isaacmacdonald
Platinum Member
- Jun 7, 2002
- 2,820
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: Mike7
Originally posted by: waitman
4.0 mega pixel is supposed to be on par with 35mm camera.
For 4x6" prints, I agree that a 4.0mp digital camera will produce images as good as you'd get from a 35mm camera.
For 5x7" prints, very possibly as good.
For 8x10" and larger, nope. Oh, the results may still be perfectly adequate, especially for non-critical viewing. They just won't be on par with 35mm.
I'm not knocking digital. I like digital cameras. A lot. In many (but not all) ways, they're great. And if you never go beyond 5x7", 4mp is just fine. (Frankly, anything over 3mp is just fine.) And the overwhelming majority of people rarely -- if ever -- go beyond 4x6" photos.
Of course, there's more to image quality than megapixels. I'll take a 3mp camera with excellent lens, software, etc., over a mediocre 4mp camera, any day. (Same way that an excellent 1.6ghz computer can be better for most purposes than a mediocre 2ghz computer.)
I work for a commercial photographer. This BS about 35 producing better quality images is crap. First of all, 35 neg is crap. Above that, even 35 chromes (which are pricey to shoot + develop as all e6 processed stuff is) don't produce great full page shots. 4mp is a suitable replacement for traditional photography up to medium format (2.25"). For normal usage, 4mp is superior to traditional film. The end.