Re: CMOS vs CCD digital

I shoot about 85% of my commercial client work in digital. Mostly on a
Fuji S2. I've shot with the 14n, the D100, Leaf backs on Mamiya medium
format, and scanning backs on 4x5. I still use my little Sony 707
consumer camera for most family snapshots.

I do most of my "artwork" using a large format camera and film (4x5 to
11x14).

Digital and film are different. Just like platinum is different from
silver. One isn't "better", they are just nice "options".

I have a "client education book" (I don't call it that in front of
them). It has the same shot in 35mm film, 6x7 film, digital, and 4x5
film all printed at a few different sizes (for the clients that don't
know what they want). All of my clients prefers the digital over the
35mm film. Period. I haven't shot 35mm film for a client in a few
years! More than 1/2 of my client's pick the digital over medium format.

I disagree. I still like the tonal variations and tonal micro zones
that I get in medium (and large) format film over digital capture. Most
of my clients like the edge contrast that digital has. Or, perhaps they
like not having to pay scanning bills! One isn't better than the other.
They are choices, enjoy them :-)

As to my vote on the CMOS versus CCD, at low (ISO 160 and below) I'll
take the CMOS, above (ISO 200 and above) I'll take the CCD. That will
change next week (the technology will change) and the difference is
small. I haven't been too impressed with the Foveon. Better "theory"
than execution? Perhaps the displacement of the RGB sensors in depth is
every bit as bad as the displacement in width on a conventional chip?

On Friday, February 13, 2004, at 01:58 PM, Richard Urmonas wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 07:19 am, vision4sounds@t-online.de wrote:
>
>> - images are clear, free of digital noise, free of
>> negative dust and damages and in terms of sharpness and
>> resolution more than compareable to high class medium
>> formate shots
>
> I find the 1Ds (well any digital camera) to be very much lacking in
> the fine
> detail that film provides. In my opinion the 1Ds is not even able to
> match
> well shot 35mm film. Of course these sorts of comparisons depend on
> what type of photography one is doing. However my impression is that
> digital still has some way to go to replace the fine detail of film.
>
> Richard
> ---
> Richard Urmonas
>
>
--------------
Tom Ferguson
http://www.ferguson-photo-design.com
Received on Fri Feb 13 18:34:19 2004