I have never seen anyone claim that 6MP ( non-foveon ) DSLRS are capable of "considerably sharper" or even as sharp images than 35mm full frame fine grain film. Lower noise/ grain yes, sharper or as sharp as fine grain FF film, no.
When you say with same lenses are you comparing a crop of full frame 35mm film to the APS digital with same lens or are you comparing full frame 35mm film with a 50% longer lens (same AOV as the APS digital lens)?? Secondly are you putting the same effort into the film scans as you are into the digital captures, i.e. up-rezzing(sic) fractals, optimal unsharp masking, etc. Thirdly, what is the quality of the lenses, film, and film scanner? The sharper the lenses and the higher the resolution of the film (read slower) the harder it is going to be for the 6 Mp DSLR images to match the FF film scans in terms of resolution. JCO -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 9:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *istDs samples are here! You can turn up the in-camera sharpening in the *istD. However, that' not the route to great results. Better to shoot RAW and sharpen when converting in PSCS. My *istD prints appear to be considerably sharper than 35mm prints shot with the same lenses and scanned at 4800dpi. If your prints are soft, you're doing something wrong. (I assume they are, because you refer to the "famous softness.") It's not "famous" around here nor is it even noted. Paul. > Steve Jolly wrote on 22.10.04 15:23: > > > > > I was more interested in using the photos to judge the quality of > > the DA 18-55 - it's obviously softer than the DA14 and the FA*200, > > but surprisingly good for a "kit" lens IMO. > Especially considering its price! To me it seems that Ds adds more > in-camera sharpening than *istD. The pictures straight from camera > seems nicer to look at. > > -- > Best Regards > Sylwek > >
