My parents recently had to replace their cameras (got burgled).... They wanted to have exactly the same type. They were told in a reputable shop that APS is being phased out within the next couple of years and they'd be better going for a high quality 35mm or a digital camera. Certainly I've always thought the APS format was a con.... Nothing beats my trusty Minolta 35mm SLR for my money though.... Surely the digital vs film debate depends upon the ASA of the film we compare it to! I've taken pictures with my digital camera that if taken with a film camera would require a film so fast that the grain would be horrible. Okay so with B+W I'd home-process, under-expose and over-develop but the local photographic stores don't seem keen to do that with colour.....To that extent, even 400ASA film starts looking ropey at 8*10 whilst my 2.2Mpixel digital camera does it okay..... Somehow digital cameras don't evoke the same emotions as film cameras..... just my 1p, Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Russell McMahon" To: Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 6:31 AM Subject: Re: [OT]: Poptronics no more :-( -- 35mm film resolution > OK - I can about accept most of this. All this fits very comfortably with my > impressions - based largely on personal experiences & perceptions. > > Here selecting your core analysis - > > Resolving power of 35mm film has been measured in line-pairs per mm > > for decades. .... > > If a line-pair is equivalent to 2 pixels, then the resolving power > > of 35mm film would be 2.8MP to 17MP per frame (depending on contrast). > > > But there's more than just resolving power.... > > Film still has much wider exposure latitude. With color negative > > film, portions of a scene that are -2 to +3 stops away from "correct" > > will come out and have usefull density on the developed film. > > ............ Comparitively, the digital camera seems like a very finicky > slide film. > > > Last weekend, I had opportunity to compare digital & film images of > > the same subject. My wife's office had a going-away party. She used > > a 2MP digital camera (Olympus C-2100UZ). A friend of hers used a 35mm > > film camera. I borrowed the negatives and scanned them at 2700 DPI on > > a Nikon LS-2000 film scanner............. > > The 35mm images were smoother and withstood magnification better. > > Border-line specular highlights held more definition in the film. > > Dark area in the film also held more detail. And the colors were > > slightly "better". But I was comparing the images from the two > > cameras side by side. Both sets of images would make good 4"x6" > > prints and acceptable 8"x10" prints. > > > Subjectively, I think the 2MP to 5MP digital cameras are getting > > close but don't yet match film. > > Agree. Without as rigorous a comparison of course :-) > I've taken about 20,000 digital photos over about the last three and a half > years, albeit with a an even lower resolution camera than your 2 MP unit. > (And a minimal amount with 35mm film in the same time). I've compared the > results from current leading edge consumer and prosumer cameras all the > while, waiting until performance reached a level and cost where I could > justify the jump to a camera that was going to be as potentially long > lasting as my 1977 Minolta SRT303b SLR. The time, I feel, has not yet come > but other factors now make a purchase desirable. I realise that the > elctronic gee gaw will probably expire long before my steam driven SRT303 > does. > > > And the effectively zero per-shot > > cost of digital makes it a lot cheaper to carry & use every day. > > Indeed. > And the addition of really useful "make you a good photographer in spite of > yourself capabilities"* is very seductive :-). When you can bracket for > exposure, aperture, focus and I forget what else you can end up finding the > occasional very good photo ij your camera in spite of yourself. When you can > take 20 quick fire chots and have the camera automatically select the best > focussed. When you can "motor drive" indefinitely at about 2 MP and 2 or 3 > fps (until your media is full). When you can ..... . ! :-) > > But it will be nice when the best results are finally as good as the best > film results :-). > > > Russell McMahon > > * - yeah - I know this is heresy. you know what I mean. > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different > ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.