What's new
DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.

DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

What do you use 35mm vs digital

Dana, I downloaded that image and it was a
huge file. After resizing to 11X14 @ 300 dpi and tweaking the curves to correct the contrast, I could see every brick in the building and clearly read the street sign. Hardly a serious lack of detail, especially for a P&S digital. The roof shingles do look soft, but I wasn't there to see what they really looked like. That so many other things are crisp makes me wonder how they looked to the eye.
You can't resolve what isn't there.

BTW, a print always looks more detailed than an on screen image. Plus, it is unrealistic to expect either 35mm scanned film or a 5 meg digital P&S to be useful beyond 11X14 without some loss of quality.
 
Dana,

I used the DSC-F717 extensively (2,200 images) during a recent 6,000 mile road trip across the U.S., so I've become familiar with its strengths and weaknesses. From the s&le image you pointed us to, I can see that the camera has focussed on the nearby power lines. Additionally, you can see that the sharpening may have been set too high (see where the power cable is against the blue sky). My conclusion is that the roof shingles are getting close to outside the depth of field, and that the oversharpening may have exacerbated the loss of detail in the shingles.

I find the image quality to be excellent for up to 8x10 prints. The bigger problem I found with it was barrel distortion at the wide angle end of the zoom. Except for the barrel distortion, I was entirely happy with the results it gave, especially at the longer end of the zoom.
S&les of the pics from my road trip can be seen at http://alkiratech.tripod.com/roadtrip

Regards,

Craig
 
>Posted by Dana Curtis Kincaid on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 9:27 pm: > >http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/sony_v1/s&les/tn_DSC00105_JPG.jpg > >Guys, I was just looking at the new Sony 5MP digicam with Zeiss lens. >Take a look at the shingles on the roof of this picture at full rez. >Is this awful or what? I've been thinking about a digicam, but if this >garbage is all I can expect from a 5MP digicam I'll certainly wait.

As Dr. Henry Lee would say "Something Wong Here".

Just to dip my toe in the water I bought a factory reconditioned 1.2 MP Digital and it makes pictures with far more detail than you show there.

I don't have any individual shots posted but get much better results than you show. I did a quick test on another forum just to see how it came out and here is the result:

http://www.rollei-gallery.net/daw/image-46621.html

I won't be posting any more shots on that site with this camera because it isn't a Rollei, but did it just as a test. The problems in making a panorama with an auto-exposure camera are explained in the caption. This panorama was made hand held, no level, no tripod, just standing in the same spot and trying to hold the camera level and get some overlap from frame to frame.

One thing which is very important is to never go into digital zoom.

DAW
 
>Posted by Dana Curtis Kincaid on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 9:30 pm: > >Oops, try this link instead. Look at the serious lack of detail. > >http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/sony_v1/s&les/DSC00105.JPG

Ah, yes. Better. Looks like it is a 2592X1924 picture and seems to be consistent with what one would expect for that resolution.

If I view it full screen it doesn't look bad but maybe it would not make a good print above 11X14, although I have seen some very nice 5 MP prints at 20X30 and even larger.

When I view it in Photoshop it picks a 25% default display size. When I change that to 100% it's not that bad, however I would agree that if asked to make the very best print possible I would still go for film.

Just for comparison, I have heard some folks say that a typical 35mm negative or slide (forgot which) provides data which would correspond to a 24 MP digital camera.

I had a birthday party this weekend and took my little toy along (1.2 MP) and everyone was quite happy with the prints, made later that same day.

I think each camera type has it's application.

DAW
 
These look great, Craig. Nice web site!

I appreciate the comment on the wide angle distortion. I like to shoot wide more than tele, so I'd be shooting at what may be the worst ration for the digicam lenses.

Dana Curtis Kincaid Pinnacle Systems Technical Support Indy

"Dana,

I used the DSC-F717 extensively (2,200 images) during a recent 6,000 mile road trip across the U.S., so I've become familiar with its strengths and weaknesses. From the s&le image you pointed us to, I can see that the camera has focussed on the nearby power lines. Additionally, you can see that the sharpening may have been set too high (see where the power cable is against the blue sky). My conclusion is that the roof shingles are getting close to outside the depth of field, and that the oversharpening may have exacerbated the loss of detail in the shingles.

I find the image quality to be excellent for up to 8x10 prints. The bigger problem I found with it was barrel distortion at the wide angle end of the zoom. Except for the barrel distortion, I was entirely happy with the results it gave, especially at the longer end of the zoom. S&les of the pics from my road trip can be seen at http://alkiratech.tripod.com/roadtrip

Regards,

Craig"
 
>Posted by Craig Norris on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 10:29 pm: > >Dana, > >I used the DSC-F717 extensively (2,200 images) during a recent 6,000 >mile road trip across the U.S., so I've become familiar with its >strengths and weaknesses. From the s&le image you pointed us to, I >can see that the camera has focused on the nearby power lines. >Additionally, you can see that the sharpening may have been set too >high (see where the power cable is against the blue sky). My >conclusion is that the roof shingles are getting close to outside the >depth of field, and that the over sharpening may have exacerbated the >loss of detail in the shingles. > >I find the image quality to be excellent for up to 8x10 prints. The >bigger problem I found with it was barrel distortion at the wide angle >end of the zoom. Except for the barrel distortion, I was entirely >happy with the results it gave, especially at the longer end of the >zoom. >S&les of the pics from my road trip can be seen at >http://alkiratech.tripod.com/roadtrip > >Regards, > >Craig

Craig,

Very impressive prints.

It appears that the DSC-F717 provides about the same performance as the Olympus E-20 for half the list price.

The only thing which isn't clear in the review I found is whether Sony includes the lens modification to accommodate the need to bring all the light to the sensor surface at a 90 degree angle. This is one failing when using a digital camera with removable lenses designed for film cameras.

This, and the prevention of possible contamination of the sensor surface were two of the early selling points pushed by Olympus.

DAW
 
Dana, thanks for the compliment. The distortion at wide angle only shows up in particular circumstances. Where it really became a problem for me was when standing on the south rim of the Grand Canyon and shooting downwards into the canyon while trying to include the north rim and a strip of sky. In the captured image, the north rim curves downwards noticeably at each end of the frame.

Don, thank you too for your compliment. As for your concern about removable lenses, it isn't an issue for the Sony F717, because it has a non-removable lens like the Olympus.

Kind Regards,

Craig
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top