I talked to a friend with Pentax this week. He confirmed Casio's involvement.
I'd guess you've been fed some misinformation.
Doug
At 9:40 PM -08001/17/03, Rick Diaz wrote, or at least typed:
>>
>
>One way is to get confirmation from Pentax themselves.
>Pentax has always denied that they wor
--- Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are forums that only pros participate in
> (http://www.photonews.com/forums/forums.html). You
> can go there and draw
> your only conclusion about what they really think
> about digital. Very,
> very few pros are given equipment or sponsor
> When you proceed with an attempt to debunk someone
> else's claim, you
> really ought to provide evidence of some sort, don't
> you think?
> Instead of just saying, "It ain't necessarily so!"
>
> keith whaley
>
One way is to get confirmation from Pentax themselves.
Pentax has always denied th
On 17 Jan 2003 at 13:46, Brendan wrote:
> Digital is catching up, and fast but at a price, I
> don't doubt that very soon 24+ mp cameras will be here
> that really and truely beat 6x7 and go after 4x5, but
> the price it still outrageous.
I think that you'll find that the optical limits imposed o
;Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 1:12 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
>
>
>> Hi,
>> You all write about quality of digital vs medium format etc. and I have a
>question.
>> What about s
Digital is catching up, and fast but at a price, I
don't doubt that very soon 24+ mp cameras will be here
that really and truely beat 6x7 and go after 4x5, but
the price it still outrageous. The point many are
missing is that the hi end digital is for those who
can afford it, mere motrals will stil
>Of course, you could always have threatened to buy a new video camera
>instead .
LOL. Mercifully, my employer provides that. 20K GBP for the camera and
another 6K for the lens...
But it's gotta last about ten years!
Cotty
Oh, swipe me! He paints with light
Bruce wrote:
> I didn't mention it first: Mike did. The D1 was a typical Red Herring
> thrown in by Pal.
It was not a red herring. It was example that every digital slr manufactured, without
any exception whtsoever, has been described in the same way as the 1Ds by self
proclaimed authorities
I didn't mention it first: Mike did. The D1 was a typical Red Herring
thrown in by Pal.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Was it?
Must have missed the post you first mentioned it in, then.
The issue brought up to Pål was, if you noticed, not considering Canon D1s specifically.
Jostein
three-dimensional evidence of further debt. What a novel concept. Good
thing it was misinformation.
At 09:38 AM 1/18/03, William Robb claimed:
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Brewer"
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
> What was the misinfo
You are a Camera Purchase Consultant? What a cool job. Does it pay well?
At 09:07 AM 1/17/03, Rick Diaz claimed:
> Then theres the question of hyping something the
> very same person is prone to.
I have to second that..
Unfortunately in my consulting business, my people who
came to me for adv
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Brewer"
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
> What was the misinformation about Pentax and Casio? I think I missed that.
Something about Pentax calculators and holographic technology for virtual
paper printou
What was the misinformation about Pentax and Casio? I think I missed that.
At 08:55 AM 1/17/03, Rick Diaz claimed:
Let's be clear. Some pro-photographers want to make
you think they like digitals because they are being
paid for to say so. Much like some pros who claimed
that APS format is muc
There are forums that only pros participate in
(http://www.photonews.com/forums/forums.html). You can go there and draw
your only conclusion about what they really think about digital. Very,
very few pros are given equipment or sponsored by camera companies.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's
Meant "Well thought out", of course.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x
Pal:
> until someone actually compare film with digital, as oposed to comparing
> scanner quality with digital camera quality judged from a copy from both, I >
continue being sceptical if not downright
> rejective to all these claims.
Cotty:
>Harumph. Believe your own eyes.
>Wanna know what swa
on 17.01.03 14:30, Boris Liberman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Really, there is no need to argue here. Indeed one may take a look on
> the whatever media suits one to make a decision, add to that a look to
> their pocket and make ultimate decision as to what kind of camera to
> choose. Then, hope
on 17.01.03 14:12, T Rittenhouse at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We though out. However, on your wedding photography comment, I would point
> out that digital seems to work for Monte Zucker.
>
Yes, that's true. But the results? At least in Canadina magazine of pro
wedding photographers (Vision, pub
Hi!
I think I'd like to respond to one particular paragraph from
Sylwester modulo Mike's initial posting (the capitalization is mine):
SP> These two technologies has their "pros" and "cons", you can not
SP> simply say "digital is better!". You just buy what is BETTER
SP> SUITED FOR YOUR NEEDS. As
We though out. However, on your wedding photography comment, I would point
out that digital seems to work for Monte Zucker.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: "Sylwester Pietrzyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> These two technologies has their "pros
7, 2003 4:21 AM
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
> >I've heard many pros say that they've switched to
> >digital & never looked back. Who are WE going to
> >believe
>
> Harumph. Believe your own eyes.
