>>I don't see how anyone could conclude that 35mm film is still a superior >>media after seeing these pictures.
>>-R The only thing I've concluded from this comparison is that his scanner is badly out of focus and/or needs service.... >From the lumnious landscape review: "(Note that the same lens Canon 70-200mm f/2.8l IS lens was used at the same aperture, and because the 1Ds is full-frame the image size recorded is identical (no magnification factor to confuse things. The difference in resolution is therefore solely due to the camera / imager and no other factor)." This is quite misleading. There is a second optical system (the film and scanner) at play here. There is quality of film processing at play here. I know from experience that's a huge factor when scanning film. There is internal image processing (in the camera) vs. external image processing (during and after the scan) at play here. Even though the author has gone to some lengths to "equalize" things, it winds up in the old apples/orange bin. The image from the Canon is excellent but this "comparison" is rather weak. Regards, Chris L.
