D30 vs 1D vs Film

The idea of getting a 1.6x magnification with a D30 has attacted my interest. I'm yearning for more reach to shoot sporting events. The D30's 1.6x magnification will give me an effective 640mm f5.6L lens. But how will the quality compare to simply cropping the 35mm frame either with traditional enlargement or digital film scanning. So I did a a bit of research and a bit of math. Here's what I came up with:

D30:
CMOS sensor is 3.11 megapixels.
CMOS sensor measures 15.1mm x 22.7mm (0.59in * 0.89in)
Resolution is 2419 dpi.

1D:
CCD sensor is 4.15 megapixels (4155840 to be exact)
CCD sensor measures 19.1mm x 28.7mm (0.75in x 1.13in)
Resolution is 2212 dpi.

Hypothesis:

A 2400 dpi film scanner will produce comparable results to the D30 and superior results to the 1D especially when used with very high quality film at lower ISOs.

A 2700 dpi or better scanner will be even better.

I was kind of surprised that the 1D is larger format but lower resolution than the D30 (2212 dpi vs. 2419 dpi). I guess they had to make some design compromises to get the magnification down to 1.3x. I suspect there is more circuitry in the CCD array to provide some of the other features that are in the 1D which took up some of the space. Or maybe its just bigger sensors.

PM66215 said:

A 2700 dpi or better scanner will be even better.

Click to expand...

sorry no - maybe a 4000dpi scanner may be better, but I don't think so

PM said:

D30:
CMOS sensor is 3.11 megapixels.
CMOS sensor measures 15.1mm x 22.7mm (0.59in * 0.89in)
Resolution is 2419 dpi.

Click to expand...

[snip]

PM66215 said:

Hypothesis:
A 2400 dpi film scanner will produce comparable results to the D30

Click to expand...

I reject your hypothesis. The D30 sensor is "seeing" the actual scene. The film scanner is "seeing" a copy of the scene on an analogue medium. A same resolution copy of a copy of the original is going to suffer compared to a straight copy of the original, particularly when digital capture (the D30 and film scanner) degrade the image in different ways to the degradation you get from film capture. As a result, the two-stage process (analogue capture plus digitising) will need to operate both stages at greater resolution than the one-stage process to get comparable results.

To put it another way, many of the dots in your scanned image will be used more to record information about film grain than the actual scene.

I agree with Chris in that you will be getting a 2nd generation image with a scanner - supposedly, the newer ICE technology can clean alot of secondary artifacts (dust, oil, hair, etc...) off the scan of a negative. But with a digital camera, you get first generation every time.

Another thing with digital is that you get it right away - not having to wait for processing or dealing with chemicals or being able to loose the image quality in the development of the chrome. Add to this the scan time of hundreds of pictures at 15 minutes per frame (if you want to scan at the resolution that you are talking about).

Thirdly, what is your output - you say "traditional enlargement" - which is ???. If you going to larger than 20x30, then the D30 will need alot of help, the 1D will handle it, and the film will definately go past that. For anything less, all will do it - film taking the longest time to get there - by far. But there is no doubt that film will be able to surpass digital with extremely large enlargements.

So it boils down to your purpose - can you wait a few days to get a negative to digital to print - or do you want to be able to print within minutes? Do you want to continue to incur film costs? If you go digital - will the 1.3x of the 1D work (maybe new glass)? But in shooting sports, will 3fps, 8 frame buffer, sub-par AF of the D30 work for you?

The 1D was designed for sports/pj - and to be able to shoot hundreds of pix at a time (at 8fps) - keeping only the ones you want with no increase in development costs, knowing you got the shot within seconds, and enlarging to greater than A4 size.

Of course, budget might play a part - and then it always comes down to:
Time or Money - which do you have more of?

Good luck...

I also reject the hypothesis. When using the scanner you are adding noise contribution sources:

• the analog film exposure process (grain)
• any dust/dirt the film/slide has picked up
• the noise inherent in the scanner used

and I can verify this from personal experience, I have a 2700 DPI Polaroid SprinScan Plus, and using it on Kodachrome slides gives a far noisier result than my D30. In addition, you add another exposure step (the bulb in the scanner) which causes (in my experience) more futzing with the exposure, which usually adds more noise.

