Digital cam megapixal question.. (someone get T-Boy)

[AAP]

The Canon Rebel Digital ($900) is 8 megapixels (or 8.2).

Question - what is the quality of 8 megapixels like vs standard 200 ISO 35mm film once you have an image blown up to 11" x 14" size? Which would yield a better quality photo at that size. (all other factors remaining the same... )

 

[JarheadChiro]

The digi photo would blow the 200 out of the water.

 

[AAP]

Bro, by 200 ISO I was refering to the film speed being used in a standard 35mm camera.

Maybe I should be more clear.

Here is the scenario :

Camera #1 Canon Rebel Digital 8 megapixels.

Camera #2 Canon Rebel 35mm loaded with 200 ISO speed film.

Both cameras taking the same shot, same time of day, same lighting, same everything, etc...

Pictures blown up to 11" x 14" size. One from 35mm negative, the other downloaded from the digital cam.

 

[redguru]

Bro, by 200 ISO I was refering to the film speed being used in a standard 35mm camera.

Maybe I should be more clear.

Here is the scenario :

Camera #1 Canon Rebel Digital 8 megapixels.

Camera #2 Canon Rebel 35mm loaded with 200 ISO speed film.

Both cameras taking the same shot, same time of day, same lighting, same everything, etc...

Pictures blown up to 11" x 14" size. One from 35mm negative, the other downloaded from the digital cam.

That would depend on the ISO 200 film asnd its silver grain structure. But at 11x14, grain normally begins to become a problem on ISO 200 film. I have heard great reviews on the digital rebel. An 8 MP image will appear sharper at 11x14 than the exact same shot taken with the film SLR, IMHO. It also depends on the shot. Is this for portraits? Then, yes, the Digital SLR will be slightly better than the film camera loaded with ISO 200 35MM. I would disagree if you were using ISO 100 Film in the same setting.

 

[JarheadChiro]

Look here, better explanation.
Digi vs ISO

 

[AAP]

JarHead - that is an AWESOME website... K to you when I get off this dialup... just remind me.

Redguru - same to you, the reason I said 200 ISO is because that is usual film most people get. I wasn't refering to any particular type of picture, portriat, landscape, action, night, etc.... any and all really. Maybe some macro shots really close up like flowers and bees.

 

[redguru]

JarHead - that is an AWESOME website... K to you when I get off this dialup... just remind me.

Redguru - same to you, the reason I said 200 ISO is because that is usual film most people get. I wasn't refering to any particular type of picture, portriat, landscape, action, night, etc.... any and all really. Maybe some macro shots really close up like flowers and bees.

If you are getting it for a gift for someone that already has a Canon film SLR it's a great idea. All the lenses are interchangeable. For closeup shots like that, it will be incredible. Action photos still favor the film camera from my perspective because the exposure time will favor the silver halides on the film over the matrix on the CCD. You'll see slight blurring and shading on the Digital on your larger prints.

 

[AAP]

What about landscapes, vacation type shots, casual portraits, etc...

Action photography was never a real interest of them anyway. They have the Canon A2E film camera already and a couple dozen lens as well. Some of the expensive ass lens too.

 

[redguru]

What about landscapes, vacation type shots, casual portraits, etc...

Action photography was never a real interest of them anyway. They have the Canon A2E film camera already and a couple dozen lens as well. Some of the expensive ass lens too.

Those type of shots won't be a problem. That is one really nice camera. I currently work for Kodak and all of us on the inside prefer it to the comparable Minolta.

 

[mountain muscle]

What about landscapes, vacation type shots, casual portraits, etc...

Action photography was never a real interest of them anyway. They have the Canon A2E film camera already and a couple dozen lens as well. Some of the expensive ass lens too.

Lens Quality makes all the difference in the world AAP. I shot a canon A2 for portraits and weddings for a few years. 8mg is huge to me, but it depends on if your friends are purists or not. Do they have everything they need to make good digital pics. I still prefer film, but my digital knowledge is limited. Apparently I need to talk to Tboy as well.
Rebel series canon cameras are aimed at an amateur photographer. There are other digital models your friends may like if they have spent the money on pro-quality lenses.

