6 ms·

32,000 Euros! And finally getting close to actual film resolution that is available for less than 1000$ http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm http://www.

32,000 Euros! And finally getting close to actual film resolution that is available for less than 1000$ http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm

angusgr 15y ago
I'm not sure why this is being downvoted given that it's essentially true (link to the widely disliked Ken Rockwell notwithstanding.) The reason digital has eclipsed film is a combination of rapid results, ease of use, portability, and cost. This camera only hits 1 out of 4, with the added restriction of requiring multiple exposures per image. For the kind of mega-high-res "slow" photography its marketed for, it's not really clear to me why you'd use this over medium/large format E6 film unless you had unlimited money, or needed absolute speed in delivering results. Of course, OTOH, for 35mm/medium-format equivalent stuff it's fairly clear that digital (35mm or digital MF backs) has now been adopted pretty much entirely, at least for commercial & professional photography.
- petervandijck 15y ago
  Why is Ken Rockwell disliked? (Curious, I like his site.)
  - angusgr 15y ago
    I don't personally mind him either, I think he has written some useful things for the photographer world (and I also like film photography as a hobby, so confirmation bias helps there!) I've seen him disliked on two fronts. I have some photographer friends who just think he's outspoken & over-opinionated for who he actually is (this is what jars me a bit about his site as well.) I know he also gets flak from photography forum types as a gadget shill or for being allegedly clueless because they disagree with his opinion on some particular thing. Although I think that's mostly coming from armchair internet photographers who sit at home and stroke their L-series lenses but never take any actual photographs. ;)
    - petervandijck 15y ago
      "stroke their L-series lenses" priceless!
  - sjwright 15y ago
    He's an incredible landscape photographer. He is a creative genius, but his limited technical knowledge and misleading writing style hampers his objectivity. Many of the benefits of RAW digital photography aren't relevant to landscape photographers, which is why he often comes to the conclusions he does. But rather than acknowledge this, he's turned his preference for film into a religion.
mtw 15y ago
what makes you think 200 megapixel is close to actual film resolution? he doesn't mention a number about film resolution in that article. Film resolution might be 30mpx, 100mpx, 3000mpx ... or even infinite
- ars 15y ago
  It's not infinite, 35mm film resolution is around 36MP, and prints made from it can be as low as 4MP. A better comparison for this camera would be medium format, not 35mm. So quadruple all the MP numbers.
  - sjwright 15y ago
    This actual test from 2006 disagrees with you: http://www.ales.litomisky.com/data/projects/Analog%20versus%20Digital%20Shootout%20%28Hasselblad,%2035mm,%20Canon%205D%29/ http://www.ales.litomisky.com/data/projects/Analog%20versus%...
    - ars 15y ago
      No it doesn't. This test agrees with me. It doesn't give actual resolution numbers since they didn't test correctly, but otherwise it agrees with me.
      - sjwright 15y ago
        Apologies, I should have mentioned that I was responding specifically to your claim that "35mm film resolution is around 36MP". I agreed entirely with the remainder of your post. If the best 35mm film scanned with the best drum scanner can be trounced by a five-year-old 12 megapixel camera, well, it doesn't really matter IF the 36MP claim is accurate. Outside of the lab, only achievable results matter. The fact that a 5D can even approach the quality of 50 ASA medium format film should give people pause.
  - mtw 15y ago
    "35mm film resolution is around 36MP" where did you get that? I've seen lots of numbers, here it is 175MP http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm in other articles, they mention another number, for the same film.
sjwright 15y ago
Ken Rockwell is the king troll of photography. The most optimistic estimates of 35mm film detail come to around 16 megapixel -- but that's if you're willing to use 50 ISO film. Jump to 100 ISO film and that drops down to an embarrassing 7 megapixel equivalent. http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.summary1/index.html http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.summary1... Downsides of film Ken ignores: * Film costs real money per shot. * You can't confirm if your shot worked. * You have to change rolls every 36 exposures. * You have to change rolls to change light sensitivity. * You have to change rolls to change white balance. * Film is far less sensitive to light; modern digital sensors put it to shame. * Creative freedom and experimentation is curtailed (for all the above reasons). * You're limited by the quality of your scanner (good ones are expensive). * You can't make perfect backups. In the end though, you can shoot with whatever you want. There's a number of respected photographers who take amazing pictures with cheap pocket compacts.

