| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/21/2006 02:28:02 AM · #1 |
|
|
|
01/21/2006 03:26:11 AM · #2 |
From another thread:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
And please don't post any of those skewed luminous lanscape links. I hate those. |
Hmmm, I'm a little confused. Were you simply saying that some articles over there are skewed?
|
|
|
|
01/21/2006 03:36:09 AM · #3 |
| simply crazy the detail in both... looks like the digital is rivaling large format here. |
|
|
|
01/21/2006 04:59:29 AM · #4 |
I prefer the 4x5 results over the digital back. There is considerably more detail in the film results. But I'd have to look at the print itself to determine if this matters. Probably not.
|
|
|
|
01/21/2006 08:48:49 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
From another thread:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
And please don't post any of those skewed luminous lanscape links. I hate those. |
Hmmm, I'm a little confused. Were you simply saying that some articles over there are skewed? |
 |
|
|
|
01/21/2006 09:02:33 AM · #6 |
How can one make meaningful comparisons in resolution of different systems without lenses of equal resolving power (assuming that lenses of different systems can also be compared) and without sensors/film of equal size and ISO?
The point of Cramer's article is not so much a critical comparison of resolution between MF film and digital cams but to show that they are now close enough in image quality, and that digital has the edge because of its quicker and cheaper processing. (An old story that every digital photographer knows.) While he is touting the virtures of digital MF, he doesn't give it's drawbacks...huge file sizes and storage requirements that require enormous computer processing power, and the outlay of your entire bank account. |
|
|
|
01/21/2006 09:15:11 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
How can one make meaningful comparisons in resolution of different systems without lenses of equal resolving power (assuming that lenses of different systems can also be compared) and without sensors/film of equal size and ISO?
The point of Cramer's article is not so much a critical comparison of resolution between MF film and digital cams but to show that they are now close enough in image quality, and that digital has the edge because of its quicker and cheaper processing. (An old story that every digital photographer knows.) While he is touting the virtures of digital MF, he doesn't give it's drawbacks...huge file sizes and storage requirements that require enormous computer processing power, and the outlay of your entire bank account. |
FWIW, 4x5 is not medium format
|
|
|
|
01/21/2006 04:15:59 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
From another thread:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
And please don't post any of those skewed luminous lanscape links. I hate those. |
Hmmm, I'm a little confused. Were you simply saying that some articles over there are skewed? |
Only the ones that he does himself. ;o)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/27/2025 09:33:01 AM EST.
