Actually I don't think your recollection is entirely accurate. If it
was the 1Ds (Mk1), then it is only an 11mp camera. And when you say "as
good as", you really do need to explain what exactly you mean. The 11mp
1Ds (Mk1) is overall, probably a touch better than a piece of 100 ISO
color 35mm film. It will produce a cleaner large print (no grain), but
the film, well scanned, will supply a little more resolution. At 400
ISO, the 1Ds is more clearly better. The more recent 12.8mp Canon 5D is
better still, and the first DSLR that was good enough, in my view, that
was worth the investment to switch. (and if you ask the LL folks, I am
sure they will agree -- the 16mp 1Ds MkII, came before the 12.8mp 5D, so
it might have been the first, but its not the only one that LL considers
to be as good as or better than film) Comparing the 5D's output to
scans of 35mm film (scanned on a KM Scan Elite 5400 II, and Nikon 8000)
I can get more out of the 5D file. To my eyes, it is clearly superior
(but certainly not perfect). At higher ISO's, it is vastly superior.
It increases its margin at 200 ISO, and at 1600 ISO it produces
remarkably good images -- a couple orders of magnitude better than you
can do with 1600 ISO film (unless of course, you are using it for the
visual effect of it's large grain). Ultra-fine grain, slow speed (6-25
ISO) black and white film might still have an edge, however. I know
there were a lot of people running around saying that their 6 mp DSLR
was better than film and had tests to "prove" it. That was pure bunk.
With the 12.8 mp 5D, the 16mp 1Ds MkII, 12.4mp Nikon D2x, and 14mp Kodak
SLR/c and SLR/n (and I really should include the 10mp Leica M8 in this
list) 35mm film has clearly been surpassed. I was long a hold-out in
favor of film, but there is no longer any doubt. Now there might be a
particular application, or a particular look you are trying to get that
film may be the best way to go, but overall and for most applications
and uses, these DSLR's are indeed superior.
I see further you have bought into the long-standing rumour of the 22mp
replacement for the 1DsMKII -- do you have actual knowledge to this, or
have you just bought into all the fact-less speculation all over the
web? People were spreading rumours saying it was coming 2 years ago,
but nothing came, not even a hint. Whenever it arrives, it may indeed
be 22mp but Canon needs to be careful. The 16mp 1Ds MKII already
exceeds the resolving capabilities of most Canon lenses (including the
L's) a 22mp version would just further highlight the weakness of their
lens line. I would think they should really focus on improving other
aspects of image quality in the 1Ds MKII, rather than just another
mindless, and not really that useful (lens resolution limited), increase
in MP's.
lists@lazygranch.com wrote:
> I suggest checking out this website:
>
>
> My recollection is the first DSLR these guys thought was as good as film
> was a 16Mpixel Canon EOS 1. I can't recall the exact variant (Mark 1,
> mark 2, etc.) If you don't own that camera (or maybe the 22Mpixel model
> that is going to replace it), the DSLR will not be as good as scanned
> film. However, if you can control your work to the point where you don't
> need to crop very much, you can get acceptable results with a lesser
> camera.
>
> I attended a talk by Jim Sugar (National Geographic and other mags) a
> few months ago. I haven't followed through on this, but he said Getty
> Images and Digital Railroad have on their websites what they consider an
> acceptable camera to produce stock images for them to sell.
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