>
> Wanna know what swayed me
Oh good lord!
1980's the stone age...
35mm took over for publication in the late 50's early 60's. Before that the
Rolleiflex was king for a few years and for decades before that the Speed
Graphic was the camera of choice. Since the 40's, at least, 35mm was
adequate in quality but required very g
Just got to second Pål on this, as I have discussed the D1 with Bjørn Rørslett in
person.
I've also got the book Pål speaks about, and I have had the same thoughts about
Bjørn's images as Pål mention here.
Just for the record :-)
Jostein
=== At 2003-01-17, 13:08:00 you wrote: ==
on 17.01.03 13:08, Pål Jensen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But Michael isn't doing that. He claim to be performing empirical test proving
> that digital is better than film in every respect (his own words) but this
> isn't true at all.
I agree with you Pal. There is more than costs in comparison
Bill wrote:
> I'm not trying to be a smartass, but sounds to me like the BG-10 grip would
> soon pay for itself in using AA's instead of CR-2's
If I want to use a bulky outfit using AA batteries I'll take the 645. The idea of
spoiling a compact camera with a bulky battery grip is rather pointle
Mike wrote:
> Second, I'll provisionally believe someone who's actually made firsthand
> comparisons with THEIR own eyes, like Michael R. and Ryan.
But Michael isn't doing that. He claim to be performing empirical test proving that
digital is better than film in every respect (his own words) but
>I've heard many pros say that they've switched to
>digital & never looked back. Who are WE going to
>believe
Harumph. Believe your own eyes.
Wanna know what swayed me in one go? I went to DPReview, downloaded a
straight image, a 2.5 MB jpeg camera original. Once it was on my
computer, I tw
>>I'm happily sloshed. Amazingly, my spelling is okay, so far.
>>
>>Stills, video. Video, stills. Inseperable.
> ^^^
>Well, that didn't last long ;-P
Morning all. Sheesh, I'm paying for it now.
Cotty Seltzer
Oh, swipe me!
On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 01:36 PM, T Rittenhouse wrote:
The camera should work even better at low tempuratures. The batteries
are
the problem. If you can get them separated from the camera by a cord
and
keep the batteries in an inside pocket a digital camera should be
great for
cold
Pål Wrote:
"The problem, however, starts when this type of
comparion is used to say
something about the original. To take an example. If I
compare a
high-end turntable playing vinyl records with, say, a
low resolution digital
recording like minidisc, by taping both to a cassette
tape and then s
Pål Wrote:
"I've read posts from owners all over the place who
says the D60
isn't as good as film but thay use it for other
reasons. Some are even
so dissapointed that they switch back to film! Who are
we going to
believe?"
I've heard many pros say that they've switched to
digital & never loo
the most. Hence, batteries are a
> constant hassle to me.
>
> Pål
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 8:18 PM
> Subject: Re:
CTED]>
> To: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 8:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
>
>
> > Pål,
> >
> > I am hearing from both D100 and D60 owners that they are very
> > pleasantly
eries of the MZ-S last about 30 rolls at the most.
Hence, batteries are a constant hassle to me.
Pål
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 8:18 PM
Subject: Re:
Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm happily sloshed. Amazingly, my spelling is okay, so far.
>
>Stills, video. Video, stills. Inseperable.
^^^
Well, that didn't last long ;-P
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Hi,
Thursday, January 16, 2003, 3:13:56 PM, you wrote:
> The purpose of the exercise was to prove to them how quickly we assume that
> we "get" all the contents of pictures, without really _looking_.
there's a well-known photograph by HCB of a landscape in Brie, showing
an avenue of trees curvin
Tom wrote:
> The camera should work even better at low tempuratures. The batteries are
> the problem. If you can get them separated from the camera by a cord and
> keep the batteries in an inside pocket a digital camera should be great for
> cold weather photography.
The problem for digital for
Bill wrote:
> For once I agree with Bruce. After all, how many people view photos under a
> 40X microscope? Make your comparisons at a reasonable viewing distance.
That was not the issue. If you want find out the amount of information in an original,
yoiu'll have to find a practical way of a
Mike wrote:
> At the time I said that the D30 was superior to scanned [35mm] film in print
> sizes up to about A4 or slight larger. I was vilified for this, yet now
> no one disputes this.
