Dan, re: "I'll stick my neck out .. Reference me wrong". OK.
A Nikon camera with a $2,000 macro lens can probably out-resolve ISO 800 snapshot film from KMart. But when I tested my Minolta SLR zoom a few years back it measured only ~50 lpmm and a $100 snapshot camera probably resolves half that. Quality color film clocks in at about 80 lpmm and B&W film much higher. In short, film wins.
The first reference below is to Kodak's web site. The second reference is from an independent who tested some very-high-end lenses against ISO 100 film and found them to be equivalent in resolving power (I said that film was better than "typical" lenses .. not megabuck wonders.)
I really should correct my statement about Ansel Adams. He used mainly 8x10" film which is ~50 times the size of a 35mm frame. So if it takes 6+ megapixels to provide 35mm equivalency, Mr. Adams would have needed 300+ megapixels per picture!
Craig
References:
1) kodak.com
2) smu.edu
"I've compared the current Fuji 125 CM-W against a 135 Sironar -S. Same camera, same subject, same lighting, etc. In most images, there was no difference between the lenses, even under 100x magnifaction. The resolving power of both lenses seemed to be as good as the film (E100S) could record ... I doubt that there is really much difference in optical performance between the "Big Four" (Fuji, Schneider, Rodenstock, and Nikon)."
Detailed information on lens resolving power can be found in the December, 1998 issue of Popular Photography (no links available). |
