if your final print sizes are not large enough, the difference in resolving
power isn't relevant. i would never use the *istD to capture in a single
frame a sweeping panorama to be printed at large sizes, say 20x30 and up. i
would take a set and stitch. that is why the medium or large format
advantage is illusory for people who seldom make large prints. technology
makes it possible for me to replicate the resolution of a 4000dpi scan of a
8x10 slide with some effort, but without the compromises in system
flexibility of really wide to really long lenses of 35mm format. is it less
convenient? it depends on which part inconveniences you more, lugging of a
large camera with limited focal length range, or working on the computer and
taking time and lots of RAM. not long ago, there was no choice. now there
is, for some situations. as Paul points out, the *istD is adequate for
magazine work doing double page spreads as is.
Herb....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Cassino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: Apples and Oranges
Let's say you take a sweeping landscape shot that is 300 feet along the
horizontal axis with an *ist-D. You have 3000 pixels, so each pixel is
1/10th of a foot in terms of what is being sampled. That is more than 1
square inch per pixel.
The same shot on 35mm film, scanned at 4000 dpi, results in ~5000 pixels
along the same axis. You are now getting about 3/4ths of an inch per
pixel.
