Not being a "testing maven" I respect all comments and positions. They all seem to have merit. As noted, I may do a similar test at some point. What suggestions are there from the list as to the most useful testing parameters? Here's what I was thinking:
1) Using lenses that provide about the same equivalent focal length; 2) Using ISO speeds that are comparable between film and the digi; 3) Using print film instead of slide since the main reason for the test is to compare the latitude of digi v film; 4) Getting prints made to the same size using the same enlarging system, probably something like a Fuji Frontier. Since the main reason for the test is #3, how important are #1, #2, and #4. My thoughts are that as long as I'm comparing the two systems for #3, it would be just as easy to look at other aspects for comparison as well. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Your desire to use the same magnification for each image is understandable, > > but perhaps it would have been a better test to use the same size prints > > for the test. Most people ask for a print of a certain size, not of a > > certain magnification, and the results may have been truer to real world > > issues. > > > > Also, might it not have been worthwhile to use lenses that produce > > approximately the same image size, such as the 20mm for the digi and, what, > > 35mm or so for the film camera? I don't know the answer to that since the > > introduction of different lenses could effect the test, but then again, > > it's said that digital "sees" things differently through a given lens than > > film does, so maybe it's a non issue. What do the experts say? > > I think that what Gianfranco did was a better technical comparison of > sensor technologies; a test following your suggestions would be better > as a comparison between film and digital *systems* in the real world. > Both kinds of test are valuable. > > S
