I was reading a post a friend sent me:
If the D30 is being toted as better than film. So where does the D100 in regards to this report ? I am rather intereted in upgrading to a D100, but I find the report to be a bit ackward !
Aaron J. Heiner
Team Coast Guard Photographer
US Department of Homeland Security
#1. "RE: D100 vs Canon D30 ???" | In response to Reply # 0jnscbl Basic MemberThu 11-Apr-02 07:49 PM
Well, the D30 has been around awhile. The D100 isn't even out yet.
I'm still waiting to see the results of a test comparing a direct slide-to-paper print and a slide-to-scanner-to-paper print. I'm guessing that there is a difference. I have brought this up before and didn't generate any interest. I know there are Nikonians who would/could/should do it. The D30/Provia test is really just a comparison of two different digital imaging systems.
"I am always doing that which I cannot do, in order that I may learn how to do it."
#3. "RE: D100 vs Canon D30 ???" | In response to Reply # 1BJNicholls Charter MemberFri 12-Apr-02 03:55 PM
Perhaps if I were a brilliant darkroom wizard with all the gear, I could do a fantastic reversal print and compare that with a high end digital camera shot of the same subject rendered as a Lightjet print. That's not very realistic.
The reality is, I can do high res scans of my slides and make prints that exceed the quality of any type R prints that I have had made conventionally by pro labs. A direct print would probably exceed my inkjet and Lightjet prints for detail in a smaller enlargement. But detail isn't the sole measure of quality. With my scans, I can control contrast, crop, dodge & burn, and end up with a superior result than I can reasonably pay to have done. And unless you're a master darkroom printmaker, the digital darkroom is realistic way to get better prints from your images than you'll get otherwise. That is unless you can afford to spend a boatload for a very custom lab print from that hypothetical master printer.
After a lot of direct comparison and rumination I've decided the only reasonable way to measure digital vs. film results is practically. What can you produce using X tool vs. Y tool in specific cases. I think digital cameras have the potential to exceed the image quality of film. If the D100 was a full frame camera, I'd be very willing to spend $2000 on one - the resolution should be high enough to approach that of the large prints I'm making from scans, the image quality is the aspect that is still unknown.
#2. "RE: D100 vs Canon D30 ???" | In response to Reply # 0
As that report mentions, the output from a digital SLR is very different to a film scan. There's very little noise and no grain: everything is very smooth and every pixel counts so a straight comparison of the resolutions isn't as meaningful as you might expect. Just how much resolution is needed to equal film is a debate that just goes on and on: here's one point of view from the same site.
From my own experiences with the D1, and having looked at some 4000dpi scans and a print made by BJ Nicholls, I'd personally say that the output from a ~3MPixel camera like the D1 or D30 doesn't come close to film in resolution terms but, thanks to the quality of the image, can still be used to produce prints up to A4 size that can withstand close inspection. I'd agree with the report on the subject of colour accuracy, though: it's the single most noticable difference I've found between digital and film, with the digital camera / photo printer combination giving far more accurate and pleasing colours.
As to the D100, the only real way you can make a decision as to whether it offers the quality and resolution you require is to wait until sample shots from the camera become available and try printing (or whatever) them for yourself.