Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
On 26 Jan 2003 at 21:24, John Mustarde wrote: Negative on that need for film, ol' buddy, since the DSLR wound it's way to my little spot of heaven here in the Valley of the Sun. But I've still got a few rolls of that expensive stuff safely stored, just in case my meds kick in and these delightful DSLR delusions disappear. I appreciate your position John but I'll stick with my Mamiya 7 gear (to supplement my 35mm format gear) for a while yet :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Bruce wrote: So there is something deep inside that really wants my 67 to be much better than the digital world to help justify my use of it. Don't you think those who have recently spent $8000 on a DSLR may be prone to similar justifications directed towards digital? Pål
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Pål Jensen wrote: Bruce wrote: So there is something deep inside that really wants my 67 to be much better than the digital world to help justify my use of it. Don't you think those who have recently spent $8000 on a DSLR may be prone to similar justifications directed towards digital? Pål Not really- because first we had to justify the $8k. Ryan
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Hallo Boz, but than your real world digital camera cannot be more expensive than 1000 and not 1 regards Rüdiger Pål Jensen wrote: So putting the image through a scanner that cannot do justice to the film is considered real world. With such test procedures you can prove anything by simply putting up test procedures that fits your preconceived ideas on how things should be. If the only possibility to do justice to the film is to scan it at $300 a frame, then I do not consider that real world. FOR ME and MY WALLET, real world is: a) 35 mm slide film, projected b) 35 mm slide film, scanned on a $1000 scanner, printed on a $300 ink jet c) digital image, printed on the $300 ink jet So, no, a drum scan is not real-world for me. Neither is chemical processing of medium format film. YOUR reality may differ... Cheers, Boz
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
I do not see, how a digital picture taken with a 14Mpixel sensor can beat 35mm film at f=8, i.e. at a total resolution of lens and film of 70 or more line PAIRS/mm (values that one can easily produce with most Pentax lenses) 36mm*140lines/mm = 5040 lines horizontally 24mm*140lines/mm = 3360 lines vertically 5040lines*3360lines = 169344400 analogue pixels (16.15 analogue Megapixels) for EACH colour. Arnold J. C. O'Connell schrieb: 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 overAnd I think that time may have already arrived. JCO
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
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 overAnd I think that time may have already arrived. JCO
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Arnold wrore: I do not see, how a digital picture taken with a 14Mpixel sensor can beat 35mm film at f=8, i.e. at a total resolution of lens and film of 70 or more line PAIRS/mm It is because they put it through various filters that removes most of the lines pr/mm before they compare the results. It is like comparing a high-end hi-fi system with low end one through rotten loudspeakers; you won't hear a difference - you hear the loudspeakers. Pål
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
You must have really lousey prints from that 6x7. Everybody on this list nit-piks about lens qualitity. I have come to the conclusion from this thread. That they are all a bunch of bullshiters. They certainly can not tell the difference. Who else besides me on the list compared a first generation print of both? If you have not you are full of it. You are letting someone bullshit you, and trying to bullshit everyone else on the list. And I am one of the people who if he had the money would buy a high end DSLR in a heartbeat. Not for its image quality, but for its money making potential. Geeze! Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 2:40 AM Subject: RE: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67 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 overAnd I think that time may have already arrived. JCO
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
On 26 Jan 2003 at 5:10, Keith Whaley wrote: Folks are starting to seriously take sides, instead of just having casual opinions... The apparent polarization is a function of inappropriate comparison methods. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Well, color negative film is pretty much limited to about 50lpm max ,so they system resolution will be lower than that. But digital has a higher edge contrast (separation between colors or shades) that make digital prints appear sharper at first glance. Careful comparison tells a different story, at least to my old eyes. Also lpm and ppi are not even remotely the same thing, if they were a 35mm color negative would be limited to about 2mp, don't confuse them. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Arnold Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 8:36 AM Subject: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67 I do not see, how a digital picture taken with a 14Mpixel sensor can beat 35mm film at f=8, i.e. at a total resolution of lens and film of 70 or more line PAIRS/mm (values that one can easily produce with most Pentax lenses) 36mm*140lines/mm = 5040 lines horizontally 24mm*140lines/mm = 3360 lines vertically 5040lines*3360lines = 169344400 analogue pixels (16.15 analogue Megapixels) for EACH colour. Arnold J. C. O'Connell schrieb: 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 overAnd I think that time may have already arrived. JCO
