Ryan wrote: > I suppose I should say that my real issue is with folks who are > continuing to take pot shots at digital cameras based on conjecture and > complete lack of personal experience.
Hmmm.....It is more like some claim digital is better than film without the evidence. >Or think they have discovered > some great original idea of a technical shortcoming that makes a DSLR > useless or inately flawed. I won't be happy with 45 l/mm resolution over the size of a 35mm frame. Even a 1Ds provides nothing but low resolution image. I know you can get a sharp image out of low resolution digital. It is very much like a road sign; clear and concise. It is like minidisc versus high-end analogue sound reproduction. > My only claim has been that I'm getting better results on my 1Ds than > with film in the 67, with the sole exception of APX25 in 1:100 Rod. Fine, so you are not then getting much value out of your 67 in terms of what it technicaly can do, due to the fact that the periferials aren't up to the task of transitting the 67's high resolution. I agree that a pragmatic approach might be OK, particularly for commercial purposes. The argument that digital A is equal to film B because resolution of C and D even out all differences is still meaningless. I have two large MF prints hanging on my wall. I have also two equally large prints made from 35mm. I find the quality to be good as far as print goes. Now this is a "real life" test of MF vs. 35mm as this is the quality of prints I get. I hereby declare once and for all that 35mm is equally good as MF because I can't see a bloody difference from my prints. P�l
