I wont comment on the quality or lack thereof of a 6Mp APS sensor, but the fact that pros have switched to them says nothing of quality. Pros went from 4"x5" to 6cmx6cm to 35mm each time for lower quality and higher convenience. If 6Mp APS is much more convenient than 35mm film then quality doesn't have to be as good or better to justify switching, it just has to be good enough for their customers... JCO
-----Original Message----- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 10:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: *ist D image quality-_Was -Stupid Question #999 I already retracted my 1.5:1 comment, just a brain cramp. :-( HOWEVER... one thing still bugs me. It seems to me that the general consensus is that the D can for the most part match the quality of 35mm. Otherwise why would so many people abandon film for digital, even pros who have shot many thousands of film exposures? I wouldn't think convenience alone could account for this. This would indicate that an APS size sensor can capture as much, and as quality image data as a 24x36 film frame. Now, I've only taken several hundred shots so far with the D. Many of these however have been with my best lenses, at the lowest ISO setting, on a solid tripod, with mirror lockup, of carefully lighted subjects, as RAW. Out of those several hundred I have only 7 or 8 that I would say could rival my favorite Reala film. This is after long sessions in PS and trying for the best result possible. I am using 7x10.5 inch prints for comparison. (8.5x11) The most impressed I've been so far is this one: http://www.donsauction.com/PDML/Hinge.htm (Please note that this was a test, not an attempt at art!) ;-) Unfortunately the web doesn't do it justice. The print is sharper, the detail is higher and the shadows are clear and open. Am I simply not experienced enough yet in processing digital or am I REALLY expecting a 6MP digital to rival film when this is an unrealistic expectation? Or do I need to re-learn with digital the things I've learned with film? Sorry for the rant, 40 hours without sleep does that to me. :-( (Workday from hell!) Don (Off to bed now) > -----Original Message----- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 7:22 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Stupid Question #999, Macro lenses on ist-D > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Don Sanderson" > Subject: Stupid Question #999, Macro lenses on ist-D > > > > On the *ist D wouldn't a 50mm 1:1 Macro lens be roughly equivilent > > to a 75mm > > 1.5:1 on a 35mm? > > The reproduction ratio stays the same. > 1:1 is 1:1. > It's jut that with the istD, that 1 translates to a smaller amount in > the viewfinder. > > > Or, put another way: To achieve 1:1 couldn't you be 1.5x farther > > away? > > No, if you are farther away, you are no longer 1:1. > > This is why I rail at people who try to do conversions. > > William Robb > >