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
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 overAnd I think that time may have already arrived. JCO
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Au contraire! I don't think most anyone with any brains is saying it's going to replace film. Just that the days of it's being able to _equal_ film have just about if not actually arrived. keith Rob Studdert wrote: On 25 Jan 2003 at 22:45, T Rittenhouse wrote: In many ways those few folks who are saying digital is just another format that is available to us are the smart ones because that is exactly what it is. This is exactly what I've said all along, I could really use a DSLR but I don't expect that it would negate my need for film, anyone who thinks it can today is delusional. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
This is a sloppy, unspecified, over simplified generalization. The target chart contrast has to be specified for the lp/mm figure. For Fuji Superia 100 (CN) the resolution is 63 for a 1.6:1 chart contrast and 125 for 1000:1 chart contrast. (Fuji 2001, Professional Data Guide). Numbers without a reference are worse than no numbers at all, because they have an air of verisimilitude. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, color negative film is pretty much limited to about 50lpm max
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Rob Studdert wrote: On 26 Jan 2003 at 5:10, Keith Whaley wrote: Folks are starting to seriously take sides, instead of just having casual opinions... The apparent polarization is a function of inappropriate comparison methods. That may VERY well be, sir. I am prepared to allow for that. I'm still in a wait and see mode. But, it's getting a LOT more exciting now, because the differences that separated film and digital images, that used to be huge and glaringly obvious are now getting smaller and smaller, and in some instances the dividing line is not just indistinct but invisible... g I think we're close to the point where once you blow away the chaff, you'll be able to find areas where digital is capable of and actually does more than equal 90% of all film efforts. I have to discount the extra special super fine grain BW films out there, and special high resolution lenses as being not in the mainstream, and as such not very likely to be used by your average, or even most photographers. All of which is to say, yes, I believe the day is imminent or has in some way arrived, but to think that it not only can but will replace film, well, that day is FAR off! Up to now, it's been pretty much established that digital is capable of meeting 90% of all normal expectations. But will it _replace_ film soon? No way. Let's SEE those more appropriate comparison methods. I'll be among the first to consider them. keith whaley Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
I have a feeling that this group of people on the list seemed intent to discuss the technical aspect of photography, when photography itself is not a science. It never was.. Photography has also been an art. Whenever I meet people out there with an APS camera, they seemed to have the technical expertise that I don't have. They knew how to justify how good the APS SLR cameras are compared to a 35mm with scientific facts that I had no clue about. Okay.. I may not be a techie kind of guy, but when I asked them to show me some of their pictures taken with the APS. There's no content.. It's pure garbage.. I am afraid that we always like to discuss the technical aspect of digital and what it can do to surpass today's film format. I have no doubt that it will. It's a given. As to when it will be -- your guess is as good as mine.. However, good resolution, color, contrast on digital photos can not make up for good content!! A lot of professional 6x7 photographers use the medium to capture content so that they can be reproduced in a media of choice. At least 2 digital SLR pros that I know personally use their DSLRs in conjunction with their film cameras for specific work project. It is just another money making tool, just like a 6x7 is another money making tool. The ultimate judge to final quality will always be not YOU, but your clients! You can always pat yourself in the back congratulating your good work, but if everyone else thinks your work is crap, no amount of super technology that you have in your possession will change the fact. Rick... __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
I derived that because a first generation print to first generation print from my old Mamiya Universal Press shows that the 6x7 is definately better. So my only conclusion I can make from you folks who say the digital is better than your P67 is that the P67 is no good. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 9:15 AM Subject: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67 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 overAnd I think that time may have already arrived. JCO
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
