[*isteve]

Of course 6mp digital files have less grain! How about details and resolution? I haven't seen any digital camera based around the 35mm systems that have the detail and texture a good 100ISO slide film can provide.

BTW my scans from 35mm slides are 130mb.

A good 100ISO film scanned at 4000 DPI compares well with 10MP digital equivalent.

Digital cameras vs. film, part 1

However, higher grain can improve accutance which creates an impression of sharpness at normal viewing distance, even though it does not actually represent higher detail levels. It will however make texture look a lot more "gritty".

A Pentax K7 will produce slightly more resolution in real world conditions. It will look a lot cleaner at ISO100 and for that reason will be able to handle more enlargement, but film may well appear sharper on an A4 print unless looked at through a loupe.

A 21MP 5Dmk2 will resolve far more detail than any 35mm film.

When we get to higher ISOs, digital starts to leave film behind quite comprehensively.

The size in MB of a scanned film is not relevant to its actual resolution. Its just a reflection of the scanner resolution. To avoid grain aliasing, its a good idea to use a scanner with at least 2X the spatial resolution of the negative, so 4000 dpi is a minimum. Ideally you would use a 8000 dpi+ wet mount drum scan which would get you slightly more detail and less grain boost, but its not very practical.

Comparing 4000 and 8000 dpi scans

[Pål Jensen]

AA Pentax K7 will produce slightly more resolution in real world conditions. It will look a lot cleaner at ISO100 and for that reason will be able to handle more enlargement, but film may well appear sharper on an A4 print unless looked at through a loupe. ]

Not my experience; at least not when using Velvia 50 (which admittedly is not 100ISO). My real world test is landscape. Not a single digital camera, including 22mp MF backs are able resolve grass in landscape image. It comes through as fuzzy candyfloss. The K-7 certainly is unable although it can create sharper images with better accutance than 35mm film.

[ghelary]

Who would have thought that this debate would have shift to a new Film vs. digital thread...

I'm using both at the moment, and my K20D certainly outresolve everything I could get from a 35mm (I must admit i shoot mostly at 400 iso on film) It doesn't detter me from using film. To me, it's a bit like comparing an electric guitar and the classical one.

Whatever works, works.

Ask yourself what is better for the type of picture you make, for the results you want to achieve and stop thinking too much about what is better than the other.

APSC cameras have their own virtues, but performance wise, they have to be compared with other APSC cameras. Different categories have to be compared only on the basis of what is the best fit tool, not the bast regardless of any purpose.

Guillaume

[*isteve]

Not my experience; at least not when using Velvia 50 (which admittedly is not 100ISO). My real world test is landscape. Not a single digital camera, including 22mp MF backs are able resolve grass in landscape image. It comes through as fuzzy candyfloss. The K-7 certainly is unable although it can create sharper images with better accutance than 35mm film.

True, but film like a Foveon sensor can create convincing false detail beyond Nyquist limit - its not real but it looks good. Bayer interpolation will simply create mush or nasty moire. Its really a subjective advantage though. In some images the lack of noise is more important. I would always pick digital for subject photography for instance.

Anyhow lets not hijack this thread any more, I think we are on a similar wavelength and I agree there are many aesthetic reasons for using film, I just prefer digital workflow and quit using a scanner uears ago.

[erickallemeyn]

7200RPM hard drives

Or an SSD. I bought a 128gb SSD for under $300 a little while ago. Photoshop literally takes 3 seconds to launch on a c2d macbook, and another 1.5 seconds to open a 50mb file. I'm never going back to RPM drives.

[Andrew Lang]

i'll stick with a k-x and my mz-6 good combo... if i want good resolution, i take a film shot, if i want lots of shots, i go digital... my mz-6 cost 10 bucks, and shoots amazing... why do i need anything digital better than 12 mp when i have film to get those shots? i guess if i want to take real-estate shots in the dark then i would need another better high iso performance camera =)

although something new and shiny would be fun!

[Art Vandelay II]

i guess if i want to take real-estate shots in the dark then i would need another better high iso performance camera =)

The K-x is about as good as it gets for low light at the moment unless you want to step up to a D700/D3/5D Mk II.

My biggest problem with shooting both film and digital Pentax is obviously the crop factor, and possibly more importantly is that Pentax made very few film cameras that can control lenses without aperture rings (PZ-1p is probably the best). I've pretty much reconciled with the fact that I won't be able to use new Pentax digital glass (like the DFA 100mm) on my Pentax LX. Oh well, at least I can use my old manual glass on their digital bodies. I really only need two or three lenses for my LX to cover everything I do anyway (24mm, 50mm, 135mm).

[asdf]

Of course 6mp digital files have less grain! How about details and resolution? I haven't seen any digital camera based around the 35mm systems that have the detail and texture a good 100ISO slide film can provide.

BTW my scans from 35mm slides are 130mb.

Yes. People forget about the *signal* in the signal-to-noise ratio. A 1 pixel camera would have the least noise (or rather a 0 pixel camera).

[Miserere]

Whatever works, works.

Ask yourself what is better for the type of picture you make, for the results you want to achieve and stop thinking too much about what is better than the other.

Now now, don't come in here trying to derail a perfectly good fight with your common sense

.