With the D30 you only have one exposure step and one noise source.

Chris Brown said:

PM said:

D30:
CMOS sensor is 3.11 megapixels.
CMOS sensor measures 15.1mm x 22.7mm (0.59in * 0.89in)
Resolution is 2419 dpi.

Click to expand...

[snip]

Member said:

Hypothesis:
A 2400 dpi film scanner will produce comparable results to the D30

Click to expand...

I reject your hypothesis. The D30 sensor is "seeing" the actual
scene. The film scanner is "seeing" a copy of the scene on an
analogue medium. A same resolution copy of a copy of the original
is going to suffer compared to a straight copy of the original,
particularly when digital capture (the D30 and film scanner)
degrade the image in different ways to the degradation you get from
film capture. As a result, the two-stage process (analogue capture
plus digitising) will need to operate both stages at greater
resolution than the one-stage process to get comparable results.

To put it another way, many of the dots in your scanned image will
be used more to record information about film grain than the actual
scene.

Click to expand...

Let me get this straight, you're trying to compare 'resolution' of the imager on a camera to the resolution on a scanner and use that as a basis for comparison!? (What's he smoking?) First of all, the fact that the 1D has 'lower resolution' of the imager (That is, the imager has less cell sites per sq inch than the D30) does not mean it yields an inferior image to the D30. With imagers, you'll often get a cleaner image with a larger cell site due to less noise etc. People seem to be fixated on resolution and pixels which matter to a point but lets not get all fixated on them! It's the end result that matters.

Take a few pics with the D30, take a few with the 1D, take some with a film camera, then scan the images in. Now print them all on 4x6 and 8x10 and compare them if you want to do a fair comparison.

PM said:

The idea of getting a 1.6x magnification with a D30 has attacted my
interest. I'm yearning for more reach to shoot sporting events.
The D30's 1.6x magnification will give me an effective 640mm f5.6L
lens. But how will the quality compare to simply cropping the 35mm
frame either with traditional enlargement or digital film scanning.
So I did a a bit of research and a bit of math. Here's what I came
up with:

D30:
CMOS sensor is 3.11 megapixels.
CMOS sensor measures 15.1mm x 22.7mm (0.59in * 0.89in)
Resolution is 2419 dpi.

1D:
CCD sensor is 4.15 megapixels (4155840 to be exact)
CCD sensor measures 19.1mm x 28.7mm (0.75in x 1.13in)
Resolution is 2212 dpi.

Hypothesis:
A 2400 dpi film scanner will produce comparable results to the D30
and superior results to the 1D especially when used with very high
quality film at lower ISOs.

A 2700 dpi or better scanner will be even better.

I was kind of surprised that the 1D is larger format but lower
resolution than the D30 (2212 dpi vs. 2419 dpi). I guess they had
to make some design compromises to get the magnification down to
1.3x. I suspect there is more circuitry in the CCD array to provide
some of the other features that are in the 1D which took up some of
the space. Or maybe its just bigger sensors.

Click to expand...

do the tests.

I have tested 400dpi scanner and recently the nikon 8000 scanner ( amazing by the way) and copared to the nikon d-1.

I do not have a d-30 but I do know that the d-1 provides a better image than the d-30.

I just sold the nikon to get the canon 1D due to all my film cameras being eos 1V's.

there is no way even with low grain pro transparencie film can I get as good of a scan as the d-1 image.

although some negative films and b&w look pretty darn amazing on the Nikon 8000 and I would guess seeing some d-30 files that they may not look as good as a scan from the 8000. I think you could not make as large of a print with the d-30 file even after using GF.

PM said:

The idea of getting a 1.6x magnification with a D30 has attacted my
interest. I'm yearning for more reach to shoot sporting events.
The D30's 1.6x magnification will give me an effective 640mm f5.6L
lens. But how will the quality compare to simply cropping the 35mm
frame either with traditional enlargement or digital film scanning.
So I did a a bit of research and a bit of math. Here's what I came
up with:

D30:
CMOS sensor is 3.11 megapixels.
CMOS sensor measures 15.1mm x 22.7mm (0.59in * 0.89in)
Resolution is 2419 dpi.

