Ahhh. Now that is news, Mike. I didn't know the dcs-14n could make prints <grin>.
And yes, I would say prints from the dcs-14n are pretty comparable to those from 35mm. They have a slightly different look, but I don't think many folks could tell except side by side. Now, about that medium format comment <grin>. But, I guess that can be excused, after all POP PHOTO used to have a cover blub about once a year, "35mm now equal to 4x5". I would say you need 30mp to get to that 645 level, 60 for 67, and a 100 or so to touch 4x5. Being one of about five people in the world who still shoot 4x5 handheld I can sit back and watch for awhile yet <GRIN>. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 8:29 PM Subject: Kodak 14-mp prints > > I'm in much the same mind, I can see my self eventually owning a micro digital > > like the recently revealed Optio S for party snaps and the like, a DSLR in > > 35mm > > format (preferably Pentax) and my Mamiya 7 67 kit. It will be a long time > > before any digital camera delivers results like 67 format film. > > > I got to see some prints made by the Kodak 14-mp camera today. I was > favorably impressed--the 11x14 prints certainly compared favorably to 35mm > enlargements, and would possibly be a serviceable replacement for 645. The > colors were very pure, skies were clean, foliage detail was good, resolution > was good, and edges were especially crisp. It didn't quite look the _same_ > as film, but I can't see anyone who cares primarily about pictures and print > quality being disappointed at this print size. > > --Mike >
