Digital image quality

[Digital fence sitter]

As a newbie here, I wonder if I can seek some input to my upcoming big (for me) investment. I am planning to upgrade from my old Spotmatic, and am currently focussing (!) on the choice between an Ist and a IstD.

I am inclining towards the IstD, but can't afford/don't want to upgrade every few years (says the man still using a 30 yo camera).

My question is - just how good is the image quality of the 6mp sensor, compared to 35mm film. I am not interested in comparing the best film outputs with digital, just in getting the closest like-for-like comparison.

I guess the bottom line is, how quickly will a IstD become noticeably obsolete in so far as it's image quality is concerned?

As a side issue, is it the same sensor in the EOS300D, D70 (and others?)?

I am following Photo-John's trial with interest, and would be very interested in your comments P-J ...

[Norman]

I'm still the proud owner of a Nikon FM, which I bought new 27 years ago. I would like to up grade to a Digital SLR. I'm thinking of the Canon 10D.
The issues are these, will you get comparable enlargements to 10x8, yes, will you notice the difference in comparing film to digital, not readily. You will have to do more computer work, but you will get more out of your images. I used to hate shooting with film, thinking I had great technically exposed shots only to find I had great compostion, who's expouseure was not always spot on.

I have a Nikon Coolpix 995, which I have had for 2 years, it has done more to reinvigorate my photography than anything else. I love the digital aspect, I have an enlargement I had professionally printed on a large Epson printer, 20"x16" from a 3.3mp coolpix camera, it is as sharp as I want it. So I'm just about to jump to the SLR,for more flexibility. I'm sure 6mp is enough for me, if it is out of date in 5 years, then I guess I divide the cost by 5 years & that is what my entertainment cost me, along with the thousands of photo's I would have.

With my Nikon Coolpix I have taken 2000 pictures in 2 years & it seems I hardly use it!

I like the Pentax very much, I have always wanted to try Canon so that's why I'm going that route, also they have a great choice of vibration control lens'es which appeals to me.

[Michael Fanelli]

I am planning to upgrade from my old Spotmatic, and am currently focussing (!) on the choice between an Ist and a IstD.

I am inclining towards the IstD, but can't afford/don't want to upgrade every few years (says the man still using a 30 yo camera).

My question is - just how good is the image quality of the 6mp sensor, compared to 35mm film. I am not interested in comparing the best film outputs with digital, just in getting the closest like-for-like comparison.

I guess the bottom line is, how quickly will a IstD become noticeably obsolete in so far as it's image quality is concerned?

As a side issue, is it the same sensor in the EOS300D, D70 (and others?)?

I am following Photo-John's trial with interest, and would be very interested in your comments P-J ...

First, there is no need to upgrade every few years. Some people have an uncontrollable urge to always have the top-of-the-line technology. These are the people who care much more about equipment than photography. When something new comes out, your existing technology doesn't stop working.

Sensor quality will keep improving. The high-priced DSLRs (e.g., Canon's 1Ds) are as good as medium format film. But if you have been happy with 35mm quality, this isn't really an issue any more than trading up from a 35mm SLR to a Pentax 67 is.

In terms of quality, the current DSLRs exceed 35mm by quite a bit. Unless you like that "film look" go with the DSLR. It costs more upfront but that is made up very quickly as you eliminate the ongoing high costs of film, developing, and scanning.

As your spotmatic lenses won't fit the K-mount in any reasonable way, you are free to start a new system. The Pentax digital *ist looks really nice although I've never used one. Canon, my current system, has the 300D and 10D at reasonable prices. Nikon and Fuji (uses Nikon lenses) have a solid lineup. All of these DSLRs will do the job for you.

Sensors are different across DSLR product lines. However, Pentax does use the same sensor as the Nikon D100.

[Franglais]

As a newbie here, I wonder if I can seek some input to my upcoming big (for me) investment. I am planning to upgrade from my old Spotmatic, and am currently focussing (!) on the choice between an Ist and a IstD.

I am inclining towards the IstD, but can't afford/don't want to upgrade every few years (says the man still using a 30 yo camera).

My question is - just how good is the image quality of the 6mp sensor, compared to 35mm film. I am not interested in comparing the best film outputs with digital, just in getting the closest like-for-like comparison.

I guess the bottom line is, how quickly will a IstD become noticeably obsolete in so far as it's image quality is concerned?

As a side issue, is it the same sensor in the EOS300D, D70 (and others?)?

I am following Photo-John's trial with interest, and would be very interested in your comments P-J ...