Huh? Almost everyone dispute this...
>When I reviewed the D60 in early 2002 I said that
> it bested 35mm f
Mike wrote:
> Amen, Tom. I've been enduring the calculations for ten years now. They're
> always all over the place, they're always assuming premises unproved, and
> the conclusions have a very poor historical track record.
But the argument you are using is like stating that 35mm is as good as me
- Original Message -
From: "Herb Chong"
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
> Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> i suppose the enlarger doesn't have any effect?
>
> Far less effect than the scanner used for di
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> i suppose the enlarger doesn't have any effect?
Far less effect than the scanner used for digitizing the negative,
methinks.
William Robb<
that contradicts the experience of mine and every other photographer i work
with.
Herb
/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
> Hi,
> You all write about quality of
- Original Message -
From: "Herb Chong"
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
> Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Why do people insist on scanning film, then pretending they are somehow
> making a valid comparison to a pur
Hi,
You all write about quality of digital vs medium format etc. and I have a question.
What about shooting at very low temperatures ( I means -10C or lower)? Does digital
camera can still work well, since it takes plenty of power etc.Everybody knows how for
instance calculators/watches behave at
Is it legal to enlarge squirrels?
Doug
has nothing useful to say
At 10:06 AM 1/16/03, Gregory wrote:
Film has better resolution than digital, until around 11 or 14 megapixels.
But film has grain in a small number of colors while digital has xxx bit
pixels with noise. And I think you can just
> I think one loses a bit of the overall impact of a picture when viewed
> with a 40x microscope.
I'm glad somebody said that.
> How much difference can be seen in a 8x10 print,
> viewed from 18" , with 20/20 vision? People just can't see more than 6-8
> lp/mm at 18". They certainly don't see m
>. Seems like they could do
> much the same for traditional 35mm by putting a bar code on the film edge
> or something.
There's already a bar code on the edge of 35mm film. It's read by mini labs
to set film brand/type and to put the frame number on the back of the print.
Bill
tom said:
> I wasn't disputing that it's cheaper, I have issues with the pixel
> "math". Everytime digital vs film comes up, someone brings out their
> slide rule and proceed to "prove" that digital is X years away from
> equaling film.
>
> The proof is in the prints, and the prints are looking pr
> I have issues with the pixel
> "math". Everytime digital vs film comes up, someone brings out their
> slide rule and proceed to "prove" that digital is X years away from
> equaling film.
>
> The proof is in the prints, and the prints are looking pretty good.
Amen, Tom. I've been enduring the c
William Robb said:
> Photographic paper is designed to print photographic negatives.
> What I see is people who can't get a good wet print dismissing the entire
> technology of wet prints. It's not the technology's fault that people are
> incompetent.
>From what I've read of APS, that problem is
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> best ones in 35mm optics. In my experience, the biggest
> gains in medium format with film over 35mm with film is
> grain reduction, with the increase in overall resolution
> coming in second in terms overall visual improvement.
Which brings a question
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, tom wrote:
> I agree. A couple of years ago, the naysayers all provided faux
> mathematics to prove that digital would never compete with film. Now
> they're going to say digital costs too much.
-shrug- Don't care, either way.
Regardless of talent I may or may not have, I do
nuary 16, 2003 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
> I think one loses a bit of the overall impact of a picture when viewed
> with a 40x microscope. How much difference can be seen in a 8x10 print,
> viewed from 18" , with 20/20 vision? People just can'
Hi!
What a wonderful thought(speech)-provoking question(thread)...
You know, if you don't mind I'd post here an opinion of an amateur who
just recently learned of "Third Party Lenses Resource Megasite" and
who spent good part of past two days reading these pages and thinking
them through. In no p
"Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>all I have to do is put nearly any of my Mamiya 7 slides under my 40x
>microscope
That seems like a rather impractical way to display your images.
The real issue is how actual prints of a given size, from both 6 x 7 and
full-frame-11-megapixel digital,
> But a 4000 dpi scan resolves more of the negative than an enlarger, at
> least in my experience. However, there are too may variables here to
> judge Reichmann's results as gospel.
Here's Michael R.'s general response (again, this was an e-mail sent to me,
repeated with permission):
>>>
The pr
I think one loses a bit of the overall impact of a picture when viewed
with a 40x microscope. How much difference can be seen in a 8x10 print,
viewed from 18" , with 20/20 vision? People just can't see more than 6-8
lp/mm at 18". They certainly don't see much at all when they look at a
picture
> Read the title on your thread.
> You're being purposefully provacative and you know it!
