Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven Karafyllakis" <steve@s...> 
wrote:
>Hello,

I'll put in my two cents worth.

1. Go to dpreview.com. It's a very good site with in-depth reviews of digital cameras in all 
price points. And they don't carry water for anyone.

2. However, I'd like to plug Nikon. I have a D70 with the DX 18-70 lens. This combination 
cost $1,200. The D50 is about $300-$400 less and the new D200 (the camera I'm pining 
for) goes for $1,800.

3. By the way, the new Hassleblad H2 costs $26,990. No that's not a typo.

Good luck in your digital camera hunt!
> Hi Gareth;
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "garethjolly" 
> <garethjolly@y...> wrote:
> >>  Top end digital is
> > also very expensive compared to top end 35mm
> 
> Top end digital might be, but a Rebel XT and a couple lenses will 
> get you excellent results for under $2000.00. That's less than many 
> of your Leica lenses alone.
> 
> 
> > 
> > - I use a Leica M7 (and recently also an Xpan).  I'd like to get a
> > digilux, but at the moment, it's spec.s are well off the pace (5
> > megapixel).  Actually, ideally, I'd like a digital M where I could 
> use
> > my existing lens. 
> 
> Leica could well be out of business before you get your wish-I hope 
> not, but there have been ominous rumblings 
> 
> >>To be honest, I wouldn't go back to an SLR.  
> 
> That's a shame, because the best reasonably priced digicams right 
> now are DSLRs.
> 
> 
> > - how does a 16MP camera give a 48M 8 bit RGB image?  There's
> > something I don't understand about how megapixels translate into 
> file
> > size.  Can someone explain?
> 
> I'll let someone else get into the numbers on this, but consider:
> 
> Pixel dimensions on my Canon 5D (12.8MP about 42MB RGB) are: 4368 x 
> 2912. You need to feed an Epson a minimum of 200ppi to get good 
> image quality, that divides out to an image size of 21.85 x 14.56 
> inches. Un-interpolated, with no noise or "grain" up to ISO 400, and 
> much less grain than Tri-X at ISO 1600. Though one could argue about 
> the esthetics of real film grain v. digital 'noise' grain. With good 
> interpolation software you can get an 8, 12.8 or 16MP image up to 
> sizes I never dared think about with 35mm film. And with a wide-
> format printer you can do it yourself at a reasonable price and 
> no 'noise' from the lab techs.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > - incidentally, I have Coolscan 4000ED with roll film adapter.  
> It's a
> > good scanner - although, the funny thing is, I think I was getting
> > sharper scans with my old Coolscan LS20...   Wonder if Nikon has 
> been
> > economising on the lens?
> 
> I have a Nikon 8000ED (medium format) and I don't think Nikon is 
> econimizing on the lenses. If I have a grainy neg, the grain clearly 
> gets resolved as such, not the mush you get from most flatbeds. But 
> their optical path & light source make for a very limited depth of 
> focus, and that roll film adapter is probably not up to keeping the 
> film flat enough or in the best alignment all the time. 35mm film 
> has a relatively pronounced arch towards the center that produces 
> visible  focus fall-off. If you have some critical needs try their 
> glass carrier-the max sharpness is reduced a tiny bit, but the 
> entire neg is uniformly sharp.
> 
> At any rate, my advice is take a deep breath and jump on board. If 
> you start with something that's current and popular, you can re-sell 
> it in a yaer and get about 50% of your money to put into an upgrade. 
> A year down the road you'll be using your film cameras so little 
> you'll have to build them a special glass case with a brass plaque 
> to memorialize them in. (G)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Steve Karafyllakis
>