English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

i need a expert opinion or atleast base on experience.

2006-11-04 23:46:20 · 8 answers · asked by pinoy1979m 1 in Arts & Humanities Visual Arts Photography

8 answers

"They" say that it would take 20 MP for digital to match film pixel-for-grain, but I agree with OMG's real-world answer.

2006-11-05 07:35:12 · answer #1 · answered by Picture Taker 7 · 0 0

I work for a chain of camera stores in Australia. I come from a film background and trained for a year in fine art black and white.
13 mega pixels is generally considered to be the equivalent of 35mm film. However, I use a 3 (yes only 3) meg camera and can print A2 size photographs using an Epson wide format printer. So to be honest, unless you're printing BIG, BIG BIG!, 3-5 meg cameras do the job for most people. Also 13mp creates huge files that eat up all your card space and take an age to download.
In SLR - worry less about the meg (they all start at 8-10 meg these days which is plenty) and more about the lens quality you're forking out for. I would recommend an SLR, but the Australian versions have different names. www.dpreview.com is an excellent site to start your digital adventure. Hope I've been of help.

2006-11-05 08:16:05 · answer #2 · answered by RAh 2 · 1 0

Well you will be surprised at what a group of large format print techs were able to pull off when I used to have my D100.

D100 was a 6MP SLR. I had to do a bill board which was approximately 40 feet x 60 feet. I gave the CD to the large format printer techs and they printed the image on to different sheets of tarpaulin and heat welded the panels together to create 1 whole billboard. I asked the printer what the resolution should be and he said just anywhere from 72 to 120. Huh? 72 to 120 what?
72 to 120 pixels/in.

I'm not a photoshop person, I just take pictures and I couldn't fathom the numbers or how they did it. Well he explained that with digital its actually the viewing distance. That's the distance of the final print to our eyes in which we see the image clearly.
So if we looked at the bill board up close we'd see the pixels. But if the viewing distance is 60ft-80ft away, we would be able to see a very clear detailed image. Fair enough my client had several billboards and were pretty much satisfied.

Well we'd have to qualify the term "quality" right there because there wouldn't have been anyway to print a billboard that large from a 35mm transparency. 4x5in large format sure, but not 35mm.

I have printed 8x10s and 11x18s from the 6mp D100 and they look pretty good.

something to consider

2006-11-06 10:22:43 · answer #3 · answered by Low Pro 3 · 0 0

You have just asked the difference between analogue and digital. Digital is exact. It is on or it is off. Analogue (film) is infinite. The quality of the backplate will affect the quality of the image, but film uses light onto chemcals with no compression. As soon as you switch to digital, the image is compressed.

The questions is, how big did you want to print you images? I have a 12 megapixel and an 8 megapixel. With the size of the images I print, I cannot see the difference.

2006-11-05 07:58:41 · answer #4 · answered by CPT Kremin 2 · 0 0

Keep in mind that aside from how much megapixels you need, there are also other aspects to consider, like the crop factor. The sensors in digital cameras are typically smaller than a 35mm film plane. So, your lenses will in essence crop the image. For example, a typical crop factor is 1.5x, so your typical 50mm Standard lens will become a 75mm lens. With a 1.6x factor, the same lens will become an 80mm lens, and so forth.

2006-11-05 14:25:26 · answer #5 · answered by szaydel@pacbell.net 1 · 0 0

It's not so clear cut.
* With color, dSLR cameras start to out-resolve 35mm film by around 8MP.
* With black and white, 35mm film can resolve up to 25 MP.
* At ISO 800 and above, just about any dSLR can out-resolve 35mm film (extremely grainy).
* With cheap lenses, 35mm film and 8MP sensors start to out-resolve the glass, so don't bother using a $2000 camera with a $200 zoom.
* You'll only notice the difference when your prints are larger than 8x10 inches. And if you intend to make posters, you'll want to use a medium/ large format camera.
The short answer is that 8MP dSLR cameras were good enough for most professional wedding photographers to switch.

2006-11-05 09:43:58 · answer #6 · answered by OMG, I ♥ PONIES!!1 7 · 1 0

purchase ANY of the Canon 8 megapixel or more (cmos sensor) digital slrs and you will be more than happy with the improvement in quality over 35mm film....

2006-11-05 13:40:51 · answer #7 · answered by john_e_29212 3 · 0 0

well if you want photo quality images it just depends on the size your going to print to. rule of thumb is
1-2MP camera = photo quality 4R (4x6)
3-4MP camera = photo quality 5R (5x7)
on so on and so forth ......

i own a 35mm slr for when i'm doing stuff to enlarge bigger than a 5x7 but honestly i have a 2.3 MP point and shoot for birthday parties and such and get great 4x6's and 5x7's from it. of course i always shoot at the max resolution also. which is something to remember. if your going to buy a 13MP camera and shoot it at the lowest resolution to get the most pictures its not really 13MP then.

2006-11-06 06:48:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers