just curious: what exactly are the problems with this particular comparison? considering the conclusion the guy makes, what are the gaps in his logic or his method? so far, everything i have seen in this thread speaks *for* his conclusions. pls, enlighten me.
best, mishka On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:38:32 -0600, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Frantisek" > Subject: Re: P67 vs D1s -- photo.net > > > > > WR> If it's the Takumar 200/4, it is a very pedestrian lens. > > WR> I have heard the SMC 200/4 is better, but still not really > > good. > > WR> OTOH, I expect the EF100/2.8 macro is one of Canon's better > > lenses. > > WR> He should have chosen the EF50/1.7 and the SMCP 105/2.4 for his > > test. > > WR> And he should have gotten a high end optical print made from > > the > > WR> film, rather than a scan. > > > > Another apples vs oranges comparison on photo.net ... > > I realize it is pretty hard to do a legitimate comparison of film to > digital, but they could try a little harder than that. > That one fell into the sky is pink category. > > William Robb > >
