More megapixels vs. better dynamic range
- Thread starter Larry
- Start date
- Status
For one thing that I fully agree with you..... interpolation from Digital files is definately more superior to film scans. You don't need super megapixels to produce large prints, you'll still have a pretty clean picture since there are no grain. But given a choice, I would still prefer 9 MPS over 2 extra D range. The reason is that with 3 times the pixel amount (Compare with 3MPS), I can use interpolation on the 9MPS to create huge detailed poster image...Greed never ends
True, from my experience, 150 ppi (pixel per inch, not DPI) is good enough for color photo. 300 ppi will be better, but not so much difference can be seen by our eyes at normal viewing distance, unless using a loupe at close distance.
The key issue of having more resolution in digital image, is not because of printing size, but more toward the amount of details it can hold. A 2MP file can be interpolated to 4MP file and printed nicely at 8R, but it will lose to non-interpolated 4MP file in term of details. This is essential for still-life, archival, architectural and some landscape photography.
Dynamic range is important for certain type of photography. But do you know that current DSLR already has wider dynamic range than film? It is up to 6 stops (even some digital back can go to 12 stops), as compared to 5 stops for negative color film, or 3 stops for slide film. So theoritically digital will be better than film to shoot wide-latitude scene such as night cityscape, sunset landscape, theater/stage photo.. etc. Is that true?
Why somebody still wish to have "film performance" on digital?
oops.. there's one more question; if dynamic range is one of the most important factor, then slide film should be out and no more in use already. But why many still praise Velvia or Provia ?
anybody care to enlighten......
Others may have their own reason for shooting slides, but my reason for choosing slide is for the 3D picture you see on the lightbox. The effect is the ONLY ONE of its kind. Every element just pop out from the slide. You can't compare a monitor image or print to this effect. And also, the lack of D range in slide produced some very contasty landscape image ("Ok, thats My taste"). The main strenght of slide is still the super rich med color tone, the rich detail and the smoothness of the chemical pallet. However, if you print or scan them, ok, slides may not be even better than negs, let alone the larger files from DSLR.
So good?
Maybe I should develop my prints at where you guys do it. Because at 300dpi 4R print developing from a 3Mpix jpg, holding a colour glossy photo 20cm from my face I still can see pixelation.
Areas of pixelation that disturb me - teeth when smiling, eyebrows, hair fringes, edges of plant leaves, brick walls, straight graphic lines like signs etc.
What do you mean by dynamic range? Do you mean bright and dark areas can get properly exposed at the same time?
Originally posted by jasonpgc
Others may have their own reason for shooting slides, but my reason for choosing slide is for the 3D picture you see on the lightbox. The effect is the ONLY ONE of its kind. Every element just pop out from the slide. You can't compare a monitor image or print to this effect. And also, the lack of D range in slide produced some very contasty landscape image ("Ok, thats My taste"). The main strenght of slide is still the super rich med color tone, the rich detail and the smoothness of the chemical pallet. However, if you print or scan them, ok, slides may not be even better than negs, let alone the larger files from DSLR.
The 3D effect works best with a good loupe.
Regards
CK
Originally posted by ckiang
Your solution is simple. Migrate over to the other camp and you have the equivalent of 18-36mm available to you. With the advent of the new DX lenses, FF isn't important anymore.
once again, this point about DX lenses is nonsense. :devil:
Sorry, but we want to shoot our 17-28mm range at f2.8, thank you very much. We also would like to use our 24mm at f1.4 or f2.8, using prime 24mm lenses with less inherent distortion than zooms and having better sharpness and contrast with a smaller form factor.
and judging from YOUR opinion (not mine) of the 24-85 AFS, i doubt this new shiny 12-24 or watever is going to be any better. When it makes it out of the Nikon factory, that is. Can anyone say 70-200 AFS?
how long more before new DX lenses will come out? and when they do, wat would be the state of the DSLR industry? lots of third party chip makers are coming out with full frame, high megapixel count digital sensors. Isn't there a new one with 8 megapixel recently announced on dpreview? this sounds commercially it is now possible to produce these things. Kodak has one. Canon has one. Very soon these new chips will be licensed. And you're willing to stick to the small frame sensor with lower megapixel count, lower dynamic range and new untested lenses that aren't backward compatible with your existing film bodies?