1D:
CCD sensor is 4.15 megapixels (4155840 to be exact)
CCD sensor measures 19.1mm x 28.7mm (0.75in x 1.13in)
Resolution is 2212 dpi.

Hypothesis:
A 2400 dpi film scanner will produce comparable results to the D30
and superior results to the 1D especially when used with very high
quality film at lower ISOs.

A 2700 dpi or better scanner will be even better.

I was kind of surprised that the 1D is larger format but lower
resolution than the D30 (2212 dpi vs. 2419 dpi). I guess they had
to make some design compromises to get the magnification down to
1.3x. I suspect there is more circuitry in the CCD array to provide
some of the other features that are in the 1D which took up some of
the space. Or maybe its just bigger sensors.

Click to expand...

I think many people are missing what he was doing. He was effectively saying in his post that with his 400mm lens, if he takes a picture with each of his cameras at a fixed target a good ways away that he can't fill frame with, he will have more pixels to work with with film than the d30 and more with the d30 than with the 1d. This is a valid point as are all the other responses which describe the relative quality of pixels and work flow issues.

jim

PM said:

The idea of getting a 1.6x magnification with a D30 has attacted my
interest. I'm yearning for more reach to shoot sporting events.
The D30's 1.6x magnification will give me an effective 640mm f5.6L
lens. But how will the quality compare to simply cropping the 35mm
frame either with traditional enlargement or digital film scanning.
So I did a a bit of research and a bit of math. Here's what I came
up with:

D30:
CMOS sensor is 3.11 megapixels.
CMOS sensor measures 15.1mm x 22.7mm (0.59in * 0.89in)
Resolution is 2419 dpi.

1D:
CCD sensor is 4.15 megapixels (4155840 to be exact)
CCD sensor measures 19.1mm x 28.7mm (0.75in x 1.13in)
Resolution is 2212 dpi.

Hypothesis:
A 2400 dpi film scanner will produce comparable results to the D30
and superior results to the 1D especially when used with very high
quality film at lower ISOs.

A 2700 dpi or better scanner will be even better.

I was kind of surprised that the 1D is larger format but lower
resolution than the D30 (2212 dpi vs. 2419 dpi). I guess they had
to make some design compromises to get the magnification down to
1.3x. I suspect there is more circuitry in the CCD array to provide
some of the other features that are in the 1D which took up some of
the space. Or maybe its just bigger sensors.

Click to expand...

For what it is worth, my experience is that the D-30 produces better all around results over Scanned low ASA 35mm slide film with a 2700dpi scanner. I have not shot the 1D, But I am guessing the exposure and focusing system will result in better exposed sharper images than the D-30 resulting in better images.

In the case of film I think the issue is in (as others have stated) the build up of aberrations, deficiencies and distortions over multiple generations (lens, Film, scanner, image data format, printer, etc). From what I have seen scanned images seem to break up after about 8 x 10 prints (or something beyond display size). I think that the D-30 tends to hold together over 11 x 14.

Now if you want to compare D-30 on my Epson to a Cibachrome, It is another story. As you get into the 16 x 20 size you tend to get a question of what image quality issues can you tolerate. I have printed D-30 image at 13 x 19 on my Epson 1270 and put them under glass and felt like I had acceptable images (maybe not gallery images). There are defiantly issues with the initial resolution that you can see if you look close, but most people would not notice. On the other hand a 35 mm 16 x 20 Cibachrome shows its limitations too. Although, I have seen 20 x 24 35mm Cibachromes professionally shot and printed that look great, and I know I could not do that with my digital setup.

To sum this up from a practical standpoint – I bought an EOS 3 and a Minolta slide scanner 2 months before I bought my D30. I felt that I needed to have the film side covered too. I have shot a total of 3 rolls of film through the EOS 3 and I have shot nearly 4500 frames on my D-30 in the same time period.

Anyway, I guess that is my 2 cents. Anyone what to buy a near new EOS 3?

