On 08/06/2007 George Harrison wrote: > Thanks for the link below but I am damned if I can see any images at > all ! > > George Harrison > > > If you need convincing, download and print at 16x12" some of the > sample > full res images at http://www.steves-digicams.com/cameras_digpro.html
Select the camera (link) you are interested in., eg http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/5d.html Then select 'sample pictures' from the 'review index' drop-down menu on the LHS of the page that appears. eg http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/5d_samples.html Pick an image eg http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/eos5d/samples/IMG_0533.JPG (this is a good one as the exact same scene has been photographed for most or all reviews, so you can see how a 10D, 1DS, 1D-2N, 5D etc differ and compare) If possible, print them at a fairly large size, because it gives a much more realistic idea of how they compare with film images, either made in the darkroom or scanned. In most respects, IMO, 1DS, 1DS-2, 5D comes close to 645 and in some ways better, in others not. The whole MF vs 35mm digital debate is contentious and perhaps a bit spurious - if you're happy with even a Box Brownie that's good enough - but http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml is a good piece and his observations match my own. MF is going to recover it's tech advantage as MF backs improve. Image quality from the latest Hasselblad (can't recall the model, integrated back, huge cost) is just astonishing. Digital's Achilles heel is that fine detail below Nyquist gets brick-wall abstracted to aliased mush which contrasts badly with the overall tonal cleanness. Film degrades more gracefully and isn't clean to start with. I use 10D (retired except occasionally) and 1Dmk2-n and have used a 5D - which produces IMO among the best files in the business. I am picky and for me the 10D images start falling apart when printed >12x8" and the 1Dmk2-n manage as big as I ever print (A3). I have never liked bigger than 16x12 for 35mm film anyway because it's too much for the format, and in fact 14x9 is my preferred size. I also use Rollei 6000 MF and have used Hasselblads, so am familiar with MF quality. I loved TMX100 in Rodinal for MF B&W, extreme sharpness. Actually, I haven't touched the Rollei kit for a couple of years, it's redundant now and just not worth selling, but maybe there'll be a dig back I can afford someday. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
