Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Well Simon, this is the sort of theoretical presentation that stopped me trying out digital for a long time. I won't bore you with the history, but I eventually did. Digital is MUCH more than the number of pixels (for a photographer anyway). The prints I get from my Digital SLR are excellent and whilst I am sure the theoretical resolution may not quite match the very best slow films, for handheld use in variable light the digital solution is superior. I judge this from prints. I am an engineer, and I find it useful to reflect on the fact that if theory and practice disagree, the theory is wrong. The area where film still beats digital IMHE is dynamic range, but the problem with film is the difficulty in a real life situation, of exploiting this benefit. I travel a lot and notice, in people I meet, a profound difference between people who have travelled the world and those who have not. Those who have not tend to have a stereotyped (some would say brainwashed) view of other countries based on the education system in their own country. Those that have travelled and have seen things for themselves have a more realistic view of the places they have seen. The digital- film debate seems to be similar. Those who have not used digital, and I refer here to digital SLR with reasonable size sensors, not P&S devices with sensors the size of a fingernail - compare them to a Minox or 16mm film compact, not a Leica 35mm please, have a quite different view. I enjoy using my Leicas but I usually get better prints from my digital SLR. Frank On 9 Nov, 2004, at 23:22, animal wrote: > Well if you buy a new R8 for 1700 US$ and the new digital back for > 4500? and have no need for fast sports action you would be off a lot > cheaper then any comparable system I think. > According this > http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html