on 26/3/04 4:37 pm, dick.roadnight(a)btopenworld.com at wrote: > What I am saying is that, you can increase your DOF by reducing the > magnification and image size, and by using 16 shot you can still get 16Mp > from the reduced area of CCD. > > The same argument applies to using MF digital instead of LF - you get more > resolution, and more DOF.
The point I'm making is that in my experience the limiting factor is the optics not the back. The method you describe works to some extent but is severely limiting being always a telephoto perspective. You're effectively using a smaller CCD like most of the SLR solutions and it denies the creative flexibility of shorter focal lengths and also compromises the positioning of reflectors etc A modest single 16m pixel back will generally exploit the capabilities of the digi-design lenses and expose any short comings. On a different note, I personally, have a problem with the entire concept of multi exposure backs. I've had the demos but in the time it takes to mess about doing one shot I'd expect to do several the conventional way and I'm way too busy to get involved with that kind of work flow. I shoot jewellery and lots & lots of it. I don't see it as a very elegant solution to straight raw high resolution capture problem in a busy environment. I imagine this will bring a landslide of derision from you guys who have gone the multi shot route. Each to his own. I can see that for certain kinds of work it would be fine, but for me it wouldn't work though I'm always willing to be convinced other wise when the time comes to replace the current kit. Cheers Paul ----------------------------------- Paul Hartley Hartley Studios London. England Paul(at)hartleystudios.co.uk 44 (0)20 7482 3768 ----------------------------------- =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
