I have the Kodak DCS Back for my Contax 645 and the resulting prints from the 16 mega pixel chip are supurb.
Please comment briefly on how much resolution (in terms of megapixels) you think you'd need to get quality that matches your best present film camera.
- Log in or register to post comments
I can wait an extra day to get my negs scanned to get "digital". Do not need the quick turnaround like a photojournalist right now. If I need something bigger than an 11x14 no sweat. I'll keep film for now, the longer I wait the more for my money later. Anyone check out the price of a used D30? and how much did it cost brand new? Things are changing way to fast right now.
6 megapixels makes a great 8X10 and the file sizes are not outrageous. Having said that I have looked at the out put from a friends 11 megapixel Canon and the improvement in texture and detail is impressive. Cost is the big factor for me, as much as I would love to have the quality of the large sensor I need to learn the craft first and justify the higher end tools later.
I have a Fuji S7000 right now and the quality is excellent. I haven't had any printing done above 8x10's, so I haven't been able to check the quality with larger formats. I guess it's just like the computer push for faster and faster chips and larger memory.
I'll likely be the last person on the face of the earth to change from film to digital. As far as I'm concerned, quality is paramount, and I feel that the quality of the slow slide films (Velvia 50, for example) is higher than that of digital.
To replace my medium format cameras, I would estimate I would need 10-16 migapixels. Currently, I have a 6 MP camera, and it is OK for most of the work I do -- when I need higher resolution, or when I just feel like it, I use the med format camera and scan the film.