Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler
That's the first I've heard that a 15mp camera is equivalent to a good slide film (Velvia for example) If that's the case then I'm not going to beat myself up over the differences between 15-25mp. I've read in a few places (I can't find the links now) that until you get into the ~25 mp range then your image quality isn't close to that of film...I guess that's where my main question comes from.
I don't think I'm confused - I certainly know that there are differences between film and digital and I've accepted those differences. I was mainly wondering why Nikon would make a full frame camera that wasn't 25 mp (assuming, at least in my mind, that it needed to be 25 mp to match film) - that's all.
|
As I said, its 15-25mp, depending on the quality of film. I never claimed 15mp would equal good velvia. That being said, its still not a huge amount of difference as long as your image itself is well exposed and is made using good quality lenses and with proper technique. It really does depend on how the image was taken.
NIkon makes a full-frame camera that is less than 25mp because its not necessary. 25mp in digital terms is so high that its almost counter-productive. The other reason is that until recently, 25mp on a digital camera was only really available on the Medium Format bodies. Canon has had it's 21mp sensor for only a little while, and the D3x was only released earlier this year.