> Richard Kenward wrote in an earlier post in reply to Richard Lewisohn. > >>> However again in the interests of science, I can only see some value in >>> doing this provided the image from the RZ has been captured on a high >>> resolution fine grain transparency film, nicely processed and of maximum >>> sharpness. This would suggest to me that it was used on a stout tripod >>> without column extension, the mirror up facility was used, and that an >>> appropriate aperture selected on a lens known to be excellent. >> >> THis test is self contained Richard, since the only real way to run this >> comparison is by having, say a Hassy and shoot digital with the Kodak back >> and with the same camera ,same lens, same settings etc, shoot with a film >> back and this would provide specific comparison between digital and 120 >> film.But there is no way you can ascertain you are having all this control >> if you are shooting and RZ with 120 film and a Canon 1Ds for digital.
Hi Richard For some reason I didn't get your earlier reply. I agree that a comparison between 120 film and a digital back on the same camera would be more 'scientific', but in the real world it's more likely that we're going to leave our Mamiyas in a cupboard and go out and shoot with a camera like the Canon 1Ds (at least if we shoot on location). I have to say that when I shot with the RZ and 1Ds, the cameras were on a tripod, but the mirror up facility wasn't used on either camera. And it was a long exposure (1/20th sec with strobe), so probably not the best test. So if someone else wants to do a more scientific test (and hopefully with a 1Ds with a prime lens vs Mamiya or Hasselblad with same) it would be good to hear about the results. Regards Richard =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
