From: ray on
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:53:52 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> ray wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:21:09 -0800, nospam wrote:
>>
>>> In article <pan.2007.03.07.18.44.00.473793(a)zianet.com>, ray
>>> <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
>>>>>> film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
>>>>>> what is available with film.
>>>>> Digital is significantly better at higher ISOs.
>>>> I see. I don't suppose you'd have a reference to a definitive analysis?
>>> <http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html>
>>>
>>> basically, unless one is using fine grain film, pretty much any digital
>>> slr is going to be better, especially at higher iso.
>>
>> I certainly was not referring to cheapie film off the wall at Walgreen's.
>> I plan to delve into some of the references above, but I'd still be
>> surprised if a DSLR will out perform high quality, high speed film at low
>> light levels.
>
> Several of us who've played with high-speed film for multiple decades,
> and digital for somewhat less, have told you that in our experience
> digital is *much* better than film at high ISO. This is also a truism
> repeated in nearly any introductory discussion of digital photography
> aimed at people used to film (the fact that you can use ISO at least a
> stop faster than you're used to for the same quality results).
>
> Skepticism is healthy in a broad sort of way, but I'd suggest that this
> sort of widespread consensus contrary to your beliefs should be at least
> pushing you to doubt yourself, and to be actively seeking to run your
> own comparison tests.

Since I don't have $1500 to blow on a digital SLR, I don't plan on doing
my own comparison tests any time soon. I will be experimenting a little
with my Kodak P850 to see what it's limitations are. I also have my trusty
old Minolta SRT202 which I still put a roll through every once in a while
- particularly doing wildlife shots at Yellowstone. I've not much doubt
that under ideal conditions digital produces shots that are quite fine
enough. The OP did not state (as I recall) whether the ultimate product
would be files for editing on the computer or prints - I suspect that
could easily swing the pendulum one way or the other. BTW - I've produced
shots from a 1mp Kodak DC210+ printed to 8x10 that look pretty damned good
- but that was, again, under the best of circumstances.

>
> If you in fact care, of course; you may have strong opinions but not
> actually *use* high ISO so you don't really care. In which case it
> might be better to just drop the discussion.

I don't often use high ISO - I hope, as I said, to do some shooting in
that area as time permits.

From: Scott W on
On Mar 8, 7:38 am, ray <r...(a)zianet.com> wrote:

> That's another point that the OP failed to mention: is the ultimate
> objective to have an image in the computer to manipulate or just to have
> some good prints? That, IMHO, would make a difference.
My own experience has been that I can get far better prints by
scanning my own negatives and printing from the image files rather
then just sending the film to a lab.

Scott

From: David Dyer-Bennet on
ray wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:53:52 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> ray wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:21:09 -0800, nospam wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <pan.2007.03.07.18.44.00.473793(a)zianet.com>, ray
>>>> <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
>>>>>>> film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
>>>>>>> what is available with film.
>>>>>> Digital is significantly better at higher ISOs.
>>>>> I see. I don't suppose you'd have a reference to a definitive analysis?
>>>> <http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html>
>>>>
>>>> basically, unless one is using fine grain film, pretty much any digital
>>>> slr is going to be better, especially at higher iso.
>>> I certainly was not referring to cheapie film off the wall at Walgreen's.
>>> I plan to delve into some of the references above, but I'd still be
>>> surprised if a DSLR will out perform high quality, high speed film at low
>>> light levels.
>> Several of us who've played with high-speed film for multiple decades,
>> and digital for somewhat less, have told you that in our experience
>> digital is *much* better than film at high ISO. This is also a truism
>> repeated in nearly any introductory discussion of digital photography
>> aimed at people used to film (the fact that you can use ISO at least a
>> stop faster than you're used to for the same quality results).
>>
>> Skepticism is healthy in a broad sort of way, but I'd suggest that this
>> sort of widespread consensus contrary to your beliefs should be at least
>> pushing you to doubt yourself, and to be actively seeking to run your
>> own comparison tests.
>
> Since I don't have $1500 to blow on a digital SLR, I don't plan on doing
> my own comparison tests any time soon. I will be experimenting a little
> with my Kodak P850 to see what it's limitations are. I also have my trusty
> old Minolta SRT202 which I still put a roll through every once in a while
> - particularly doing wildlife shots at Yellowstone. I've not much doubt
> that under ideal conditions digital produces shots that are quite fine
> enough. The OP did not state (as I recall) whether the ultimate product
> would be files for editing on the computer or prints - I suspect that
> could easily swing the pendulum one way or the other. BTW - I've produced
> shots from a 1mp Kodak DC210+ printed to 8x10 that look pretty damned good
> - but that was, again, under the best of circumstances.

"Good enough" (or fine enough) is an extremely important milestone in
the development of a technology, definitely.

I've got at least 5 8x10 prints from a 2 megapixel Epson 850Z camera
framed and on the walls in the house here; that's less than 150 pixels
per linear inch, and they "shouldn't" look that good. My examples are
also "best case" situations, and I couldn't count on 2mp for 8x10 reliably.

I don't expect you to buy the equipment you think won't work too well
just to run tests, not; that wouldn't be reasonable.

I will tell you, as a matter of personal experience, confirmed by LOTS
of paper and online writers, that DSLRs perform *much* better than the
P&S cameras. Sensor size is a key factor in image quality.

There are a LOT of high-ISO pictures in my online snapshot album from my
old Fuji S2 and my current Nikon D200, with the full EXIF data so you
can tell what ISO they're shot at (and what camera, there are a couple
other digital cameras contributing too). I'd be willing to send you the
camera original of a modest number of them (your choice) for careful
comparison and analysis, and use in a web page or article if you want to
take the trouble to write up your results carefully. (The S2 was
2003-spring 2006, when I got the D200; the root of the snapshot album
site is at <http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/>.).

This one from a wake for a good friend, last October, was only ISO 800,
but I gotta say that for me, TRI-X at 400 doesn't look this good.

<http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2006/10270-jmf-memorial?pic=ddb%2020061027%20010-170>

Or if you prefer color,
<http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2006/10270-jmf-memorial?pic=ddb%2020061027%20010-180;IPTC=no;EXIF=yes>.
From: Paul Rubin on
"Scott W" <biphoto(a)hotmail.com> writes:
> > I don't see how the 1Dmk3 does better given the various observations
> > that the 20D's low light performance is limited basically by photon noise.
> The 1D III has a larger sensor then the 20D, and they have impoved the
> fill factor on the 1D III, less dead space between pixels.

Oh, both good points, though I thought the 1D3 uses a CMOS sensor
which used to mean that there was some penalty because of digitization
circuitry using up some of the active area that was somehow kept
available for light collection with CCD sensors.
From: nospam on
In article <pan.2007.03.08.17.45.28.383321(a)zianet.com>, ray
<ray(a)zianet.com> wrote:

> Since I don't have $1500 to blow on a digital SLR, I don't plan on doing
> my own comparison tests any time soon.

digital slrs start around $500ish.