- Original Message - From: Bruce Rubenstein Subject: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67 This is a sloppy, unspecified, over simplified generalization. The target chart contrast has to be specified for the lp/mm figure. For Fuji Superia 100 (CN) the resolution is 63 for a 1.6:1 chart contrast and 125 for 1000:1 chart contrast. (Fuji 2001, Professional Data Guide). Numbers without a reference are worse than no numbers at all, because they have an air of verisimilitude. 1.6:1 is regarded as the TOC to reference to for general picture taking. The 1000:1 TOC is a measurement of maximum resolution using a knife edge target, something that rarely exists in the real world. William Robb
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
One of the better pro photographers in Detroit, Tom Roche, had a portfolio show at my place of work last week. I had visited his studio last year to watch him shoot 4x5 digital, with computer tiling, and at that time he had told me that most of his work was digital. After looking through his latest portfolio last week, I asked him if it was all digital. He replied that only a couple of the shots were digital. He's gone back to film for a lot of his work. He said that everyone is shooting digital now, and it's no longer a novelty. The art directors are clamoring for film. So he's back to shooting film: 4x5 in the studio, Pentax 6x7 on location. Paul Stenquist
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Average lpm from various color negative films for subjects of normal contrast from the real world. And 63 lpm is close enough to 50 lpm to hardly show a difference on the print. In fact the numbers are probably well within the margin of error for the testing procedure, and also within the batch to batch variation of the film. Therefore your comment is specious. I forgot everybody else on the list takes photos of test charts with their 7000 lpm super-duper-multi --the sun does not show up on the film even when it is in the frame-- coated oil immerged lenses on micrograined high contast litho film. And what does this have to do with my point that lpm and ppi are entirely different things, or didn't you bother to read that far? Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 9:42 AM Subject: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67 This is a sloppy, unspecified, over simplified generalization. The target chart contrast has to be specified for the lp/mm figure. For Fuji Superia 100 (CN) the resolution is 63 for a 1.6:1 chart contrast and 125 for 1000:1 chart contrast. (Fuji 2001, Professional Data Guide). Numbers without a reference are worse than no numbers at all, because they have an air of verisimilitude. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, color negative film is pretty much limited to about 50lpm max
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Yes, but if someone comes back with an unreferenced, this film does 160 lp/mm. Everyone is right, everybody is wrong, no one really knows what is being talked about and it's another pissing contest. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1.6:1 is regarded as the TOC to reference to for general picture taking. The 1000:1 TOC is a measurement of maximum resolution using a knife edge target, something that rarely exists in the real world.
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Hi Bojidar, on 25 Jan 03 you wrote in pentax.list: Keep in mind, and he says it a few times, he is comparing real-world results. Yes, but he determines the rules of this real-world. I believe that everything is true for his own work. But I think his test setup is not objective enough. Just have a look at this page: http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/Canon_1DS/45_film_1ds.html The MF-results are much better than those of the 1Ds, here. So the results of these comparisons are very dependent of the test setup. I don't want to say which test is better or even that analog is better than digital or vice versa. I just want to say that there is no such simple answer. It depends on you own needs and workflow. Many of us (like me) are very interested in this subject but are not in the lucky situation of owning or just testing a DSLR. So we have to rely on these tests. What I dislike about Michael's last comparison is, that he suggests that digital is superior. His prior tests were more objective. As to the ICE technology, I have not kept my knowledge current, but articles about 6 months old were suggesting that while dust is gone, so is sharpness and contrast... A friend of mine is using the Coolscan 8000ED. He has activated ICE3 always as the advantages are obvious. He doesn't complain about sharpness or contrast problems. But I will have a closer look next time I visit him...;-) Regards, Heiko
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] A friend of mine is using the Coolscan 8000ED. He has activated ICE3 always as the advantages are obvious. He doesn't complain about sharpness or contrast problems. But I will have a closer look next time I visit him...;-) Regards, Heiko i see that the grain is rendered slightly more soft on my 4000ED. Herb
RE: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
-Original Message- From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Look, I'm still shooting 35mm BW. I'm going to keep doing so. But EOS 1Ds color prints are better than 35mm color prints by every single conceivable qualitative measure except the cost of the camera. (Try to name one other if you want to.) The prints from the 1Ds *really* suck at the ISO 1600 setting. :) tv
