Comments on: More megapixels, better photos: Fact or fiction?

Digital cameras makers continue to pack more sophisticated sensors. But some say there's a price to pay: lower image quality.
Image: When photo noise annoys

[mjd420nova]

Film is still the best

I have yet to see a digital camera that can even come close to what an average priced SLR can do. Throw in the large cross section of film types available and you can't match the image quality in any way. Let's look at a few sticking points. Focal lenghth. How about depth of field. Shutter speed. There's just three that are nor even applicable to a digital camera, why, they just don't have the ability to even match what a film camera can do. Digital units try to work around shutter speed with image stabilty circuitry, but it just isn't the same. Depth of field, not even a consideration for a digital camera, they don't have any. Focal length is sometimes used to describe a variable figure applicable to long lenses on SLR units, and don't exist yet for digital cameras. Then there's the film media itself. Fast film, capable of capturing extremely low light subjects and extremely fast action requiring very fast shutter speeds. Just not an option for a digital unit. I need to take a picture in that split second when it happens and have the shot come out, not a too fuzzy, blurred and poorly framed shot that has now passed and will never present itself again. Digitals are fine for beginners and some advanced shooters, but for my money, I stick with the true optical camera.

[RocRizzo]

Film is Best?

You are right that there are still some advantages to film, but digital is surely catching up. Digital SLRs these days have fast shutter speeds, to capture the low light/fast motion shots that are once in a lifetime. What I like about the DSLRs, that I do not have in my antiquated SLR, is the ability to do auto focus, and that has come a long way, especially for those macro shots, without a tripod.

Additionally, the image stabilization built into the new Pentax line is quite good. It's built into the camera, and not the lens, so all your lenses have the feature. I have used it for f 3.5 shots, and have been able to find that the depth of field is quite satisfactory. The Pentax K100D is quite the camera for the money. If you already own Pentax lenses, you can use them on this camera, which was its main selling point for me. I have used my K1000 for the past 25 years with lenses that are at least as old, and still retain excellent image quality. When using these old lenses on the new camera, there are limitations (ie: autofocus, aperture)but they are to be expected.

Personally, I think that one should look at the optics, and the sensor size, as megapixels have become a moot point these days. A larger sensor will provide you with the ability to crop and enlarge your photos better than a smaller sensor, and still retain the picture quality.

In short, I think that for some applications, film is still better, but digital is catching up fast.

[markdoiron]

Nonsense

I'm sorry, Mjd420nova, but your post just doesn't make any sense. Okay, it makes sense if you're comparing film SLRs to digital point and shoots. But you specifically mention SLRs. And there they are a match, in most ways, to film SLRs. It's nonsense to suggest that you can't control DOF with a digital SLR. That's a function of the lens, regardless of what camera type you use.

And it's completely wrong to suggest that being able to select film types is an advantage over digital SLRs: Shoot in .raw format and adjust the image on your computer to suit whatever film type you desire. And, do that on the fly, using various pseudo-film types without having to carry an extra body or to change film rolls. And ditto for adjusting ISO and color balance on the fly.

As for differences in lenses . . what differences? For the most part, the same lenses work in digital or film SLRs. Sure, you could offer the criticism that most digital SLRs don't shoot full frame. But there are well-performing lenses designed to address that short-coming.

You also ignore that shooting digital offers immediate feedback. With a histogram. And, in newer models, focus points highlighted. Shoot, look, and if it didn't come out right, readjust and shoot again.

There are a few situations where film bests digital. Dynamic range is one. The article mentions shooting a wedding dress, but I usually see this in clouds during landscape work. And I've found that Graduated Neutral Density filters can compensate for this.

Bottom line: After shooting film for over 35 years I finally made the conversion to digital six years ago. And I'm not looking back.

--mark d.
http://www.summitpost.org/user_page.php?user_id=26307

[prestonpage]

Titular question not answered

I was disappointed that the article didn't even try to provide objective measurements to settle the "Fact or Fiction" question. It is not like the data is not available. Just repeating marketing hype from camera makers or quoting what they think consumers want is in no way relevant to an article with this headline. I'm still very interested in the topic, but please get a photographer to finish writing it.

[whatisgoingonnow]

Adjusting Camera Settings Makes a Huge Difference

I have to agree. I use a Canon PowerShot A300 3.2 mp that I received as a freebie. My first shots were horrible but once I learned to adjust the camera settings appropriately I've produced simply awesome pictures with great detail. I'm not even tempted to upgrade until prices come down significantly because this works so well. I think the biggest issue with any camera (digital or otherwise) is that most people simply do not know how to use them correctly. The same people that took poor shots with film cameras take poor shots with digital cameras. More Mega Pixels in that scenario is simply pointless.

[whatisgoingonnow]

Adjusting Camera Settings Makes a Huge Difference

I have to agree. I use a 3.2 mp camera that I received as a freebie. My first shots were horrible but once I learned to adjust the camera settings appropriately I've produced simply awesome pictures with great detail. I'm not even tempted to upgrade until prices come down significantly because this works so well. I think the biggest issue with any camera (digital or otherwise) is that most people simply do not know how to use them correctly. The same people that took poor shots with film cameras take poor shots with digital cameras. More Mega Pixels in that scenario is simply pointless.

[whatisgoingonnow]

Adjusting Camera Settings Makes a Huge Difference

I have to agree. I use a 3.2 mp camera that I received as a freebie. My first shots were deletion quality but once I learned to adjust the camera settings appropriately I've produced simply awesome pictures with great detail. I'm not even tempted to upgrade until prices come down significantly because this works so well. I think the biggest issue with any camera (digital or otherwise) is that most people simply do not know how to use them correctly. The same people that took poor shots with film cameras take poor shots with digital cameras. More Mega Pixels in that scenario is simply pointless.

[windelbocnet]

warning on panasonic venus 3 engine

There was a nice paragraph on Panasonic's 2006/2007 camera's with the venus 3 engine. I recently purchased a camera with this engine, but returned it because the noise reduction destroyed so much detail in my photos. Additionally, there was no way to shut off the noise reduction so that I could take noisier photos and eliminate the noise on my pc.