Antonio Aparicio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >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?
I believe he was just poking fun at the way you took William Robb's 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] >> >> 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 >>> >>>> 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 -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
