ChopSueyChris
User
Jan 22, 2005, 1:24 PM
Post #10 of 28
(4242 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Re: [djtoltz] Best DSLR Camera For Wedding Photography?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm don't mean to make a big deal out of this, and this isn't aimed at anyone here, BUT the comparisons that are made of film vs. digital in trade rags (at least all of the ones I've read), are made by scanning the film with a film scanner.
Excuse me, but if you take a pristine, analog format and digitize it through a CCD, at least part of what you see is the limitations of the CCD and the scanner. Try printing your digital photo at 16x20 and comparing the result to a 16x20 print made FROM THE NEGATIVE, and compare the detail, shadow quality, and subtle tonal values.
Again, this isn't aimed at anyone here... just a pet peeve of mine. I was a professional photographer as my first career, back when 35mm quality was considered poor because real pros were shooting medium format or large format. Now 6 mega-pixels at 24 bits per pixel is considered high quality. I apprenticed under a wedding photographer and shot a few weddings on my own, but I worked for a newspaper as a photojournalist for 2 years and did mostly portrait work and scenics outside of that. I can hardly claim to be an expert wedding photographer.
p.s. I scan my 35mm negatives at 12MP, 48 bits/pixel and that is enough that I can generally see the grain of the negative. I would surmise that a decent 35mm negative yields at least 10MP resolution, although pixels aren't everything... there is color depth, image sharpness, etc.
p.p.s. Sorry for the rant.
When you put a 35mm neg through a neg scanner such as the nikkon scanner... the difference is huge as compared to a flatbed scanner.
Also when dealing with various films, they all have drawbacks and positives towards what is desired/needed for each shoot. that is why we have many iso speed films, colour varients such as Kodak has nc,vc, and uc films... But the rag mags as you call them, put the iso's and the same light exposures, canon lenses etc to compare each to. As a comparison, Ive worked with Fuji 400 medium and 35mm fils... the 35 lacks dramatically compared to the big brother of it's same style of film. Where as the kodak vc 35 and medium format films are almost identical in properties relating to colour ranges, exposure and grain detail.
I could go on and on. Also it ISNT the MP of a cam, it is the programs that make it work. Ex, the 4 megapixel Nikkon Sport cams ex the D1 ad the D1s which I believe are 4.1 mp cams blow away any other 4.1 mg cams as well as many 6+mp cams, those cams are also used to blow up pics to huge sizes as well as for mag and print work. SO there are lots of factors towards bringing forth your final product with your camera.
====================
I got some stuff.
|
I have the 1D. The "s" is known for it's full frame and HUGE resolution, the 1D is known for it's AI servo tracking and fast burst for sports shooting. Fastest DSLR on the planet (right now) at 8.5 fps. It practically shoots video! It'll be great for shooting MMA (hint hint) 
Re: [ChopSueyChris] Best DSLR Camera For Wedding Photography?
[
1