Well, no, because I don't think it's a provocative statement. I'm perfectly
willing to believe it's simply a _true_ statement.
Last summer I saw some prints from a Canon D60. They were clearly better
than e
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>About a year back I met a fine arts photographer. He showed me 30x40s that
were shot on 8x10 transparency film. He pointed out the differences between
the digital prints and the Ilfochrome prints, saying, "As you can see the
chemical prints are st
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>This is whole thread is a specious argument anyway. If you guys really
cared
about quality above all, you would be shooting with a 20x24 inch camera.
You
are shooting 35, or 120, in that range digital is now pretty comparable.<
Galen Rowell said
On 16 Jan 2003 at 8:04, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
> For those who shoot a lot, digital is good enough right now.
> For those who shoot a little, film is still better.
> That's what the pros are telling me.
> (And I can see the difference with my eyes. No math required.)
Hi Collin,
You've hit th
> I think this issue is easily resolved in this manner..
> If tommorow, you had to shoot one photo, (portrait, landscape, etc),
> and you were to be judged on that single photo, what body would you choose
> to buy today?
Ha! That's like saying, "if you had a twenty-mile hike to go on tomorrow,
wh
> Photographic paper is designed to print photographic negatives.
> What I see is people who can't get a good wet print dismissing the entire
> technology of wet prints. It's not the technology's fault that people are
> incompetent.
Bill,
Michael R. was the furthest thing from an incompetent wet
> Why do people insist on scanning film, then pretending they are somehow
> making a valid comparison to a pure digital image? To me, this makes much
> less sense than making a photographic print from the photographic negative.
Bill,
Well, consider a guy like Mark Roberts. As I understand his wor
I believe these types of statements are really at the best based on
poor investigative techniques. Reason for using larger formats like
6x7 is that you get a much improved picture compared to 35 mm in terms
of resolution, color gradation.. simply much more information. people
who hope for a digital
At 06:12 16.1.2003 -0500, Graywolf wrote:
>This is whole thread is a specious argument anyway. If you guys really cared
>about quality above all, you would be shooting with a 20x24 inch camera. You
>are shooting 35, or 120, in that range digital is now pretty comparable. The
>real question is, can
/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 3:54 AM
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Herb Chong wrote:
>
> > Messa
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:27 AM
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
> This one time, at band camp,
> "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > One of our local pro types has sold off his 6x7 in favour of the D60
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Herb Chong wrote:
> Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Bill has a point, think of it like this, your scan is
> a 2nd generation copy, and therefore not as accurate
> as the original.<
>
> as if a print isn't.
>
> Herb
That's not the point here. Compari
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Why do people insist on scanning film, then pretending they are somehow
making a valid comparison to a pure digital image? To me, this makes much
less sense than making a photographic print from the photographic negative.
William Robb<
i suppose
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Bill has a point, think of it like this, your scan is
a 2nd generation copy, and therefore not as accurate
as the original.<
as if a print isn't.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Bill D. Casselberry"
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
> hmmm - perhaps he should get a digital projector and a
> 6x7 projector and compare the two projected images, then.
> Digitizing the analog film may well b
"Mark D." wrote:
> He shoots mainly slide film, Provia 100F I believe.
> And I'm pretty sure the prints are made on an Epson
> 2200 now.
> So yes, there are some generational issues.
hmmm - perhaps he should get a digital projector and a
6x7 projector and compare the two projecte
> I think this issue is easily resolved in this manner..
> If tommorow, you had to shoot one photo, (portrait, landscape, etc),
> and you were to be judged on that single photo, what body would you choose
> to buy today?
Leica M6 with 35mm lense.
Sorry. I got interrupted. The missing word is resolution.
In general, the photographers who have been using the digital cameras
are a lot more impressed with what they are seeing than the view of
things that theorists are coming up with based on numbers.
Something that many here forget is that as
ay, January 15, 2003, 6:42:10 PM, you wrote:
t>
t> More dubious math
t> tv
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Collin Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:23 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>
> >
> >
> > William Robb wrote:
>
>
> Some things just can't be quantified with mere numbers. Scanning film is a
> bastard technology at best.
> Comparing a digitized negative to a digitized digital is flawed from the
> start.
>
True. But comparing a wet print to a digitized digital is per
> I do know however that if Michael Reichmann has that much money invested in
> digital equipment ($9,000 is the USD price - up here that EOS 1Ds is going
> for $13,000 CDN) it's easy for people to think that his viewpoint may be a
> bit skewed.
