Nikon F3 compared to D700 (Huge Enlargements)

[SolaresLarrave]

Dumb test, dumb show.

 

[martin s]

Yes!

Who does this sort of crap serve? Certainly not the public who would like to make a informed decision. I wonder who pays those two idiots?

You fight a fight which has been lost years ago. The public doesn't care about quality, even if film would be better (I don't know if it is, just saying).

martin

 

[amateriat]

This hardly keeps me awake nights, since (1) I don't normally find my images gracing the side of buildings, (2) if I did, they's look just fine, and (3) I don't have $3k+ to spend on a FF digital body, assuming I wanted one.

I distinctly remember, not long after buying my first Hexar RF body, reading the "glowing" reviews of Canon's D30, with exhortations to the effect of "toss out your film-burners, folks, resistance is futile."

The following month, I went out and bought another Hexar RF body. Can't say I've been crying over that decision ever since. 😉


- Barrett

 

[literiter]

You fight a fight which has been lost years ago. The public doesn't care about quality, even if film would be better (I don't know if it is, just saying).

martin

I know where you are coming from and it seems in some ways that the public doesn't care, but you and I are the "public" and we do care.

I'm not advocating or denying film or digital. Both fulfill requirements of professionals and amateurs depending on taste, financial considerations and abilities. We could argue the universal viability of either system till we are both too old to remember what we are talking about.

The thing that angers me about the video is the fact that it is overblown, unexplained, undocumented and inaccurate. Many people watch this rubbish and believe it...absolutely.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

That is the most ridiculous test I've ever seen.

Agreed :bang::bang::bang:

 

[Sofa King]

I have the D700 and it's amazing.

(And it cost $2500 as opposed to $3k+ that someone was claiming earlier in this thread)

 

[5:00 PM]

It's a Nikon commercial. How do you think they got the enormous budget it takes to make prints that large? I thought it was fun to watch but the outcome was a) totally predictable and b) utter rubbish.

That said, it's pretty amazing that a 35mm sensor (film or CMOS) can generate something usable at that size.

 

[Quinn Porter]

Not sure why everyone is so upset by this. This was not a scientific test. It was done for a gadget review show with "mass" appeal. Regardless of how it was done, the end result should not be controversial.

The current "full frame" digital cameras are very good. If you want to make really big prints, you are better off using "full frame digital" at ISO 400 rather than ISO 400 color negative film. Of course the last statement is only true if you are judging the results by traditional standards for resolution, grain/noise, color accuracy, etc. On the other hand, if you like the "character" of film (which is perfectly acceptable), knock yourself out.

 

[daveywaugh]

My old Bronica 645 bought for $150 with Ektar 100 would have blown the digi away - even with a 'home' scan. But hey, the D700 is a wonderful camera - no denying that! I agree about the bias - not knowing the film or scanning method makes it a bit of a joke. But quite fun and harmless I guess.

 

[user237428934]

The reaction to that test (or however you might call) it is quite obvious here in this forum.
The impression of digital is better so the test must be wrong. If they tested film to be better no one here would complain about the scanner, the film etc.

 

[dfoo]

Nonsense. The test was stupid, whatever the result.