them too much

I will always use them even if I buy one day a XXX mega pixel slr

BTW ksmattfish, how do you scan you picures, drumscan negatives or flat scanned prints? nice landscapes in kansas,

BEST.

mrsid99 · Mar 20, 2005

elrafo said:
I must say for some people who didn't understand, I don't have the 350D yet and need your opinion before buying it

Forgive me if I'm off base here but it seems as though you've already made up your mind and are just looking to justify the decision.
The 350D is a great camera....buy it and be happy!