Hmmm... I don't have permission to show her images, hence I put a tiny tiny pic on upper right corner, just to give you a rough idea of the portion I've cut. The detail is just a straigh (unresized) cut from the original frame.
OK, my question is: Camera: ISO: Focal length: Aperture: Shutter speed: RAW conversion/JPEG straight from camera: Dario ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 12:13 AM Subject: Re: Samples from today's shoot with the FA 80-320 > I can't guess. But cab we see the full image? A 100% detail is > meaningless unless we know how large the original image was. (At least > I think it is :-). However, I have to say that i've never seen a 100% > detail anywhere near that sharp from any of my 72 meg *ist D files. Nor > have I seen a 100% detail that sharp from a drum-scanned 6z7 image. > Paul > On Oct 23, 2004, at 6:08 PM, Dario Bonazza wrote: > > > A 100% detail: > > http://www.dariobonazza.com/paw/5004det.jpg > > > > Guess shooting data? > > > > Dario > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 11:36 PM > > Subject: Samples from today's shoot with the FA 80-320 > > > > > >> Here's a more telling example of the FA 80-320. No, it's not a > >> superior > >> lens. But I think it's a very good lens for the money. The first shot > >> is at f6,7, 120mm, handheld at 1/90. However, I think it's fairly > >> steady. (Remember, this is the field of view of a 180mm lens.) The > >> second is a 100% detail from the hi-res version of that shot. If I > >> have time, I'll do some tests off a tripod. But I'm convinced that > >> this > >> lens is no bow-wow. > >> Paul > >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2813525&size=lg > >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2813529 > >> > > >
