Probably, and that's key for me. I wouldn't buy a camera I couldn't use with NPZ or Neopan 1600, and I'll probably never buy a DSLR that sucks in low light either.
tv > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 11:30 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: OT: D1s review > > > Probably poorly. > > At 10:59 AM 9/26/2002 -0400, you wrote: > >I'd like to see how well it performs at ISO 800 and above. > > > >tv > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ryan K. Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 9:25 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: OT: D1s review > > > > > > > > > I don't see how anyone could conclude that 35mm film is > > > still a superior > > > media after seeing these pictures. > > > > > > -R > > > > > > > > > Mike Ignatiev wrote: > > > > > > >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-f > > > ield.shtml > > > > > > > >A pretty impressive comparison 35mm vs 645 vs Canon D1s -- > > > seems like D1s is a undisputable winner compared to 35mm, > > > and close to a tie with pentax 645. > > > >Now, the price... > > > > > > > >Best, > > > >Mishka > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
