> I'm not saying that print film is better than digital. I'm only talking > about pure resolution, not colour accuracy, grain, noise or convenience. > From what I can tell, print film still out-rezs the 10D's 6.3MP sensor > by a considerable amount. I think my preliminary findings also show that > the L series zooms outperform the resolving capacity of the 10D's > sensor.
It's not at all surprising really. The 10D's sensor simply does not have enough pixels to resolve certain kinds of "detail". Detail captured on film (which far exceeds that transcribed to a digital file during a scan) has a pseudo-continuous property about it. I've found the same with small letters on a slide, easily readable with a loupe, that occupy less than a couple of pixels high in a 2700 dpi scan. That might not be true resolution but a result of your brain's ability to read the fuzzy information to decipher what should be there. If that makes any sense. Oh, as to digital cameras requiring sharper lenses - what a load of tosh. What they need are tripods ;o) * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
