If that's what you get out of my comments, perhaps you need a little more sleep. Or were you commenting on JCO's post?
Either way, I don't think either of us said Pentax 6x7 had bad lenses. I can't imagine how you derived that from what either of us said... keith T Rittenhouse wrote: > > I think I get it now. I didn't realize the Pentax 6x7 had such bad lenses. > > Ciao, > Graywolf > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 8:10 AM > Subject: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67 > > > Well said, J.C. > > > > I wasn't going to jump into this fray, but your first paragraph sets > > it up for me. > > I am not an expert in any of the fields, but I can trust my own eyes. > > I must qualify what I consider "best" of any two or more prints I see. > > > > If the color in a digital print is as good (realistic and pleasing) or > > better than the one made from film, and if the sharpness is > > demonstrably better (please don't argue fractal images and the myriad > > methods used to obtain digital sharpness ~ I really don't care), and > > if the bokeh is as or more pleasing (don't argue with me that digital > > photos/prints can't HAVE bokeh ~ what I mean is the pleasing quality > > of the out of focus part of the image), and there is more shadow > > detail delineated, and all of the long focus stuff (neat technical > > term, huh?) is easier to tell what it is, way out there... > > > > Well, to my eyes, to my perception, it IS better. > > > > I really don't care what either operator did between the taking of the > > photo and my seeing of it. > > Film OR digital. If one scores better than the other, according to my > > criteria set out above, no matter which way it goes, then the one *I* > > like better IS the best one. To me. That shouldn't be hard to understand. > > > > So far, images of comparison I've seen make me judge the 1Ds > > (one-dee-ess) images "better" than whatever has been used for > > comparison with film. > > > > I've paid attention to digital images ever since I've been made aware > > of them, and up to now I haven't seen any that quite come up to good > > film images, or especially MF photo images. > > > > I think the gauntlet has finally been thrown. > > > > Folks are starting to seriously take sides, instead of just having > > casual opinions... > > > > keith whaley > > > > * * * > > > > "J. C. O'Connell" wrote: > > > > > > Based on the JPEG ( not even a tiff ) from kodaks > > > 14Mpixel SLR, it CERTAINLY beats even the best > > > 35mm film image, and to my eye, equals or even exceeds > > > my best P67 images. > > > > > > Even if it just equals P67, that gives the 35mm DSLR > > > a huge enuff advantage to be the winner. Why? > > > Think about the variety, size, cost & speed of 35mm lenses. > > > > > > There are no medium format F1.4 lenses, 28-85 > > > zoom equivilents, 17mm equivilents, 1000mm equivilents, > > > etc. etc. etc. The size and weight of medium format > > > lenses is a BIG (no pun) liability, let alone their > > > cost. Once 35mm DSLRs equal medium format in quality, > > > the WAR is over....And I think that time may have already > > > arrived. > > > > > > JCO > >