 

[AAP]

Good point MM. I am hoping this digital cam turns out to be a nice gift because now when we go on trips or to parties, etc.. they bring along this cheap ass Fuji 2.1 megapixel camera to shoot fun shots with. When I ask them about it they say that it is just convenient to use the cheap cam rather than a film one and having to wait on getting the pics developed or something. Then again, half the time they end up in position to capture a really quality photograph, but are unable to because the cheap ass fuji isn't really equipped to do. So they end up bitching about "if only I had brought the better cam". I am hoping this will be the best of both worlds.

 

[Testosterone boy]

There are a lot of variables here. 35mm film can be professionaly drum scanned and working file sizes may allow images that were previously impractical.

However,the most popular rule of thumb is that ISO 200 35mm film has about 4 mb of data.

Film captures the data on irregularly shaped film grain. Digital captures the data on square pixels. They both send analog images to be captured by their respective mediums.

A book could be written for this question btw.

ISO 400 film does not yield a quality 11x14 in my book....too grainy/not enough data.

In my book.....what really makes the pro digital cameras much better is for low light photography when one wants to shoot at 800. Digital Canon and Nikon will still shine at 800 while film is really grainy at 800.

Lenses are very, very important as someone mentioned.

Film is fine when working with good light. Pro digital (interchangeable lenses) is much better when working with the low light generally found inside of buildings.

Anyway....it would take hours to really discuss the question.

I thought digital was better than film at 6 mb...generally speaking. Remember that I refer to cameras with interchangeable leneses.

Anyone want to buy a freezer full of film?

 

[Hiatussin]

I have a 7.2 megapixel. when taken under good conditions the pics are HUYGE and sharp IMO

 

[RADAR]

I agree! theres a place for both
I'm a photographer as well christmas i got a Kodak Z740 w the charger & printer on top it is extremely nice for conventual pics

But my Canon AE-1 really shines when i get creative

RADAR

 

[UA_Iron]

Look here, better explanation.
Digi vs ISO

ah transfer functions as applied to photography. I'll have to read up on that in depth.

K borskly

 

[AAP]

T-Boy, as usual, you are the guru in camera world. The guy has plenty of interchangeable lens. By Canon, Tamron and Sigma. He has a couple that has very low F-stops or whatever. Not sure what that is, but I understand the lower you go, the more they cost. He has a couple 18-35mm that were around $1200 each. So I would assume that he has the quality lens part down pat.

But often he does like to blow up photographs to 11x14" for display. So would like to know if a digital cam is better at that size than film.

 

[fistfullofsteel]

http://www.gigapxl.org/ take some bad ass pics http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery.htm

 

[GoldenDelicious]

um, since the camera guys are all here, im about to buy a canon ixus 750 aka Canon PowerShot SD550, jsut a general purpose camera...have there been any ravingly good or bad reviews about the thing?

cheerios

 

[RADAR]

T-Boy, as usual, you are the guru in camera world. The guy has plenty of interchangeable lens. By Canon, Tamron and Sigma. He has a couple that has very low F-stops or whatever. Not sure what that is, but I understand the lower you go, the more they cost. He has a couple 18-35mm that were around $1200 each. So I would assume that he has the quality lens part down pat.

But often he does like to blow up photographs to 11x14" for display. So would like to know if a digital cam is better at that size than film.

I have about 3 grand in interchangeable lens

1200mm telephoto
500mm
25-300mm
2x converter to increase the power
3x converter
theres more just takes too much time to list

RADAR

 

[fivefold]

Kodak Z740 , very nice camera... I'm just starting to get into photography, I recently bought a Nikon N55 film camera and my GF bought me a Nikon 5600 Digital camera for my BD. So far I am having fun just playing around with them, but what do you suggest I get next? Lenses? Filters? Photography Books?.... Thanks

 

[AAP]

Kodak Z740 , very nice camera... I'm just starting to get into photography, I recently bought a Nikon N55 film camera and my GF bought me a Nikon 5600 Digital camera for my BD. So far I am having fun just playing around with them, but what do you suggest I get next? Lenses? Filters? Photography Books?.... Thanks

How about getting your own thread? This is all about ME!! And the Rebel Digital cam. Geez.

(hee hee just kidding bro)