Mark

This is great feedback. Jim understands what I want to do. I have an EOS with a 400mm 5.6L. I need a bit more reach to get what I want. I can do any of the following:

1) Get a 1.4x converter.
2) Optically enlarge/crop the negative.
3) Digitally enlarge/crop the negative.
4) Get a D30 or a 1D (latter unlikely due to $$$)

I've been planning to do (1). But when I started reading about the D30, it caught my interest. Which is what led to my calculations and hypothesis.

My hypothesis is strenghthem from what someone told me, but I haven't been able to verity. Does the D30 and 1D image 1 color or 3 colors per pixel? In other words, the 2419 dpi in the D30, is it 2419 times 3, or is it 2419 divided by 3? If 2419 dividied by 3, then a film scanner would seem to produce much better results in spite of the extra opportunites for noise and distortion (very good points).

As to usage, I want to produce mostly 8x10 prints, with occasional 11x14 or 16x20 prints (with expected degradation, but the viewing distance will be further back).

I also want to control cost. Film cost 20 cents per frame (film + processing, no proofs or prints). I can do low quality scanning to help determine the ones I like (e.g., proofs) then high resolution digitizing of the ones I want to print. I can shoot a lot of frames for the difference in price of a scanner and a D30.

Jim Leonard said:

jim

PM said:

The idea of getting a 1.6x magnification with a D30 has attacted my
interest. I'm yearning for more reach to shoot sporting events.
The D30's 1.6x magnification will give me an effective 640mm f5.6L
lens. But how will the quality compare to simply cropping the 35mm
frame either with traditional enlargement or digital film scanning.
So I did a a bit of research and a bit of math. Here's what I came
up with:

D30:
CMOS sensor is 3.11 megapixels.
CMOS sensor measures 15.1mm x 22.7mm (0.59in * 0.89in)
Resolution is 2419 dpi.

1D:
CCD sensor is 4.15 megapixels (4155840 to be exact)
CCD sensor measures 19.1mm x 28.7mm (0.75in x 1.13in)
Resolution is 2212 dpi.

Hypothesis:
A 2400 dpi film scanner will produce comparable results to the D30
and superior results to the 1D especially when used with very high
quality film at lower ISOs.

A 2700 dpi or better scanner will be even better.

I was kind of surprised that the 1D is larger format but lower
resolution than the D30 (2212 dpi vs. 2419 dpi). I guess they had
to make some design compromises to get the magnification down to
1.3x. I suspect there is more circuitry in the CCD array to provide
some of the other features that are in the 1D which took up some of
the space. Or maybe its just bigger sensors.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I don't think I agree with the argument.

First, you have theoretical limitations. Even if you scan the negative or the slide with a 8,000 dpi scanner it does not mean that the image will be significantly better than if you would have used a 4,000 dpi scanner (assuming everything else is unchanged). Two of the most obvious limiting factors are the resolution of the lens and the film grain. You are interested in the performance of the overall system, which in the case of a digital camera includes the lens, the imager and the camera firmware (processing algorithms). In the case of a film-based system you have the lens, the film, scanner optics, scanner imager, scanner firmware (and possibly associated scratch-reduction software). As far as spatial resolution goes, you have to compare both systems.

I am not sure if dpi applied to a digital camera sensor is a useful measure of quality. I am more interested in the total number of pixels, not just the pixel density. You would get astonishing pixel density from a 3MP 1/1.8" sensor, but it does not mean that the resolution is any better.

You should consider noise and dynamic range, too. As far as I know (and from my modest personal experience), a D30-class camera would outperform 35mm film in this respect.

Also, you have practical limitations. One of them is film processing quality and dust. Until 3 years ago I used to shoot film (e.g. Fuji Reala), send it for processing to a high quality shop (without printing pictures in order not to scratch the film), and then to scan it using a Nicon LS-1000 scanner in a clean room (dust-free) environment. All I can say is the results I get now using a D30 are far superior.

So far I don't know anything about the 1D (except for Phil's pre-review and a couple of jpegs on the web) but I suspect the "digital subsystem" of this camera will provide an appreciably better image quality than D30 (not speaking about the improvements in the camera body)

Just my $0.02...

pavel

PM said:

The idea of getting a 1.6x magnification with a D30 has attacted my
interest. I'm yearning for more reach to shoot sporting events.
The D30's 1.6x magnification will give me an effective 640mm f5.6L
lens. But how will the quality compare to simply cropping the 35mm
frame either with traditional enlargement or digital film scanning.
So I did a a bit of research and a bit of math. Here's what I came
up with:

D30:
CMOS sensor is 3.11 megapixels.
CMOS sensor measures 15.1mm x 22.7mm (0.59in * 0.89in)
Resolution is 2419 dpi.

