On 11/28/06 8:58 AM, "Boris Liberman", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yet, I should tell you that even simple 10x15 cm prints with portraits > of my daughter playing in the play-yard from 31 limited at f/2.8 to > f/4 amazed me with their three-dimensionality. To my personal > perception the effect is still more pronounced on film (Fuji NPC 160 > processed by professional lab in Tel Aviv (<-- close to the best I can > get without doing it myself) than on digital. I completely agree with this. Although I do not have 31mm but other 2 Limiteds. #-D effects of images produced by the Limiteds appear to be distinctively pronounced on film. I also agree that the current crop of DSLR in many ways exceeds the qualities of images produced by film, but there is no need to dismiss one over the other. We still have a choice to use film once in a while. Film and digital are two different medium and the obvious difference exists beyond the resolution etc, however subtle it might be. I use digital perhaps 90% of the time but in that 10% time, I enjoy the old style of "thinking" photography, not taking everything in RAW and leaving them for the "later" processing and manipulations, which by itself is a fun (most of the time :-). But not buying DA lenses sounds a bit extreme too. Digital lenses, as manufacturers like to call it, do have some difference from the ones made for 35mm (in terms of telecentricity and more coating to minimize reflection on sensors etc) and best suited for DSLRs. Still, Limiteds are exception. They are really superb, particularly 77mm. Just my C$.2 :-). Ken P.S. BTW, where is my K10D? Are we discriminated against our neighbours? Or, they are just meant to be guinea pigs for flushing out early problems and we get the real stuff? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