He's what you might call a "dot-com millionaire." H
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
>
>
> William Robb wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think getting the neg printed by a professional high end custom lab is
the
> > only fair co
More dubious math
tv
> -Original Message-
> From: Collin Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:23 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer
William Robb wrote:
>
>
> I think getting the neg printed by a professional high end custom lab is the
> only fair comparison. It keeps the photographic process photographic.
>
But a 4000 dpi scan resolves more of the negative than an enlarger, at
least in my experience. However, there are too
**
Tech weenie responses interspersed.
**
]Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 19:43:42 -0500
]From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
]
]About a week ago I was pondering 35mm digital
]vs medium format
Mike,
Read the title on your thread.
You're being purposefully provacative and you know it!
Regards, Bob S.
In a message dated 1/15/03 7:12:04 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > You are beginning to sound like Chicken Little.
> > "The sky is falling! The Sky is Falling!
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I think scanning on one of the high end Imacon scanners would be a fair
comparison, as I doubt all the infomation is extracted from a 6x7 neg or
slide at 3200dpi.
The Flextight Photo Ithink is currently around $5000us.
Regards,
Paul<
i think th
> I do know however that if Michael Reichmann has that much money
> invested in
> digital equipment ($9,000 is the USD price - up here that EOS 1Ds is going
> for $13,000 CDN) it's easy for people to think that his viewpoint may be a
> bit skewed.
>
> It's a bit akin to stating that SUV's are the
--- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How is he making his prints from negative? If he
> isn't using a darkroom, he
> is testing his film scanner's sensor to his digital
> camera's sensor.
He shoots mainly slide film, Provia 100F I believe.
And I'm pretty sure the prints are made on an Ep
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Rubenstein"
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
> There's a reason why there has been all those good deals on MF gear on
> ebay starting last year.
> The empiricists don't give a hoot about what the the
Mike Johnston wrote:
>
>
> Fact is, MR's the guy with the $10,000 Imacon scanner, the $9,000 EOS 1Ds,
> the state-of-the-art Mac and PC on his desk, and the full P67 system. He can
> create results with the actual equipment and look at the actual results.
> Have you done that?
Of course not. B
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Jones"
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
> The Flextight photo that the luminous landscape guy uses is actualy a
lower
> end Imacon scanner and only 3200dpi, which is not the great.
>
> I think scanning
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Roberts"
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
> "Paul Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I think it was Pal that pointed out, that alot of these comparisons
between
> >digital ca
-Original Message-
> From: Mark D. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> I seem to recall tv saying something about switching
> to digital when he'd be able to shoot in low light
> with no noise. Time to pay the piper Tom! ; )
I'd do it right now if I didn't have to pony up $10k to switch
systems.
gt; Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
>
>
>
>
> Mike Johnston quoted Michael Reichmanm who wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm using a Canon 1Ds. The most remarkable photographic product I've
> > ever owned. Almost large format image qu
--- Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I have Michael's permission to quote from his
private
> e-mails:
>
>
>
> I'm using a Canon 1Ds. The most remarkable
> photographic product I've
> ever owned. Almost large format image quality from
> 35mm. It's hard not
> to sound too enthusiasti
Paul wrote:
> I think it was Pal that pointed out, that alot of these comparisons between
> digital cameras and film are actualy comparing digital cameras vs a scanner.
He does.
> I very much doubt that a 1Ds can resolve as much infomation as 6x7 film.
It can't.
The person in question is also
Mike wrote:
>
> By the way, when Michael says "every test I did, including side by side
> shoots," he really means it--he actually runs the tests and looks at the
> results. In my experience of him, he truly has no particular axe to grind.
He has been saying this about every digital slr since th
There's a reason why there has been all those good deals on MF gear on
ebay starting last year.
The empiricists don't give a hoot about what the theorists think on the
subject of.
BR
"Paul Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think it was Pal that pointed out, that alot of these comparisons between
>digital cameras and film are actualy comparing digital cameras vs a scanner.
What I like about Michael Reichmann's approach is that he *doesn't* do this:
He judges by the final re
Mike,
I think there is one aspect where 67 beats digital. That is in cost
for amateurs (meaning not making a living from their photography).
Until your shooting quantity goes up quite a bit, cost will probably
be one of the last strongholds of the film world for awhile.
Not only that, we live in
Hi,
I think it was Pal that pointed out, that alot of these comparisons between
digital cameras and film are actualy comparing digital cameras vs a scanner.
I very much doubt that a 1Ds can resolve as much infomation as 6x7 film.
Regards,
Paul
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Johnston" <
100 matches
Mail list logo