Your are right that for magazine work the *ist-D is fine, and I use it for most of my stock work. But some shots - the subject matter and composition - just need to be printed much bigger to even start to work.
- MCC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino Photography
Kalamazoo, MI
www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
----- Original Message ----- From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: Apples and Oranges
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.
