And your contribution is? Antonio On 18 May 2004, at 18:10, Mark Roberts wrote:
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
