Read my message shawn, I was not saying that resolution was the be an
and end all of image quality but rather that Norman on his site
(follow the link I posted) made the point that for digital to match
35mm image resolution you would be looking at a full frame sensors at 8
megapixels. Why do you take my message out of context?
On 18 May 2004, at 16:52, Shawn K. wrote:
Conversely, using your logic, if resolution was so important we would
all be
using large format! GET A GRIP MAN.
-Shawn
-----Original Message-----
From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 11:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
Using your same logic then if resolution wasn't important we would all
be using APS.
Antonio
On 18 May 2004, at 16:56, William Robb wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Antonio Aparicio" S
ubject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
I have found Norman Korens site most illuminating on this subject:
<snip>
I also found the analysis of why small sensor sizes will not be able
to
match 35mm quality.
We've had this discussion before. If resolution was all that
important, no
one would be using 35mm cameras.
What it is about is apparent quality. In this regard, even the present
level
of DSLR stands up very well.
William Robb
