Depends on one's budget ........ the Nikons, those costing over
$10,000 are quite good.
But there's better ......
LEAF goes over $30K per camera!
Dentists are quite interested in this topic too as we are gradually
converting to digital format for radiographs, panographic x-rays, etc.
Joel
On 9 Aug 2003 02:09:04 -0700, [email protected] (The LoxFather)
wrote:
>What are the advantages of each format?
>
>With MF, obviously enlargement potential is #1.
>
>With 35mm, availability of film everywhere you look.
>
>With digital, no need for film or processing....but lacking quality.
>
>How do you think they compare?
--
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
Philadelphia PA
STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
no one has seen the tooth or
teeth in question so take
this advice within its proper
context ~ this is the internet!
In article <[email protected]>,
The LoxFather <[email protected]> wrote:
>What are the advantages of each format?
Each format has its uses. Depends what you are photographing.
>With MF, obviously enlargement potential is #1.
Not necessarily. Many photo labs can't work with MF film (depending on
where you live).
>With 35mm, availability of film everywhere you look.
I shoot digital and always have my film with me. I couldn't find my Fuji
NPS at say, Yosemite National Park, but I have a chance to find a small
compact flash card. Shooting Kodak Gold 100 will *not* yield comparable
quality for my photography compared to Fuji NPS, but a store-bought
compact flash card will yield identical quality as my existing cards.
>With digital, no need for film or processing....but lacking quality.
That is your severest misunderstanding. Again, depends on what format of
digital you are shooting. The Canon EOS-1DS is a full-frame (meaning the
sensor is the same size as a piece of film which means when you put your
50mm lens on the camera, you get a 50mm lens, not a 75mm lens as on some
less expensive DSLR's) digital SLR that outputs an 11 mega pixel file.
This resolution will beat nearly any film from a standard 35mm or medium
format camera. Large format will match it, but try running around a
basketball court with a large format camera and you'll know what I mean!
I shoot with my 3 year old 3 mega pixel Nikon Coolpix 990 camera and
routinely make 4x6 prints at Costco from the files I select. The quality
is far better than I would get from a piece of 35mm film, and matches what
I got from my old (and sold a long time ago) Bronica ETRS and Mamiya RB67
Pro medium format cameras. There is *no* film grain.
>How do you think they compare?
Depends if you like the look of film or the look of digital. I have shot
nearly all formats, and digital wins every time. Saves me huge money
every time I shoot (sorry Kodak). I saved over $100 this last weekend
shooting 439 images not having to buy the film or process it. The prints
are made only when I choose to make them, and only the images I want to
print. And they are the same price as prints made from film (at Costco 19
cents plus tax).
Cheers,
Dave
--
"There are hundreds of tiny balls in every machine, and hundreds of
machines in every pachinko parlour, and a pachinko parlour on every block
in every town in Japan; so there are billions of little balls falling
forever, like a chromium-plated hailstorm that never melts." - Clive James
Another enterprising market for would-be photographic entrepreneurs is
to photograph dental cosmetic cases in your dentist's office .......
perhaps as barter for your own dental needs ...... or for some serious
cash.
Yes there are clip services for this but to convince patients we need
our own work showcased!
COMING NEXT MONTH: Similar career tips for rec.woodworking ~~ wooden
teeth or something like that ~~ I am working on it.
For now, pass me a beer! (_)
If you agree or like the post, raise your own mug!
Joel
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 21:10:13 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Joel M. Eichen D.D.S. writes:
>
>> Dentists are quite interested in this topic too
>> as we are gradually converting to digital format
>> for radiographs, panographic x-rays, etc.
>
>And ordinary photographs of the inside of the mouth.
>
>Although I've heard from my usual photo lab that they have a few
>dentists who still shoot zillions of slides per month.
--
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
Philadelphia PA
STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
no one has seen the tooth or
teeth in question so take
this advice within its proper
context ~ this is the internet!
Joel M. Eichen D.D.S. writes:
> Dentists are quite interested in this topic too
> as we are gradually converting to digital format
> for radiographs, panographic x-rays, etc.
And ordinary photographs of the inside of the mouth.
Although I've heard from my usual photo lab that they have a few
dentists who still shoot zillions of slides per month.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
On 9 Aug 2003 02:09:04 -0700, [email protected] (The LoxFather)
wrote:
>What are the advantages of each format?
>
>With MF, obviously enlargement potential is #1.
>
>With 35mm, availability of film everywhere you look.
>
>With digital, no need for film or processing....but lacking quality.
>
>How do you think they compare?
Cameras in the 10D, D100 and Fuji S2 classs are
now encroaching or even surpassing typcial 35mm
film quality.
Cameras in the 1Ds and 14n class are now
encroaching on or even surpassing typical
MF film quality.
With exceptional optics, slow reversal film,
tripod, and the latest film scanners, film still
holds its own, but just barely.
One problem rarely metioned with dSLRs is
the issue of keeping the sensor clean.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
The LoxFather writes:
> With MF, obviously enlargement potential is #1.
Yes. MF gives you ultrahigh resolution and image quality.
> With 35mm, availability of film everywhere you look.
And the widest selection of cameras and films available for any format,
by a wide margin. A good compromise between tiny formats and digital
with lesser image quality, and large formats with great image quality
but high cost, high inconvenience, and limited choices in film and
equipment.
> With digital, no need for film or processing...
> but lacking quality.
Right.
> How do you think they compare?
Well, I shoot digital only for images that will be used on my Web site
(and never anywhere else), and only when I need them quickly and
cheaply.
I shoot MF for images that must be of the highest quality I can afford,
typically images that I prepare for a while in advance (tripod, careful
metering, etc.). On rare occasions I use MF more casually.
I shoot 35mm for everything else.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
"The LoxFather" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What are the advantages of each format?
>
> With MF, obviously enlargement potential is #1.
>
> With 35mm, availability of film everywhere you look.
>
> With digital, no need for film or processing....but lacking quality.
>
> How do you think they compare?
See http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm for some comparison images
between a Canon 10D, 1Ds, 35mm Provia and a couple of 4X5 Velvia comparisons
too....
"The LoxFather"
> What are the advantages of each format?
>
> With MF, obviously enlargement potential is #1.
>
> With 35mm, availability of film everywhere you look.
>
> With digital, no need for film or processing....but lacking quality.
>
> How do you think they compare?
Why not do some reseach? No one really cares which
option you choose as it will be a personal decision.