noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
The author of this article http://istillshootfilm.org/post/114...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer says "A digital camera would have to be 156mp to give you the same kind of detail as 35mm film."
This may be true strictly in terms of counting line pairs per millimeter. That having been said, my experience in printing 35mm film vs. 24mp 24x36mm digital files is very different from what the article claims.
In terms of print quality at a specific size, the prints from my digital camera (a Leica M-P 240) compared to images made with my M lenses and film have significantly higher printed image quality. The M-P 240 produces printed IQ that equals or exceeds that of 120/220 film, which I have shot a fair amount of in my day.
Are other photographers also finding this to be true?
This may be true strictly in terms of counting line pairs per millimeter. That having been said, my experience in printing 35mm film vs. 24mp 24x36mm digital files is very different from what the article claims.
In terms of print quality at a specific size, the prints from my digital camera (a Leica M-P 240) compared to images made with my M lenses and film have significantly higher printed image quality. The M-P 240 produces printed IQ that equals or exceeds that of 120/220 film, which I have shot a fair amount of in my day.
Are other photographers also finding this to be true?