1D:
CCD sensor is 4.15 megapixels (4155840 to be exact)
CCD sensor measures 19.1mm x 28.7mm (0.75in x 1.13in)
Resolution is 2212 dpi.

Hypothesis:
A 2400 dpi film scanner will produce comparable results to the D30
and superior results to the 1D especially when used with very high
quality film at lower ISOs.

A 2700 dpi or better scanner will be even better.

I was kind of surprised that the 1D is larger format but lower
resolution than the D30 (2212 dpi vs. 2419 dpi). I guess they had
to make some design compromises to get the magnification down to
1.3x. I suspect there is more circuitry in the CCD array to provide
some of the other features that are in the 1D which took up some of
the space. Or maybe its just bigger sensors.

Click to expand...

PM said:

This is great feedback. Jim understands what I want to do.

Click to expand...

woo hoo, where do I collect my prize

PM66215 said:

I have
an EOS with a 400mm 5.6L. I need a bit more reach to get what I
want. I can do any of the following:

1) Get a 1.4x converter.
2) Optically enlarge/crop the negative.
3) Digitally enlarge/crop the negative.
4) Get a D30 or a 1D (latter unlikely due to $$$)

I've been planning to do (1).

Click to expand...

I presume then that you have an EOS 3 (or similar that will autofocus at f/8)

PM66215 said:

But when I started reading about
the D30, it caught my interest. Which is what led to my
calculations and hypothesis.

My hypothesis is strenghthem from what someone told me, but I
haven't been able to verity. Does the D30 and 1D image 1 color or
3 colors per pixel?

Click to expand...

the D30 only has 1 color per pixel and is then demosaiced afterwords.

PM66215 said:

In other words, the 2419 dpi in the D30, is it
2419 times 3, or is it 2419 divided by 3? If 2419 dividied by 3

Click to expand...

It would be neither. In the strictest of senses it would be 2419 / sqrt(2) for the green and 2419 / sqrt(4) for the red and blue (we're working in two dimensions) but except in pathological cases things work better than that since there is typically order to the world we're shooting at, not just a bunch of random dots.

PM66215 said:

,
then a film scanner would seem to produce much better results in
spite of the extra opportunites for noise and distortion (very good
points).

Click to expand...

The problem is that you're going to have to spend quite a bit of money on a film scanner to produce results that do outweigh what you're going to get out of a d30 and the scanning will take considerable mucking about to get something that looks good.

PM66215 said:

As to usage, I want to produce mostly 8x10 prints, with occasional
11x14 or 16x20 prints (with expected degradation, but the viewing
distance will be further back).

Click to expand...

I hope you're not cropping much out of the image, film or digital.

PM66215 said:

I also want to control cost. Film cost 20 cents per frame (film
+ processing, no proofs or prints). I can do low quality scanning
to help determine the ones I like (e.g., proofs) then high
resolution digitizing of the ones I want to print. I can shoot
a lot of frames for the difference in price of a scanner and a D30.

Click to expand...

How much is you time worth? Expect to spend about twenty minutes to a half hour just to get the scan into the computer and remove dust from the image (once you've figured out which ones to spend time on). At this point you're where you start from with a digital camera. Furthermore the scanner that will do what you want will not be cheap.

In summation, from what I've seen and read, I do believe that if you have the equipment and an excellent image, you can do somewhat better with film at a huge expense in time (about half hour per image).

jim

PM66215 said:

Jim Leonard said:

jim

PM said:

The idea of getting a 1.6x magnification with a D30 has attacted my
interest. I'm yearning for more reach to shoot sporting events.
The D30's 1.6x magnification will give me an effective 640mm f5.6L
lens. But how will the quality compare to simply cropping the 35mm
frame either with traditional enlargement or digital film scanning.
So I did a a bit of research and a bit of math. Here's what I came
up with:

D30:
CMOS sensor is 3.11 megapixels.
CMOS sensor measures 15.1mm x 22.7mm (0.59in * 0.89in)
Resolution is 2419 dpi.