How long can u use those DX lenses before your digital SLR becomes obsolete and you can't use these DX stuff on that shiny new nikon full frame DSLR? think about it.
yes, Nikon is definitely going to come out with a full frame sensor DSLR soon. you can bet on it. Market forces will surely dictate that. And then all who bought the DX lenses will be dumped like used girlfriends. u know, like Nikon dumped the special IX lenses made specially for their small sensor size APS SLR bodies........ sounds familiar?
oh why is it u blinded nikon fans can't see all that?!?! ;p
heheThis is in response to Red Dawn.
Given unlimited $$$, I too would want to full frame, not only for the resolution, but more for the cropping factor issue.
However, if you read the review on 12-24, the distortion is in fact minimal. Take a look at the sample here and read the review here. The lens is already on sale in US (B&H has sold them already)> 2 weeks. Nikon SG has already published the price so I think it is here or else very soon.
Again, I have to do the comparison. I spend an additional $ just to get the DX lenses, but when I switch between film and digital, ONLY the DX lenses are the ones that I need to buy. It is totally unlike when Canon switched to current mount, requiring all the old mount lenses totally discarded if they want to use on the "from-then-on" cameras. All the Canon cameras had to use the new mount and so anyone who wants to use the camera, will now have to buy all the lenses. This is totally different here, where even the 12-24DX lens can be used even on film at the 24mm range; no vignetting seen. Buy the DX ONLY for the digital but the existing Nikon lenses and new non-DX lenses can be used for both. What is wrong with that?
Eg: List price for 12-24 DX is S$1970. Compare that to the price of a FF digital. I do agree the high pixel is a very important and worthwhile thing to pay for. But if 4-6MP range is all that you need (like in news), then with the above DX lens, it allows the range to be covered. The 17-55 DX is announced and so is the 10.5DX lens. So Nikon is going full steam with the DX range.
As for FF, I bet that many will point out that with the exception of the 1Ds, the Kodak camera is not working out well. You know the issues. How long more and at what cost? At the price of what a 1Ds is going, and without competition, how long before price will drop? Furthermore, with the high cost in both investment in R&D and hence selling price, how many will sell? Without volumn and with high R&D cost and risk as well, my guess is that it will take 5 years before FF becomes popular (defined at the same sales % as the current DSLR) if ever.
Your attitude frankly is reflective of what Canon's attitude internally, and what it wants all their users to have: Buy and discard after 1-2 years. Some Nikon users are still using the cameras after 3 years for digital cams earning $$$ with it, 5-8 years for film bodies and some even use their lenses for > 10 years.
Given unlimited $$$, I too would want to full frame, not only for the resolution, but more for the cropping factor issue.
However, if you read the review on 12-24, the distortion is in fact minimal. Take a look at the sample here and read the review here. The lens is already on sale in US (B&H has sold them already)> 2 weeks. Nikon SG has already published the price so I think it is here or else very soon.
Again, I have to do the comparison. I spend an additional $ just to get the DX lenses, but when I switch between film and digital, ONLY the DX lenses are the ones that I need to buy. It is totally unlike when Canon switched to current mount, requiring all the old mount lenses totally discarded if they want to use on the "from-then-on" cameras. All the Canon cameras had to use the new mount and so anyone who wants to use the camera, will now have to buy all the lenses. This is totally different here, where even the 12-24DX lens can be used even on film at the 24mm range; no vignetting seen. Buy the DX ONLY for the digital but the existing Nikon lenses and new non-DX lenses can be used for both. What is wrong with that?
Eg: List price for 12-24 DX is S$1970. Compare that to the price of a FF digital. I do agree the high pixel is a very important and worthwhile thing to pay for. But if 4-6MP range is all that you need (like in news), then with the above DX lens, it allows the range to be covered. The 17-55 DX is announced and so is the 10.5DX lens. So Nikon is going full steam with the DX range.
As for FF, I bet that many will point out that with the exception of the 1Ds, the Kodak camera is not working out well. You know the issues. How long more and at what cost? At the price of what a 1Ds is going, and without competition, how long before price will drop? Furthermore, with the high cost in both investment in R&D and hence selling price, how many will sell? Without volumn and with high R&D cost and risk as well, my guess is that it will take 5 years before FF becomes popular (defined at the same sales % as the current DSLR) if ever.
Your attitude frankly is reflective of what Canon's attitude internally, and what it wants all their users to have: Buy and discard after 1-2 years. Some Nikon users are still using the cameras after 3 years for digital cams earning $$$ with it, 5-8 years for film bodies and some even use their lenses for > 10 years.
- Status
Similar threads
