I've read in an article that it would take 14 megapixels in order for a digital camera to match a 35mm. in terms of picture image quality. Also is 35mm the "Holy Grail" of image quality in a photograph? Are there new technologies that could surpass the image quality of a 35mm camera?
Best answer:
Answer by Barometer Soup
4 megapixels is plenty. The human eye can't tell the difference unless you either plan to:
1) print huge, poster-sized copies of the photos, or
2) zoom way, way in using software.
In fact the more megapixels you get, not only does the price of the camera go up, but fewer pictures fit on your memory card.
4 megapixels is more than enough for 95% of us.
Give your answer to this question below!
I agree that 4 megapixels is enough for most of us, but if you are planning on taking professional pictures, 4 megapixels is not enough. Not only for blowing up the pictures to large sizes. Even playing around in photoshop, 4 megapixels does not capture the pixel depth that a film camera can capture. There is not enough detail in the picture.
ReplyDelete35mm is not the "Holy Grail" of image quality for film photography. There is a technology older than 35mm film that is far better in quality - medium format - think Hasselblad, Mamiya, Yashica, etc. Medium format is better qualty than 35mm because the negatives are much larger - about 2" x2" - I could stand corrected on this as I'm not that familiar with Medium format. If your mom or grandma had a Brownie - that was medium format. Large format - often used for architectural photography has even better image quality.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who attempts to compare film and digital from a quality perspective is out of perspective and focus [I'm trying to be polite]. The technologies of film and digital sensors are vastly different. For example digital sensors still have a long way to go to match the color saturation of ISO 100 film. It's the old story of apples and oranges.
At the end of the day, it's not the tools, it's not the mastery of the tools. It's all about the result - the light, the subject, the composition, etc. A talented photographer can take a cover shot photograph with a drugstore box camera, while an over equipped, untalented buffoon can ruin any Kodak moment.
Stephen's answer presents a very good discussion about the difficulty comparing film to digital, it doesn't answer your whole question.
ReplyDeleteBased on what I see when I scan slides at 4,000 dpi, I'm guessing that 18-20 MP would be a close technical match for film grain. I will not dispute anything Stephen says about saturation, etc., but I think 18-20 MP could duplicate the grain size in an ISO 50-100 film.
Now, as to whether it's NECESSARY or not, that's another question. I think 10-12 MP is probably good enough to give film a run for the money as far as resolution in concerned. This relies on the fact that the human eye just can't see that well without assistance. Let me emphasize that I agree that there are other parameters besides resolution that go in to the overall quality of the image.
If you are trying to surpass the image quality of a 35 mm camera, just get into medium format. It may seem too obvious to say it, but I will. The negative is at least four times larger. For any given format (5x7, 8x10, etc) the image will be that much sharper. If you decide to venture into medium format, though, take a boat load of money!
There are some who will always say that film is better than digital.. that the focus is always better on film.. yada yada yada...
ReplyDeleteWhile that used to be true, the currently available dslr's on the market are pretty remarkable. (and getting better all the time.) If you intend to print a lot of your pictures then I would not go much under 6 mega pixels in a camera.
Now, that said, you need to determine if you want a dslr or what is called a point and shoot camera. The difference is this, the point and shoot has auto settings most of which you cannot over ride for special circumstances to make the picture you want.. the dslr has interchangable lens capability, and most of the auto settings can usually be over ridden.
What will you use your camera for? If you want to do professional photos for magazines, newspapers, stock photo sales, then I would say you need to invest in a dslr. (digital single lens reflex) if you want to go digital. I think the pros for this are pretty much self evident, immediate gratification of what you shot, no film processing etc etc.
On the film camera side there is the fact that usually you can get a really cheap price on a pretty good camera.
In addition to 35 mm there are also the middle range cameras (some have been mentioned in other answers to your question already so I won't repeat them)
If you would like to see some of the images taken with a dslr 8 mega pixel you can see them at http://www.silvaspoon.net and on that same site you will find some pretty decent deals on both point and shoot cameras and dslr cameras.(http://www.silvaspoon.net/cameras.html)
The left column has links to some of the better camera outlets that usually have sales going on.
The truth is that you can take good pictures with just about any camera you have, if you know what you are doing.
A photo blog that might interest you is at http://photographmuse.blogspot.com/
It actually depends on a few factors.
ReplyDeleteWith consumer grade lenses, the lens is the limiting factor for resolving power - not the film or sensor.
With a good lens, 35mm color film equals roughly 8 mega-pixels. So digital is already better.
With a good lens and good black and white film, you can get as much as 25 mega-pixels worth of information. So film would still be better. Then again, you would only notice the difference if you printed larger than 8x10 inches. The newest digital SLR cameras are all 10MP and the the Canon 1Ds Mk2 has 16.7 mega-pixels.