1D:
CCD sensor is 4.15 megapixels (4155840 to be exact)
CCD sensor measures 19.1mm x 28.7mm (0.75in x 1.13in)
Resolution is 2212 dpi.

Hypothesis:
A 2400 dpi film scanner will produce comparable results to the D30
and superior results to the 1D especially when used with very high
quality film at lower ISOs.

A 2700 dpi or better scanner will be even better.

I was kind of surprised that the 1D is larger format but lower
resolution than the D30 (2212 dpi vs. 2419 dpi). I guess they had
to make some design compromises to get the magnification down to
1.3x. I suspect there is more circuitry in the CCD array to provide
some of the other features that are in the 1D which took up some of
the space. Or maybe its just bigger sensors.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

PM said:

My hypothesis is strenghthem from what someone told me, but I
haven't been able to verity. Does the D30 and 1D image 1 color or
3 colors per pixel? In other words, the 2419 dpi in the D30, is it
2419 times 3, or is it 2419 divided by 3?

Click to expand...

The sensors in digital cameras are monochromatic sensors. They have filters infront of them to given them different frequency responses. From this a full colour image is built up through interpolation of the colour information. Typically half the sensors have their peak response in the green part of the spectrum, with every other sensor being either red or blue.

A common misconception then develops that this means that the resolution is somehow only a third of the number of sensors. This is not true and arises due to a lack of understanding of sampoling and human colour vision. WHat you actually end up with is an image where the chrominance resolution is lower than the luminance resolution. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with this - television pictures make similar tradeoffs as does colour film. The reason this is not generally a problem is that the human eye itself is much more sensitive to luminosity detail than colour detail.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say. I have plenty of D30 shots with genuine detail that is only 1 pixel thick.

PM66215 said:

If 2419 dividied by 3,
then a film scanner would seem to produce much better results in
spite of the extra opportunites for noise and distortion (very good
points).

Click to expand...

'fraid not. Just as digital photos are made up of many samples, each of only a narrow part of the colour spectrum, so film is made up of many grains, each of which responds to only a narrow part of the colour spectrum. Film is essentially fooling the eye into thinking it's seeing a full colour image, rather like TV and halftone colour prints manage. It's a qualatatively similar issue. We see this compromise all over the place, and it works because your eye can't tell the difference.

Chris Brown said:

PM said:

My hypothesis is strenghthem from what someone told me, but I
haven't been able to verity. Does the D30 and 1D image 1 color or
3 colors per pixel? In other words, the 2419 dpi in the D30, is it
2419 times 3, or is it 2419 divided by 3?

Click to expand...

The sensors in digital cameras are monochromatic sensors. They have
filters infront of them to given them different frequency
responses. From this a full colour image is built up through
interpolation of the colour information. Typically half the sensors
have their peak response in the green part of the spectrum, with
every other sensor being either red or blue.

A common misconception then develops that this means that the
resolution is somehow only a third of the number of sensors. This
is not true and arises due to a lack of understanding of sampoling
and human colour vision. WHat you actually end up with is an image
where the chrominance resolution is lower than the luminance
resolution. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with this -
television pictures make similar tradeoffs as does colour film. The
reason this is not generally a problem is that the human eye itself
is much more sensitive to luminosity detail than colour detail.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say. I have
plenty of D30 shots with genuine detail that is only 1 pixel thick.

Click to expand...

That is not a proof the camera has that resolution. This just goes to show you that the interpolation algorithm worked well in that case. Shoot a blue/black resolution chart and you will likely see a different result. There is not much luminosity info for a blue light under a green or red filter... But I do agree that most cameras favor the luminosity over the chrominance when it comes interpolating and create credible results on most real world images.

Another factor this argument ignores is the fact that the pixel size of the D1 is larger than the D30. Canon represents that among other factors, this contributes to superior images from the D1 versus the D30.

