>-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Quack >You just don't notice the difference as much on film >since 1) you see sharp film grain, which is not necessarily >image detail and 2) digital works like a bandpass, where >with increasing chip resolution the point of failure >"pops out" on some lenses.
Another thing is that a print made from film has to be less enlarged then from the smaller digital sensors. Thus, camera shake is less a problem with film then with a small digital sensor. Therefore, when evaluating a lens for film based SLRs and digital SLRs the camera should be mounted on a tripod. >Which is also the reason that I see no point in going >over 11 or 14 megapixels in DSLRs, as Kodak and Canon >now have in their portfolios. I think I would be happy with something like a 1Ds. 12Mpixel, full-frame sensor, well-built body, etc. If just the price would be around $2k... And if they had better/cheaper digital projectors. Robert * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