Hail the PDML! (Was: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Bruce R.wrote: Everyone is right, everybody is wrong, no one really knows what is being talked about and it's another pissing contest. Yup. That's the PDML in a nutshell. And part of what I like about it. (Although it means all hell of a lot of time consuming deletion sessions.) Lasse
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
The following is a post on dpreview.com, which I reproduce here FYI. It was written by Melvin Sokolsky, not me. Thought some of you might be interested. --Mike Danny Cardenas wrote: He compares his 1Ds images to his Pentax 67 images and ends the article with Goodbye film. Goodbye medium format. In my opinion, he would be a perfect candidate for the Jerry Springer show. I think the guy just likes to create controversy to stir up hits on his web site. What a moron. I believe the cynicism on this forum has reached critical mass so that I am going to throw in my two cents. I have been a professional photographer for over forty years and have shot with every format from the 20x24 Polaroid down to the Minox. My work has been shown in many major museums and galleries internationally. When I read Mr. Reichmann¹s review of the D30 about two years ago I was somewhat surprised and questioned his findings. After shooting with the D30 I found my experience was surprisingly similar to Mr. Reichmann. At first I was a little put off by the fact that the digital capture did not look like my beloved film emulsions but it was super sharp, and almost grainless so I wondered how I could best put it to use? After putting the digital capture through its paces in PhotoShop I realized that I could create almost any palette I wanted. Was the D30's resolution that of film? At that time the answer was no, but the experience of shooting digital gave me a sense of freedom so I decided to abandon myself to discovery. I could express my self in real time, no labs, and with confidence of accurate exposure and color balance; I thought to myself this digital stuff could be very interesting. I also found that breaking with routine was inspiring in that it taxed my imagination and was pushing my creative desire many fold. When the 1D was introduced I began to use it on my editorial shoots for Harper¹s Bazaar, Vogue and Vibe magazines. Although the digital file size did not equal that of film file size, the Kodak Approval proofs of double page spreads - 11x17 - looked better than the Kodak Approval proofs from film. No numbers, just look at the image, which one would you take home? We live in an age where every fool and his brother has access to or owns space age diagnostic tools, and to hear them talk, one would suspect that in comparison Ansell Adams is an amateur. I have experienced would be photographers talk about histograms, dynamic range, and all the rest of the techno-speak who can¹t shoot them selves in the foot, save a interesting image. My findings concerning the 1Ds are in total agreement with Mr.Reichmann. I am making 40x50 Lightjet prints from 1Ds files that are not ressed-up with Genuine Fractals. The Lightjet software RIP takes care of size; rendering beautiful sharp images. The most important thing that a photographer must protect is their reputation and credibility. Do you actually believe Mr. Reichmann would risk it all for more hits on Luminous-Landscape, or a free camera? I can tell you from personal experience there is no free camera; I bought mine from Samy¹s. Would you not agree that Luminous-Landscape is the most professional and informative web-site about photography and equipment on the web? If you look at the hits that Mr. Reichmann has taken over the years in his quest for perfection in terms of equipment and cameras just read between the lines - you could buy a house for the money he has spent. He has passed on his insights, and admitted his mistakes with equipment that didn¹t quite pan out or meet his expectations. Mr. Reichmann has passed on this invaluable information to all of us for free. I believe that Mr. Reichmann's purpose is to inform and he does it with inimitable knowledge and excitement, which is a plus for all. I, in fact will subscribe to Luminous-Landscape because of the twinge of guilt I feel at the moment; one should not preach what one does not believe. Stops judging by numbers learn to trust you eyes ask your mother which picture she would pick. I am sure her taste will transcend the techno-speak people. RE: the Goodbye film. Goodbye medium format. remark. I took it as more of a metaphor of what the future holds for film, as each palette has a place in terms of personal taste and specific need. If we are talking grain free sharpness and a sense of dimension, for me the 1Ds wins handily. Show me the picture. Oh by the way what is the Jerry Springer Show ? http://www.sokolsky.com/
Re: Vs: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