I had both the D70 and the 300D in my hands yesterday (at the Paris PMA). I think that Nikon are going to sell a lot of D70's but I still find the viewfinder of both cameras too small. I liked the D2H, though.

The D100, Pentax 1stD and D70 are all based on the same Sony 6Mpix CCD sensor. Improvements in the last two years have not been so much on the sensor as in the power of the onboard processor. The D70 boots up instantly and does much more image optimisation in the camera than the D100 did (according to French press).

If you're looking at a long term investment then you want a manufacturer who is dedicated to supporting the APS-sized sensor in your camera so you can continue to buy lenses that are optimised for it.

Charles

[Sebastian]

DFS,

Your concern with image quality is a waste of time, quite frankly. Any one of the current 6mp DSLRs will give you images in many ways superior to film.

My D100s gave me ISO 1600 images that were cleaner than ISO 800 film. And ISO 200 images had so little noise, they looked like ISO 100 or lower whn printed. The amount of detial digital can record is very comparable to film. The only thing you need to watch is exposure, once you blow hihglights there is no getting them back, unless you shoot RAW, and then you only have about a stop of lattitude, tops.

As for the Pentax, like Micheal said your lenses won't work on the new body, so you'll need to invest in new glass. If you're gonna be spending the money go with a better system, Canon or Nikon have established digital systems that are much more developed than Pentax.

Franglais makes an interesting point regarding the DX lenses from Nikon. They are designed to work with the APS size sensor of their digital cameras. This was a great idea when they were saying that the APS size is all they'll do, but after the lenses were released their tune changed, and they were quoted that their will be a full-frame camera in their future. This reminded me way too much of the IX lens fiasco of a few years back, where they had a dedicated lens line for their APS slrs. Well, they made a few lenses, and once APS stopped selling they stopped making them. And they were not usable on any 35mm bodies, so whoever invested in them was stuck with useless glass. I used to be all behind the DX lenses, but now I would suggest caution, wait a few years and see where they take it.

Canon on the other hand gives you many choices of sensor size depending on your budget. A different colution to the same problem.

Both have strengths and weaknesses, weigh them carefully before making the investment.

[Seb]

The D *ist use the very same Sony sensor than the Nikon D100 as Michael pointed out. The difference is in the images processors as Pentax and Nikon have technologies of their own. The Nikon D70 is said to use an improved version of the Sony sensor and it have a brand new images processor.

In theory, one might expect the D70 to do better than the D *ist and the D100 thanks to it's up to date technologies but that remain to be proven. I gave a look at the D *ist over a month ago. I loved the body of that camera. It's probably my favorite SLR/DSLR body on the market at that point in time (just a personal opinion obviously). It's smaller than average but not too light and it just feel right in my hands. It as a sturdy feel and it seems to be a serious tool. However, it appears that the D *ist might be the noisiest DSLR on the market right now (which most likely come from it's image processor). Pentax will certainly correct it sooner or later but they don't have the digital experience of Canon or Nikon at that point in time. Photo-John used to have (perhaps still have???) a D *ist in hands for trial purpose. He posted few shots here. Most of them looked excellent to my untrained eyes. A shot taken in a darker environment showed some noticeable noise but it didn't looked that bad to me (nothing worse than the grain of some 35 mm films).

I don't have personal experience with digital myself, I am on the market for my first one as well. It just seems to me that there are no wrong choices at that point in time. Your choice should probably be done regarding the way you feel about a specific body (in term of ergonomics) and considering the lenses you intend to work with.

Regards

Seb

[stew]

I own the Digital Rebel. I usually create 8x10's, but I just tried a 16x20 for the first time. The original image was captured in the "Large JPEG" format (the best one besides RAW), ISO 400, and no cropping was performed. I changed it to black & white using PS, then filtered it using NeatImage, then added a slight unsharp mask in PS. At 16x20, the resolution was around 150 dpi, and the resulting enlargement looks wonderful IMHO. I don't see any obvious or detrimental resolution issues or digital artifacts, even thought I'm sure a professional could spot some. Bear in mind that I don't have any experience enlarging film prints (as I've never owned a film camera).

Hope this helps! -Stew

[Roger Rowlett]

Image quality is really not at issue with a 6 Mpixel DSLR. Prints up to A3 size (about 11x16") are simply indistinguishable from film. I've shown many prints that size, and unless I specify that the images were made with a D100, nobody has a clue how it was captured. I have even had experienced photographers come up and ask me what kind of medium format equipment I use. In a nutshell, if you go digital, image quality will be the least of your worries. Shoot and be happy.

Cheers.