PM said:

The idea of getting a 1.6x magnification with a D30 has attacted my
interest. I'm yearning for more reach to shoot sporting events.
The D30's 1.6x magnification will give me an effective 640mm f5.6L
lens. But how will the quality compare to simply cropping the 35mm
frame either with traditional enlargement or digital film scanning.
So I did a a bit of research and a bit of math. Here's what I came
up with:

D30:
CMOS sensor is 3.11 megapixels.
CMOS sensor measures 15.1mm x 22.7mm (0.59in * 0.89in)
Resolution is 2419 dpi.

1D:
CCD sensor is 4.15 megapixels (4155840 to be exact)
CCD sensor measures 19.1mm x 28.7mm (0.75in x 1.13in)
Resolution is 2212 dpi.

Hypothesis:
A 2400 dpi film scanner will produce comparable results to the D30
and superior results to the 1D especially when used with very high
quality film at lower ISOs.

A 2700 dpi or better scanner will be even better.

I was kind of surprised that the 1D is larger format but lower
resolution than the D30 (2212 dpi vs. 2419 dpi). I guess they had
to make some design compromises to get the magnification down to
1.3x. I suspect there is more circuitry in the CCD array to provide
some of the other features that are in the 1D which took up some of
the space. Or maybe its just bigger sensors.

Click to expand...

Ok, lets try to simplify this. The following is IMHO only.

I have a D30 and a Polaroid SS4000. Given print sizes up to 11x14 I would say the images from the D30 are superior. even to a 4000dpi scan, at 13x19 the D30 starts to fall apart but is still usable. If you cropped a 35mm to get the same 1.6 magnification of the D30, the printed image would not even be a fair comparison. You could try a 1.4x converter on the film camera, but you loose some quality in the image plus an entire f/stop. You do not state what your lens is. If it is a 400 F5.6 then you would get a 560 F8 lens with film. Pretty slow and probably not enough reach. The 1D on the other hand would only supply you with a 1.26 mag (504mm). My guess is if you cropped it to the same size as the D30 image, I believe the image would be comparable. On the other hand you could put on a 1.4x converter and get a (1.25x1.4x400) 700mmF8 lens that can have a fairly high ISO setting with very little grain. Your choice.

PM said:

I was kind of surprised that the 1D is larger format but lower
resolution than the D30 (2212 dpi vs. 2419 dpi). I guess they had
to make some design compromises to get the magnification down to
1.3x. I suspect there is more circuitry in the CCD array to provide
some of the other features that are in the 1D which took up some of
the space. Or maybe its just bigger sensors.

Click to expand...

I understand that the 1D doesn't have pixels as small as you would like, but that doesn't mean that there were any "design compromises." For most users, the larger pixels will be a feature because they provide less noise at higher ISO sensitivity settings. Many will also appreciate being able to use their wide angle lenses (almost) as intended.

It seems like the D30 would be most satisfactory for you. Whatever you select, I hope it works it out.

Good shooting!
Steve Farmer

PM said:

The idea of getting a 1.6x magnification with a D30 has attacted my
interest. I'm yearning for more reach to shoot sporting events.
The D30's 1.6x magnification will give me an effective 640mm f5.6L
lens. But how will the quality compare to simply cropping the 35mm
frame either with traditional enlargement or digital film scanning.
So I did a a bit of research and a bit of math. Here's what I came
up with:

D30:
CMOS sensor is 3.11 megapixels.
CMOS sensor measures 15.1mm x 22.7mm (0.59in * 0.89in)
Resolution is 2419 dpi.

1D:
CCD sensor is 4.15 megapixels (4155840 to be exact)
CCD sensor measures 19.1mm x 28.7mm (0.75in x 1.13in)
Resolution is 2212 dpi.

Hypothesis:
A 2400 dpi film scanner will produce comparable results to the D30
and superior results to the 1D especially when used with very high
quality film at lower ISOs.

A 2700 dpi or better scanner will be even better.

I was kind of surprised that the 1D is larger format but lower
resolution than the D30 (2212 dpi vs. 2419 dpi). I guess they had
to make some design compromises to get the magnification down to
1.3x. I suspect there is more circuitry in the CCD array to provide
some of the other features that are in the 1D which took up some of
the space. Or maybe its just bigger sensors.

Click to expand...

D30

kuko kukucka said:

Click to expand...