From: "R. Jackson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Again, if you are using a 10MP 4/3 camera, then the comparison is > with the 70-200/4.0 (IS).
I know you like that f/4 comparison, but like you said earlier, with the A/D converters as they are you aren't seeing a dynamic range advantage at low ISO, so the comparison doesn't hold. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< It holds because under ISO 400 on the 5D is irrelevant; you don't have under ISO 100 on the 4/3 cameras. The 5D doesn't deliver a dynamic range advantage (at low ISOs), just a two stop sensitivity advantage across comparable ISOs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > At the end of the day, one shoots a camera that meets one's needs. > If the > 4/3 meets your needs, there's no reason to move to a larger format > (just don't try to tell me that it's better; it ain't). It's better at some things, certainly. If, for example, you're doing forensic work you have additional DOF and since you can use lower stops you extend the range of your strobes. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Again, no. It all scales; ISO 400 is the same noise performance as ISO 100. So ISO 400 at f/4.0 is exactly the same photographically as ISO 100 at f/2.0. >>>>>>>>>>>>> > Just as 645 meets my needs > but not the needs of someone making larger landscape prints. I prefer my 6x7. ;-) <<<<<<<<<<<< I like my Mamiya 7, too. But it doesn't replace an SLR, and you have to need to print larger than A3 to need 6x7. David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body