32,000 Euros! And finally getting close to actual film resolution that is available for less than 1000$ http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm

angusgr 15y ago

I'm not sure why this is being downvoted given that it's essentially true (link to the widely disliked Ken Rockwell notwithstanding.) The reason digital has eclipsed film is a combination of rapid results, ease of use, portability, and cost. This camera only hits 1 out of 4, with the added restriction of requiring multiple exposures per image. For the kind of mega-high-res "slow" photography its marketed for, it's not really clear to me why you'd use this over medium/large format E6 film unless you had unlimited money, or needed absolute speed in delivering results. Of course, OTOH, for 35mm/medium-format equivalent stuff it's fairly clear that digital (35mm or digital MF backs) has now been adopted pretty much entirely, at least for commercial & professional photography.

petervandijck 15y ago
Why is Ken Rockwell disliked? (Curious, I like his site.)
- angusgr 15y ago
  I don't personally mind him either, I think he has written some useful things for the photographer world (and I also like film photography as a hobby, so confirmation bias helps there!) I've seen him disliked on two fronts. I have some photographer friends who just think he's outspoken & over-opinionated for who he actually is (this is what jars me a bit about his site as well.) I know he also gets flak from photography forum types as a gadget shill or for being allegedly clueless because they disagree with his opinion on some particular thing. Although I think that's mostly coming from armchair internet photographers who sit at home and stroke their L-series lenses but never take any actual photographs. ;)
  - petervandijck 15y ago
    "stroke their L-series lenses" priceless!
- sjwright 15y ago
  He's an incredible landscape photographer. He is a creative genius, but his limited technical knowledge and misleading writing style hampers his objectivity. Many of the benefits of RAW digital photography aren't relevant to landscape photographers, which is why he often comes to the conclusions he does. But rather than acknowledge this, he's turned his preference for film into a religion.

mtw 15y ago

what makes you think 200 megapixel is close to actual film resolution? he doesn't mention a number about film resolution in that article. Film resolution might be 30mpx, 100mpx, 3000mpx ... or even infinite

ars 15y ago
It's not infinite, 35mm film resolution is around 36MP, and prints made from it can be as low as 4MP. A better comparison for this camera would be medium format, not 35mm. So quadruple all the MP numbers.
- sjwright 15y ago
  This actual test from 2006 disagrees with you: http://www.ales.litomisky.com/data/projects/Analog%20versus%20Digital%20Shootout%20%28Hasselblad,%2035mm,%20Canon%205D%29/ http://www.ales.litomisky.com/data/projects/Analog%20versus%...
  - ars 15y ago
    No it doesn't. This test agrees with me. It doesn't give actual resolution numbers since they didn't test correctly, but otherwise it agrees with me.
    - sjwright 15y ago
      Apologies, I should have mentioned that I was responding specifically to your claim that "35mm film resolution is around 36MP". I agreed entirely with the remainder of your post. If the best 35mm film scanned with the best drum scanner can be trounced by a five-year-old 12 megapixel camera, well, it doesn't really matter IF the 36MP claim is accurate. Outside of the lab, only achievable results matter. The fact that a 5D can even approach the quality of 50 ASA medium format film should give people pause.
- mtw 15y ago
  "35mm film resolution is around 36MP" where did you get that? I've seen lots of numbers, here it is 175MP http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm in other articles, they mention another number, for the same film.

sjwright 15y ago

Ken Rockwell is the king troll of photography. The most optimistic estimates of 35mm film detail come to around 16 megapixel -- but that's if you're willing to use 50 ISO film. Jump to 100 ISO film and that drops down to an embarrassing 7 megapixel equivalent. http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.summary1/index.html http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.summary1... Downsides of film Ken ignores: * Film costs real money per shot. * You can't confirm if your shot worked. * You have to change rolls every 36 exposures. * You have to change rolls to change light sensitivity. * You have to change rolls to change white balance. * Film is far less sensitive to light; modern digital sensors put it to shame. * Creative freedom and experimentation is curtailed (for all the above reasons). * You're limited by the quality of your scanner (good ones are expensive). * You can't make perfect backups. In the end though, you can shoot with whatever you want. There's a number of respected photographers who take amazing pictures with cheap pocket compacts.