[RuiC]

Yes. People forget about the *signal* in the signal-to-noise ratio. A 1 pixel camera would have the least noise (or rather a 0 pixel camera).

Beware! There is no signal to noise ratio, it should read signal+noise to noise ratio, then things may be a little different.

Rui

[Jonson PL]

I spent 2 hours in B&H today comparing virtually every camera between $500 to $7000 USD and I have to say the K7 is my favorite aside from one serious problem; the view finder. In-fact it's so bad I will never buy one because of it. The worst part about testing it out in B&H is not that it's just small and dim compared to full frame cameras (I expected that), it's that they have the K7 located right next to the Olympus E-3. There is no reason the E-3 should have a brighter viewfinder (smaller sensor and all), but there it is on full display. It really makes the K7 look awful when compared side-by-side. Erogs, the K7 wins hands down (and that goes for every single DSLR I tested), but as far as the view finder goes, it's not only worse than the E3 and every single full frame camera, it's also worse than the D300 and the Canon 7D (as much as it pains me to say it, the 7D is an amazing APS-C camera, best Canon ergos ever).

I have no idea what's coming after the K7, but I do know they need to fix the peep hole problem ASAP.

I was very interested when the E3 came out. But the VF was a disappointment, thought it is the best 4/3 VF to date. Even the Sony A700 had a better VF, eventhough it really is noting special, and not even 100 %. The E3 may have a bright finder, but it is still too small compared to APS-C crop. (I have not tried the E30)
The best crop VF, IMO, is on the Nikon D300; (haven’t got any personal experience with the K7). They purposely made the K7 finder good for manual focus, btw.

And I find the VF on the Eos 1D Mark III, better than the original Eos 5D.
A FF Pentax, could be named K-LX


Having said all this, I find the specs really good on the E3, and they pushed the boundaries with that one. And it should be good in the field. Eyepiece shutter is something I hope Pentax puts back into their cams at some point.

A good 100ISO film scanned at 4000 DPI compares well with 10MP digital equivalent.

Digital cameras vs. film, part 1

However, higher grain can improve accutance which creates an impression of sharpness at normal viewing distance, even though it does not actually represent higher detail levels. It will however make texture look a lot more "gritty".

A Pentax K7 will produce slightly more resolution in real world conditions. It will look a lot cleaner at ISO100 and for that reason will be able to handle more enlargement, but film may well appear sharper on an A4 print unless looked at through a loupe.

A 21MP 5Dmk2 will resolve far more detail than any 35mm film.

When we get to higher ISOs, digital starts to leave film behind quite comprehensively.

The size in MB of a scanned film is not relevant to its actual resolution. Its just a reflection of the scanner resolution. To avoid grain aliasing, its a good idea to use a scanner with at least 2X the spatial resolution of the negative, so 4000 dpi is a minimum. Ideally you would use a 8000 dpi+ wet mount drum scan which would get you slightly more detail and less grain boost, but its not very practical.

Comparing 4000 and 8000 dpi scans

Thanks for the links.
So you're saying, adding grain can make the image look more pleasing to the eye ? I remember reading some top specialist developer, who always added grain in the end, to digital pictures.

There was also a good thread by Pål, on texture in film, vs. digital

[Chwisch87]

I am hoping for a K-7 PMA update. Perhaps even a new sensor would be nice to bring it in line with the K-X in low light ( Sony Sensor??? ).

At best though i think we can hope for updated video controls.

[Big G]

I'm very chuffed with the K-7 in it's current format, the ISO noise is only slightly worse than the D300 at ISO 3200 (ok, so it's bad in JPEG) - just take a look at the RAW noise comparisons here - Canon EOS 7D Review: 15. Photographic tests (Noise): Digital Photography Review

I'm also happy with the resolution. Where I would like to see Pentax make a significant improvement is in the autofocus performance. The new EOS 7D is truly blistering with its continous autofocus, and whilst the K-7 seems to have made a huge improvement over the K20D, it's not *that* much of an improvement to make me upgrade to the K-7.

[Class A]

I'm very chuffed with the K-7 in it's current format, the ISO noise is only slightly worse than the D300 at ISO 3200 (ok, so it's bad in JPEG)...

Thanks for the link. I'm not sure I'd call the RAW images from the K-7 better than the JPEG images. In the past dpreview gave a camera credit when it retained detail despite showing more noise. I wonder why the K-7 RAW images look as mushy as the competition. Must be the RAW converter applying some heavy handed noise reduction. Whether the JPEG images by the K-7 really have more detail or just look as if they had more detail, I just don't like the clean but washy look of the heavily noise reduced images of the competition.

I've read a review of the Canon 7D where the users where rather deeply disappointed with the IQ.

We so much wanted to love this camera. But in test after test we constantly were disappointed in the quality of the files.

Could it be that the images by this camera measure better than they look?

[lurchlarson]

Personally I hope Pentax does put out a full-frame camera that is marketed as a Pro body. I also hope that it has a crop mode to fit all those DA* lenses out there.

Personally a 16-18 mp FF with noiseless shots up to iso 6400 that was capable of producing usable shots at ISO 12,800+ would be perfect for wedding photography.

I also wish that the frame rate would be a bit faster (6-9 fps range) as well as the AF.

As far as the APS-C cameras go, leave the MP where its at. Boost the frame rate, AF and Low light capability and that would be a leader in the category.