Chuck you need to re-route that 5D, you don't really neeed it ;-)
I completely agree that some very nice pictures can be made with "low"
resolution capture.
I didn't see it this time when I quickly scanned through the old web page,
but I do remember there were originally some comments that the author was
surprised by how his lens (which was thought to be fairly good) was
significantly out-done by a new Schneider.
But ... these guys are taking landscapes with the intent of printing large.
It would appear that 4x5 Velvia has significantly more than enough
resolution. A good lens on a medium format 6x9 might accomplish what they
were happy with and getting ? The ease of manipulating (bleach etc) a larger
sheet of film may be the only reason for 4x5 lasting this long?
-jeff
----Original Message Follows----
From: Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx>
One of my watershed moments in being skeptical of digital was a
beautiful 8X10 portrait taken with a 1.3MP point and shoot. It was
then that I realized that all of the arguments using math, counting
pixels, and not looking were a crock.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On May 16, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I've got a 24x36 portrait shot with a 3MP D30. Looks, mighty, mighty
> good to me.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> Jeff Keller wrote:
>
>> Thanks for posting this. I read the outbackphoto.com (linked to in
>> this
>> page) web page a month or so ago. It seemed to claim the 39MP P45
>> back was
>> comparable to a 4x5 Velvia transparency. Dividing 39MP by (4 x 5)/
>> (1 x 1.5)
>> implies a 3MP digital is comparable to an OM shooting Velvia.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|