On 4 Nov 2004 at 17:45, Jens Bladt wrote: > True! > Thanks for the link, Rob. My concern is, that he/she measure exaosed and > developed FILM, not prints, that can never really reproduce what's recorded. In > real life I believe there's no big difference, resolutionwise between prints or > scans from a 6 MP digital camera and files/prints made freom 35mm negs. My test > show this very clearly. If there were, I'm sure I would use my filmcameras more
This is why I sold my MZ-S and primarily now only shoot film in 67 format, the difference just wasn't large enough between APS digital and 35mm film but it was there. I am hoping that Pentax eventually produces a k-mount full frame 22MP body then there would be absolutely no argument. What can't be denied are the factors that make digital image capture so advantageous over film/analogue work-flow . Some of the least discussed of these advantages being colour accuracy, control and consistency. Also with the gradual introduction of systems like DxO by camera manufacturers we will eventually see more consistent and distortion free images from what would have been termed mediocre glass in the past. These are areas where although it's not impossible to compete with film systems, it's very difficult, time consuming and expensive to deal with in a purely analogue processing chain. So what I'm saying is don't get too hooked on absolute resolution and don't compare 6.1MP cameras as the differential between them resolution wise isn't worth the effort. Hope for a move to FF sensors and higher pixel counts (not necessarily higher pixel densities). Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