Another factor is dynamic range. Digital cameras capture a slightly smaller range than film - they tend to clip the highlights a bit sooner and a bit harsher than film. This is true for all digital cameras, although Sigma's Foveon technology is slightly better than the rest (too bad the Foveon sensors never took off). This is something that the sensor manufacturors are still working on.
If you do low light photography, digital is clearly better - and it has been for some time. With digital cameras you can capture clean images at ISO 1600, which is impossible with film (you'd have considerable grain).
In short, 99% of the time digital is good enough, which explains why most pros have already switched.
Being that there are digital cameras on the market such as Hassleblads $ 30,000 H2 which bosts an impressive 39 megapixels you would assume that digital cameras have far surpassed that of 35mm film, and indeed in the case of the Hasselblad it has indeed surpassed the quality of 35 cameras and has approached the quality that one would expect with larger format film cameras such as 6x4.5 cm film or 6x6cm film.
ReplyDeleteHowever, film sizes are not limited to 35mm, 6x4.5 cm film or 6x6cm film for that matter. 4inchx5inch and 8inchx10inch are also very popular film sizes amongst professional photographers.
If you really want to get down to brass tacks, there is a formula which you can use to figure out the megapixel equivalent of the film you are using. The equation is as follows... (lpm1.6 / 80 lpm)2...squared that is. In the equation, lpm1.6 refers to the published film resolution in line pairs per millimeter with a target with a contrast of 1.6. The digital camera equivalent applies to a monochrome (Bayer) sensor that is common in consumer and pro digital cameras currently on the market. hence....
digital megapixel equivalent (35 mm film) = 10 * (lpm1.6 / 80 lpm)2
digital megapixel equivalent (6x4.5 cm film) = 31 * (lpm1.6 / 80 lpm)2
digital megapixel equivalent (4x5 film) = 150 * (lpm1.6 / 80 lpm)2
digital megapixel equivalent (8x10 film) = 600 * (lpm1.6 / 80 lpm)2
So as you can see the megapixel equivalent of 8x10 film is about 600megapixels(give or take depending upon the type and iso of the film you are using, type of lens etc..). However, for the average consumer who prints 4x6 prints at walgreens this is just an overkill. However if you are making 7 foot by 10 foot mural prints and you want sharp and tonally perfect prints, go with an 8x10 camera. Just because film can surpass the quality of digital cameras should not mean that you should dismiss digital cameras as some kind of novelty. In many ways digital photography has revolutioned many fields of photography from photo journalism to product photography. But film has its niche too especially in the fine art field and in some specialty commercial photo fields. Fact is that your choice of film or digital really depends upon what you are doing in the photo field. Would Ansel Adams or Edward Weston have been the icons that they were using 35mm SLR cameras or 12 megapixel digital cameras? There is no such thing as the perfect camera, but there are cameras that can be perfect for you.
I pretty much agree with the discussion regarding megapixel quality vs. film quality. The only part of the equation I didnt see discussed is digital image format which also influances image quality on a digital camera. If you shoot in a RAW format, you get the most out of the cameras abilities because you get the best bit depth, and the images are presented just as they are recorded. No image manipulation ocurrs in the camera. The only real down side to RAW format it that there is no standard RAW format! Pretty much every manufacturer has their owm proprietary RAW format, and you need their software to view their RAW photos. Microsoft has a digital image suite that can work with Nikon and Cannon, but if you use anything else you're out of luck unless you have the manufacturers software. Adobe has a RAW format that some suggest should become the RAW standard, but there is no consensus to this yet. The other side of the issue is shooting in JPEG or TIFF or BITMAP or one of the other formats that have a more wide apeal. Their problems are that they don't record the bit depth of RAW, and they all tend to loose pixels when they compress your image. Normally you dont see this loss of quality, unless again you enlarge your image, or you open and close your image several times. In JPEGs case at least this looses pixels with every opening and closing as it uncompresses the image for viewing, and then recompresses the image for storage.
ReplyDeletePersonal opinion...I don't see that there is a one all encompassing "holy grail" of image quality. Each format, digital and film, 35mm medium format, large format all have their pluses and minuses none the least of which is how big the bucket of cash is you'll need to use a chosen format. Figure out what kind of photography you want to do. Studio work, location, nature, whatever. Educate yourself on formats, and film characteristics Then check how many digits are on the bottom line of your checking account, and then buy what works for your situation.
Like you must have read in the trail of answers, 35mm is not the "holy grail" of image quality. However, you probably want to compare it to digital imaging. Well yes I think the 14 megapix figure seems about right.
ReplyDeleteIt takes about 20 megapixels to match film quality. Within another 5 years, many cameras will be 15-20 megapixels with low amounts of noise because of improved sensors. There is actually a camera that you can buy right now that has 160 megapixels!
ReplyDelete