well, for 1, what you get on a tripod with high shutter speeds, shooting Velvia and a flat field isn't what you are going to get under most realistic conditions with the same lens. as mentioned earlier on the 31mm limited thread, the absolute maximum theoretical from the *istD is 64lp/mm, but that would be never achievable in practice. unlike film, you can calculate the maximum possible with a digital sensor just knowing the physical specs of the sensor. eyeballing my shots with the *istD and my FA 50mm f2.8 macro where there is very fine detail such as eyelashes, i would say that is achieves moderately close to the theoretical maximum, somewhere between 40-50 lp/mm. the finest detail of 1 pixel wide isn't quite there, but 2 pixels is definitely there.
as for digital cameras, the *istD is my 5th one. i started with a Casio QV-5000SX of 1.3 megapixels, Nikon Coolpix 950 at 2 megapixels, Nikon Coolpix 995 of 3.3 megapixels, and Nikon Coolpix 5000 of 5 megapixels. i still have the 5000. i've owned 5 scanners, a B&W hand scanner, and two each of flatbed and 35mm film. the hand scanner is 10+ years old and sits in a box. the old film scanner is on extended loan to a friend that is interested only in scanning negative film. it's a Microtek that does 1950 dpi in 24-bit color. i currently use a Canon1220U flatbed that does 36-bit color at 1200dpi. most of my scanning takes place on my Nikon 4000ED, but that is slowing down tremendously as i stop shooting slide film. Herb.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Rapp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 7:52 PM Subject: *istD - Hmmmmm > 1. So, in terms of "where is digital now in terms of matching 35mm film > performance?" Has anyone taken, say a 50mm f2.8 macro, and tested the > resolution on the sensor shooting USAF targets? With high quality film, that > lens will resolve greater than 100lpm. That test should be based on same > reproduction ratio as for 35mm such the resulting digital image would be the > same as the 35mm test image. I think the results of such a test would be > quite sobering. > 2. What generation are you in in your move to digital and what are the > costs involved to get to where you are. I know, for some, it is a "boys and > their toys" like me with my large number of mechanical bodies and prime > lenses.
