[Raffwal]

I'm one of the original Wanderlust Travelwide backers on Kickstarter. Paid for both models. But I'm beginning to see it as a lost investment. They post project updates seldomly and month after month, the cameras are nearly ready according to them. It has been like that since... what, late autumn last year? I know they just posted another update, but I'm sceptical.

[HGMonaro]

I'm also a 'backer'. Pretty confident it will turn up.

[Imageman]

That must be a joke , try shooting handheld without a tripod. A small 36mp full frame mirror less camera would have much better image quality.

Has everyone missed this,


Much better image quality from a 36 megapixel camera?


Is this some kind of joke.


Do the math its not hard, Lets work with facts not opinion. - The highest quality Film can capture over 200 line pairs per millimetre we know this the figures are published and available. These figures are published film resolution figures and not open to debate.


And you need 400 pixels to see 200 line pairs, a line pair being a single black line adjacent to a single white line, and you need 2 pixels to see a black and white dot next to each other (a single line pair).


Thats 400 pixels x 36 mm = 14400, and 400 pixels x 24 mm = 9600 that means 14400 x 9600 = 138,240,000 thats 138 megapixels that's the quality of 35 mm film resolution (highest definition film).


When comparing digital cameras to film what people always do is choose the lowest and poorest quality film in the smallest format of 35mm for the comparison, and they compare this poor quality scrap of film with the highest quality and best digital cameras, this is a shady comparison at best, what are they afraid of? or is digital so weak that it needs heavily massaged comparisons to be taken seriously.


Im a realist, I have no problem accepting that even a 6 megapixel digital image gives a high quality image that compares well with a 35mm colour film image, even though 90% of that digital image is in fact invented by the camera and hasn't been captured at all. So why cant they accept that a 5x4 film image is superior in resolved detail to a 36 megapixel digital image.


Theres a huge amount of selective blindness going on that many digital proponents are guilty of.


If the best computers will out think the stupidest people, should we take that to mean that all computers will out think all people?


The answer is no.


Compare the very best film in 5x4 to your digital camera and after that if digital can demonstrate its superiority, I will accept it.


And for those fairly new photographers who haven't yet seen a high quality 5x4 image and held it in their hands. The reason 5x4 images don't look special on your computer screen is because all your seeing is a low resolution scan of the 5x4 and much of its quality has been lost. A real 5x4 image has a grace and a quality I have yet to see in a digital image.


For balance it has to be said that a 36 megapixel image suffers this too, the images you see on your computer have been ressed down to fit the on the screen, so comparisons of high quality images are extremely difficult or impossible without seeing the original image.


And for you to mull over, how many megapixels will it take for a digital camera to outresolve the worst and lowest resolution film on 5x4 inches (120mm x 96mm) that will take 12000 pixels x 9600 pixels = 115,200,000


That's still 115 megapixels

[jogiba]

Canon 1Ds


Pentax 67II — Drum Scan



Pentax 67II — Imacon Scan

Goodbye film. Goodbye medium format.

Shootout


Pentax 67II


11mp Canon 1Ds

---

Last edited by jogiba; 06-18-2014 at 06:54 AM.

[Nesster]

The Shootout from 2003 is really wonderful news to us enthusiasts! A. we can feel secure that our dSLRs produce great quality at a fraction of the running cost of medium or large format film, and with much greater convenience. B. we can now buy discarded professional film equipment we might of only dreamed of in the past, at decent prices, for a good deal of photography fun.

[6BQ5]

I've come to the point where I care less about megapixel counts and more about texture, color rendering, and the optical performance/visualization of different formats. After shooting film, shooting digital, and shooting film again I see that it's possible to get good and bad IQ from any camera and from any technology.

[stevebrot]

Canon 1Ds


Pentax 67II — Drum Scan



Pentax 67II — Imacon Scan


Shootout


Pentax 67II


11mp Canon 1Ds

Cool! I am gonna have to get me a 1Ds!


Steve

BTW...since when does one shoot Velvia and expect shadow detail? Also the matter of work flow...capture, scan, pp, print, scan, pp, publish to web. Mind you, I respect Luminous Landscape, but I believe that the purpose of the article was to provide a reasonable justification for a total shift to a full digital workflow with the tech available in 2003. This was a big issue at the time and the decision was well-reasoned. Mission accomplished...Sort of. The problem is that there is no evidence that the clean lines in the 1Ds images were actually there at the time of the exposure. That must have been some extremely clear, thermally-stable urban air. False clarity is one of the cool things about digital photography and almost impossible to reproduce with film technique. [end of rant]

---------- Post added 06-18-14 at 11:11 AM ----------

...almost end of rant...

The following images were lifted from a somewhat flawed comparison of Ektar 100 film (and a few others) to a Sony Alpha 900. Link to original page. I would not recommend the article itself, but an interesting spin off was these three images:

Full resolution crop of resolution test chart from Apha 900:




8x sampling of above image




Direct 1200 ppi scan of same portion of the resolution test target using a Canon 9950F:



Hmmmm...clean is good...too good...


Steve

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 06-18-2014 at 11:30 AM.