Unless films improve...
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 1/19/2004 at 11:14 PM Joe Gwinn wrote:
>At 3:43 AM +0100 1/20/04, Listar wrote:
>>Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:48:03 -0500
>>From: "Walt Wayman" <hiwayman@xxxxxxxxx>
>>Subject: [OM] Re: Reply Re: Free OM-to-E-System adapter?!
>>
>>
>>Brian,
>>
>>I don't disagree a bit with what you wrote. But the point of my
>>mini-diatribe, which I dashed off hurriedly during halftime of a
>>football game, was simply to counter the assertion that 35mm
>>lenses, in general, have greater resolution than MF or LF lenses.
>>Therefore, my aim was to make an apples-to-apples comparison,
>>giving no consideration to the obvious advantage of the larger
>>format and comparing like-size images.
>>
>>In the real world, using, for example, a 6x9cm format camera, a
>>lens with half the resolution of a 35mm lens would, in the end,
>>produce a superior, more detailed print than the higher resolution
>>35mm lens simply because of the greater film size. When the
>>lenses are at least equal, as you prove, MF wins hands-down. LF
>>is a whole 'nother ball game.
>
>Yes. They all have about the same resolution on the film, as film is
>film, and there is no point for a lens to have greater resolution than the
>film it will be used with.
>
>Joe Gwinn
>
>
>
>The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
>To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
>List Problem"
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|