It isn't. At 10:31 AM 1/26/2003 +0100, you wrote: How is 11 Mb (Canon) better than 32 Mb (35 mm film)? All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Päivä: 26. tammikuuta 2003 3:46 Aihe: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67 One thing we must readily admit--the EOS 1Ds surpasses 35mm film. So I think we must at least admit that digital has surpassed film. After all, it might be argued that yet another way to make the comparison more fair would be to compare film vs. the _same-sized_ digital sensor. So we would compare the EOS 1Ds to 35mm, and against the Pentax 6x7 we would have to pit a digital medium-format camera back. --Mike Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Dead wrong. The best way to judge a picture is to subject your eyeballs to it. I could care less about how it looks sto an electron microscope. I ignore that aspect of it entirely. A photograph is most usually to be LOOKED at. Not dissected. I do not scientifically judge a photograph. Why would one? I stand by my statements. Others may do as they choose. keith Bruce Rubenstein wrote: Judging pictures by looking at them is much too subjective (unless you are using a scanning electron microscope), so the only way to scientifically judge a picture is by the numbers. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The following is a post on dpreview.com, which I reproduce here FYI. It was written by Melvin Sokolsky, not me. Thought some of you might be interested. --Mike Stops judging by numbers` learn to trust you eyes` ask your mother which picture she would pick. I am sure her taste will transcend the techno-speak people. http://www.sokolsky.com/
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
At this stage I suspect that many of us are clinging to the (hope/feeling) that all of our old beloved gear and way of doing things is not threatened. So even though the trends and capabilities of digital benefit us, it also starts to make me question the monetary value of all my hard earned equipment. A simple example was for me the other night. I had to shoot a studio shot of a formal dress to be used in a newspaper article. Because of the model (my daughter) and the business getting the article in (a casual friend), I had the luxury of doing quite a bit of testing to get what we really wanted. I did about 80 shots with the Coolpix 990 testing lighting, poses, background, etc. The final shoot was done with the 67, but had I in my possession even a 6mp DSLR that could work well with studio lighting, I probably wouldn't have used the 67. The ability to get the instant feedback was so valuable. I felt very blind shooting the actual shots on the 67 (they turned out fine), even knowing they would be of higher image quality. Because of this experience and others like it, I feel that had I the means to own a good DSRL (D60 or better) that I would probably not use my beloved P67II like I do now. It also makes me feel like the money invested would be lost to some degree having to sell it at a significant loss or just letting it sit there unused. So there is something deep inside that really wants my 67 to be much better than the digital world to help justify my use of it. Not sure if I am making much sense. It just seems to me that the issue is deeper than a purely subjective A is better than B type of scenario. This revolution stands to really wipe out (figuratively) all our old cameras that we love so much. Even AF and program modes didn't have this impact. So have of me is very excited and the other half is very apprehensive. Even at this stage, my 35mm film gear is hardly ever used. It is either the Coolpix digicam or the 67. I only use the 35mm when the Coolpix can't cut it (good flash, faster action, low light) and the 67 is obviously the wrong tool. Bruce Sunday, January 26, 2003, 5:11:13 PM, you wrote:
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Hi Heiko, Just a few quick notes... I've just read it. I just read all of it too. I think, that Michael is right, when he says that the digital workflow is better for him. It is faster and the results are perfect to a certain paper size. These are my thoughts too. BUT - this comparisons has some inconsistencies: Keep in mind, and he says it a few times, he is comparing real-world results. - he chooses not the finest grained film but complains about grain - he compares about dust - but wirh ICE on a Nikon Coolscan 8000ED dust is no longer a problem Still, the difference is so dramatic, that I imagine choosing the right film will still have very little effect in the comparisson. As to the ICE technology, I have not kept my knowledge current, but articles about 6 months old were suggesting that while dust is gone, so is sharpness and contrast... - the same picture is compared to a 67 picture at a different magnification - most important (for me): the drum scan shows, that the 67 picture is much better than the Imacon scans that he uses for his comparison. Both of these points have to so with the real world thesis. Are you willing to pay EUR 200 for a drum scan? Will you often make enlargements over 1 meter? Again: I'm impressed of the digital results and I would probably prefer the digital system because of its easier workflow. But the framework of this comparison is determined by digital technologies and it tells nothing about the capabilities of a Pentax 67. Actually, it does, to a big extent. Pure resolution is not the whole story. Getting the picture on paper or to your editor is the key, and overall digital seems to win. Just look at the shelves of most pro photo stores. What you see is medium-format equipment (new or used) at record low prices. And this seems to tell the story. Now, I myself am not going away from film, not soon. Even if I can get great 50x75 digital prints, I can still not see my slides lighting up a large white wall... And until my computer monitor scales up to that size, I will likely still use print film (along with digital). Cheers, Boz
