Right, I was just using it as an example because I know I shot it with a
50/1.4. The proof would really be in the slide or print, but even then a
1-to-1 comparison of the same subject, same composition, same focal length,
same aperture would be needed for a definitive comparison.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about the quality of zooms. I just
think that maybe there is some difference that's discernible. Most zoom
reviews admit that while many of todays zooms are of a very high quality,
there are compromises.
Tom C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alin Flaider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "aimcompute" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 4:20 AM
Subject: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step)
> Tom wrote:
>
> > http://pug.komkon.org/00febr/WoodenBoats.htm was shot with a prime. It
has a
> > crispness and clarity (not blowing my own horn) even at this low
resolution
> > that I don't see in some of my zoom photos.
>
> Tom, I can understand your enthusiasm but really, you cannot tell
> from a 600x400 JPeg if a zoom or prime was employed. When properly
> printed, scanned and retouched, even crappy 28-80 zooms should
> deliver equal quality with any prime up to 3 MPixels. Of course
> overall contrast, light fall-off or flare might reveal a zoom
> shameful origin ;o) but this is rather the exception.
> More generally, beginners complaining of their zooms, should firstly
> doubt the minilab optics quality, their technique, only then the
> zoom they got in the pack. One might be surprised to find out what
> the feeble link...
>
> Servus, Alin
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
