Canon IXUS 240 HS
Canon PowerShot SX240 HS
Nikon D800
Samsung DV300F
Olympus OM-D E-M5
Nikon Coolpix P510
Canon PowerShot SX260 HS
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ30
Nikon Coolpix S9300
Film Beaten by 16 Megapixel DSLR
Popular Photography claims that Canon’s 16 megapixel 1Ds Mark II digital SLR camera produces better image quality than ISO 100 film.
“I’d say it’s settled. ISO 100 color negative film may capture a bit more detail than the 1Ds Mark II under ideal lighting conditions, with a great lens, and on a supersteady tripod. But for its better color and lower noise, the “Color Image Quality” award goes to Canon’s $8,000 digital SLR. Seeing is believing…or is it vice-versa?”
Website: Popular Photography - Can a 16.6mp SLR really outclass ISO 100 color film?
Canon IXUS 240 HS Review
Canon PowerShot SX240 HS Review
Nikon D800 Review
Samsung DV300F Review
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Review
Nikon Coolpix P510
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ30
Canon PowerShot SX260 HS
Fujifilm X-Pro1
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V
#1 Alan Tobey
Well yeah, digital is getting closer and may sometimes be better. But the caveats are significant -- esp. the "ideal lighting" parameter. The more the scene drifts from what most DSLRs are optimized for, which is consumer shooting in sunlight in the middle of the day, the less the comparison holds and the more you want to be holding a film camera.
Kodak has claimed that 35mm Kodachrome 64, the standard for decades, has grain resolution equivalent to 24 megapixels. If so, we're now about halfway to true equivalence in terms of resolution (and clearly will get there). But other measures, like color rendition, are still significant.
All in all, digital is still an alternative to film and not yet its complete replacement. May never be.
4:31 pm - Saturday, May 14, 2005
#2 Tim L. Walker
I think articles like this will begin to appear more and more frequently as digital technology continues to improve on itself. There will obviously be 2 sides to the discussion as digital continues to improve, however. There will be those that will refuse to believe that anything digital can ever equal or improve on that of film, and those that accept the digital may, in fact, eventually give better images than film. While that time may still be a while off, as we approach that point in the evolution of digital photography, we will continue to discuss the differences.
8:29 pm - Saturday, May 14, 2005
#3 Tim Franklin
Film is not film is not film, any more than digital is digital is digital.
Colour neg film is generally regarded as being of lower sharpness and lower resolution than either B&W neg or slide emulsions. A recent article in the UK-based f/2 magazine (a publication aimed at freelance professionals) suggested that in terms of ultimate resolution, Fuji Provia 100F had about 30% more than the 1Ds II (which would require a megapixel count of 32-36 to match it.
Lies, damned lies & statistics springs to mind!
12:33 pm - Monday, May 16, 2005
#4 Stefan Andersson
There is one great difference between film and digital that has to be resolved very soon, and that is the storage problem. I have color slides that has been stored dark but not under ideal condtitions that anyway has lasted for 30 years without any notiscable change in colour shift.
What do we have on the digital side?? Home burnt CD's are decaying very fast. The first one I burnt 1996 cannot be played anymore. If I put it in a windows-computer it freezes and has to be rebooted. If I boot in Linux the system tells me that the disc cannot be mounted. Every 5th year you have to reburn every single CD. That is both irritating and challenging to the sense of order.
Another solution might be to use harddrives in USB cabinets. A quite costly solution.
10:22 am - Saturday, November 5, 2005
#5 GARY POGODA
How does having to reburn your CDs every "300th" year sound?
http://mam-a.com/Archive_gold_image.html
10:01 pm - Saturday, November 5, 2005