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Based on those comparisons, I concluded film was best rather than the authors contention. The trouble I see with my digital pics is color. It simply does not capture color as well as film does and this comparison shows that its the same for the Canon. - Original Message - From: Rüdiger Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 5:35 AM Subject: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67 Hallo here an interesting test http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml regards Rüdiger
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Indeed it is! However, just as my juices start really flowing, I remind myself that Canon 1Ds costs $8000! An absolutely amazing machine. keith whaley Rüdiger Neumann wrote: Hallo here an interesting test http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml regards Rüdiger
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
- he chooses not the finest grained film but complains about grain Yes and no. He starts out by saying that he's comparing the film he actually uses. For instance, he may need the speed or the color reproduction of the film he choses. From there, it's reasonable to talk about the grain. If he were starting out specifically stating that he were comparing the most grainless film to digital, it would be another story. But he isn't, and so he doesn't. This does not seem inconsistent or flawed to me. --Mike
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Mike wrote: Yes and no. He starts out by saying that he's comparing the film he actually uses. For instance, he may need the speed or the color reproduction of the film he choses. From there, it's reasonable to talk about the grain. Well, I wonder why someone who obviously is a fan of high accutance at the expense of sheer resolution chooses a low accutance - high resolution film. He would have been significantly more happy with Kodachrome. Pål
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Boz wrote: Keep in mind, and he says it a few times, he is comparing real-world results. So putting the image through a scanner that cannot do justice to the film is considered real world. With such test procedures you can prove anything by simply putting up test procedures that fits your preconceived ideas on how things should be. I think I'm going to put shots from the EOS-1DS on piece of provia F and them proclaim loudly whats best of film or digital(note this was sarcasm) Pål
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Pål Jensen wrote: So putting the image through a scanner that cannot do justice to the film is considered real world. With such test procedures you can prove anything by simply putting up test procedures that fits your preconceived ideas on how things should be. If the only possibility to do justice to the film is to scan it at $300 a frame, then I do not consider that real world. FOR ME and MY WALLET, real world is: a) 35 mm slide film, projected b) 35 mm slide film, scanned on a $1000 scanner, printed on a $300 ink jet c) digital image, printed on the $300 ink jet So, no, a drum scan is not real-world for me. Neither is chemical processing of medium format film. YOUR reality may differ... Cheers, Boz
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Y'all can also jump in on this topic here: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004QKe Them thar Hatfields and McCoys is everywhere. BR
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
But a test whose parameters are in constant flux and whose parametres are also different from person to person isn't worthy to be called a test. Pål - Original Message - From: Bojidar Dimitrov [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 9:32 PM Subject: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67 Pål Jensen wrote: So putting the image through a scanner that cannot do justice to the film is considered real world. With such test procedures you can prove anything by simply putting up test procedures that fits your preconceived ideas on how things should be. If the only possibility to do justice to the film is to scan it at $300 a frame, then I do not consider that real world. FOR ME and MY WALLET, real world is: a) 35 mm slide film, projected b) 35 mm slide film, scanned on a $1000 scanner, printed on a $300 ink jet c) digital image, printed on the $300 ink jet So, no, a drum scan is not real-world for me. Neither is chemical processing of medium format film. YOUR reality may differ... Cheers, Boz
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Pretty much matches my experience of owning both cameras. I've been trying to convince myself that the 67II should be kept just for those situations that need film, but it's getting harder. I do wish that the Canon 50/1.4 felt better- it's a bit cheap in construction. I still stand by my assessment that APX25 on the 67 is better than my 1Ds- but I can't find a color option that is this good. -Ryan On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, [iso-8859-1] Rüdiger Neumann wrote: Hallo here an interesting test http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml regards Rüdiger
