Hi Tom, I'm trying to gather as much as I can. I prefer real world proof to lab tests any day. But before investing a sizeable chuck of money into a new format I really need to justify if "comparing favourably" is worth not only the investment in a DSLR but also all the sundries like CF cards, a decent printer, lots of batteries, probally a notebook etc, etc. Seems theres a lot of hidden costs in switching formats that is not discussed. Take for eg the tender I'm trying to get now. I have to shoot about 2000 varsity students on graduation night. How many cards would I need to keep the flow of work up without undue interruption while my assistant copies it to harddrive. I can shoot the entire event with the equipment I have now just by having enough film and batteries on me. Wheres the favourable comparison in that real world scenario?
Feroze ----- Original Message ----- From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:38 AM Subject: RE: Digital Lenses > You really shuld gather a little more information before you make your > judgement. My experience has shown that a 6 meg sensor compares > favorably to 35mm film. > > As always, the proof is in the prints. > > tv > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Feroze Kistan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 4:59 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Digital Lenses > > > > > > So at the moment I can have only have one, guess I rather > > prefer the grain > > too, pity the *istD looked good, a bit too small for me > > though. I hope the > > next one up is more like the MZS. Thanks > > > > Feroze > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:41 PM > > Subject: Re: Digital Lenses > > > > > > > At 11:26 PM 3/1/2017 +0200, Feroze wrote: > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > > >From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:40 PM > > > >Subject: Re: Digital Lenses > > > > > > > >Hi Peter > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > however the answer is no. > > > > > > > >I don't, I think there is more to the quality of an > > image than mere > > > >resolution, I think tonality and true to life colour is much more > > important. > > > >I think that at the moment even though digital images > > seem to be brighter > > > >overall it still seems to lack a certain something....Is > > it only my taste > > or > > > >do others feel this way? > > > > > > > > > > > Many observers look at digital images and seem to prefer > > them because they > > > are smoother, giving a creamy look to out of focus images > > and large > > expanses > > > of uniform color without detail. Well like sky for > > instance. They are > > > also very > > > kind to skin tones in that they tend to remove blemishes. > > The built in > > > algorithms > > > used to remove artifacts in the captured image tend to > > also smooth out > > > small details. > > > > > > Film in contrast looks well grainy. I like grain but > > that's just me. I'd > > > prefer the > > > detail, I can always remove the grain if it's a problem > > but I can't put > > the > > > detail back > > > if I've never seen it. > > > > > > Color is another issue. Under most circumstances digital > > gives good color > > > often better > > > than you get with color negative film from a mini-lab. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. > > > Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx > > > > > > > > > > >