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Uh huh... Well, his was a test: I liked the 1Ds much better than the Pentax 67, for a lot of reasons, and as far as I'm concerned, I'd much rather have the Canon. Period! Pål Jensen wrote: But a test whose parameters are in constant flux... What does THAT mean? Oh, I know what a 'constant state of flux' means, but I don't know what YOU mean by the statement. ...and whose parametres are also different from person to person isn't worthy to be called a test. Pål keith whaley
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Of course it's different from person to person. They are tools used for different purposes. You want to test how good a screwdriver is for hammering nails. This is why it is as stupid saying that one is better as the other, as blue is better than red. There are reasons why there are more than one film format. Digital is just one more format with its own advantages. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But a test whose parameters are in constant flux and whose parametres are also different from person to person isn't worthy to be called a test. Pål
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Keith wrote: But a test whose parameters are in constant flux... What does THAT mean? Oh, I know what a 'constant state of flux' means, but I don't know what YOU mean by the statement. I mean that when you are making a test that most people interpret as what is better of camera A or B, and the outcome of this test is dependent on other subjects (which are not supposedly tested) whose quality are changing at six months intervals. If youre chaning the scanner or the printer (or even the film) in this test they outcome will change. What then are you really testing? It is also weird that some rave about images (originals) with less than 50 lines per mm as being great. Pål
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Bruce wrote: Of course it's different from person to person. They are tools used for different purposes. You want to test how good a screwdriver is for hammering nails. This is why it is as stupid saying that one is better as the other, as blue is better than red. There are reasons why there are more than one film format. Digital is just one more format with its own advantages. Absolutely. The problem start when some are claiming that tool A is better than tool B when they are really testing the quality of tool C compared to B. Pål
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
- Original Message - From: Rüdiger Neumann Subject: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67 Hallo here an interesting test http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml Mr Reichmann seems to be making a career out of proving that digital image capture is superior to film. The $64,000 question, for me is who the hell cares? I know I don't. Also, that was a rhetorical question. I also don't really care about who cares. The entire exercise is pointless, IMHO. William Robb
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
No, no, Bruce lad... I said I prefer the results of one over the other, AS PRESENTED by Michael. I did NOT say one IS better than the other. How would I know? Mucho difference. keith whaley Bruce Rubenstein wrote: Of course it's different from person to person. They are tools used for different purposes. You want to test how good a screwdriver is for hammering nails. This is why it is as stupid saying that one is better as the other, as blue is better than red. There are reasons why there are more than one film format. Digital is just one more format with its own advantages. BR [...]
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Illogical and incorrectly presented supposition, just this side of irrational. keith Pål Jensen wrote: Bruce wrote: Of course it's different from person to person. They are tools used for different purposes. You want to test how good a screwdriver is for hammering nails. This is why it is as stupid saying that one is better as the other, as blue is better than red. There are reasons why there are more than one film format. Digital is just one more format with its own advantages. Absolutely. The problem start when some are claiming that tool A is better than tool B when they are really testing the quality of tool C compared to B. Pål
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Pål Jensen wrote: Keith wrote: But a test whose parameters are in constant flux... What does THAT mean? Oh, I know what a 'constant state of flux' means, but I don't know what YOU mean by the statement. I mean that when you are making a test that most people interpret as what is better of camera A or B, and the outcome of this test is dependent on other subjects (which are not supposedly tested)... Huh? ...whose quality are changing at six months intervals. I missed something. Where did 6 month intervals come from? I saw two cameras hoisted upon two tripods, side by side, presumably for exposing all at essentially the same time. Not so? If youre chaning the scanner or the printer (or even the film) in this test they outcome will change. What then are you really testing? It is also weird that some rave about images (originals) with less than 50 lines per mm as being great. This is the second where did this come from? Who/which has resolution like that? The lens on the Canon? Beter think on that one. I perceived the Canon as presenting shots with DEFINITELY better resolution than the Pentax. Not to say, better shodow detail. Pål keith
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
More actually. At 05:56 PM 1/25/2003 -0600, you wrote: - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert Subject: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67 You missed the fact that he didn't compare the originals. Har, maybe he should output the D1s digifile to a 8000line slide printer and compare it to the 67 chromes :-) That would make as much sense as what he is doing. William Robb Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Sorry, check out the comparison in Pop Photography this month. I can't say that the detail comparison is more flattering but print from the ISO 100 color print film obviously carries more information than the print from the 9 megapixel dslr (see Digital Directions, Got Enough Pixel Power? Popular Photography page 40 February 2003). At 08:43 PM 1/25/2003 -0600, you wrote: One thing we must readily admit--the EOS 1Ds surpasses 35mm film. So I think we must at least admit that digital has surpassed film. After all, it might be argued that yet another way to make the comparison more fair would be to compare film vs. the _same-sized_ digital sensor. So we would compare the EOS 1Ds to 35mm, and against the Pentax 6x7 we would have to pit a digital medium-format camera back. --Mike Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
We don't have to admit that at all. In some ways I get very tired of this argument. High end digital is good enough for most commercial use now. That is not the same thing as it is better than film. First comparing a digitalised film image to digital imaging is kind of stupid unless you need a digital image. Guess what? When you need a digital image, like for the internet, you don't need much of an image. If you compare a high quality photographic print from film to a digital print from a digital image the photographic print is still better. And if you compare a large format photographic print to a digital print it is quite a lot better. If your ultimate use is for publication, then the digital work flow is quicker and easier to use and makes a lot of economic sense. If you want to compare a 6x6 slide on a screen to a projected digital image maybe not. Image quality is not everything. If it were no one would be using 35mm in the first place. 35mm became good enough 25-30 years ago, digital is rapidly becoming good enough now. Neither is anywhere near great. In some instances quality is important and film is still ahead there. Furthermore chemical process and digital process are entirely different in appearance and one can no more be said to be better than the other than oil can be said to be better than water color in painting. In many ways those few folks who are saying digital is just another format that is available to us are the smart ones because that is exactly what it is. What digital whether direct digital or scanned film does do is return control of his images to the photographer. Once again he can produce his own final image and not be at the mercy of some lab that does not give a damn about anything but making money. That especially applies to amateur photographers like most of those on this list, because they can not afford the very expensive pro processing and even if they could they do not have the knowledge to supervise the lab in order to get the best possible image. Film is not dead, and will not be dead soon. But digital has economics in its favor and for many uses will become the format of choice. Especially for commercial use. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] One thing we must readily admit--the EOS 1Ds surpasses 35mm film.
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not at all willing to say EOS 1D surpasses 35mm. have you personally done a comparison yet? Herb
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you compare a high quality photographic print from film to a digital print from a digital image the photographic print is still better. And if you compare a large format photographic print to a digital print it is quite a lot better. a couple of people i know who shoot 4x5 and make large exhibition prints would disagree with you. the digital print from a scan of the 4x5 is almost invariably better, in their opinion. the most recent example i have met is a professional fine art landscape photographer who makes most of his money from print sales. he's the guy i took the workshop from recently. have you had an exhibition print professionally made from a 4x5 via traditional enlarger and then by scanning recently? everyone of the people i have talked to didn't switch to scans and digital prints because of control, although they like that aspect of it. they did it because of quality and durability. i see what the professionals around me who have made it (they derive all their income from their photography) in the fine art landscape photography business are doing and no matter what film they shoot, they do digital prints. Herb
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
I'm not at all willing to say EOS 1D surpasses 35mm. I said a 1Ds, not a 1D. --Mike
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Yah, well, I know a of couple of fine art photographers who do digital prints. Why? Because it is cheaper. One of them still does his own Ilfordchromes he gets a premium for them. The other never did his own printing. As I said there are economic reasons to use digital commercially. YMV. And since you took part of my post out of context, folks reading this should look at the subject line above. I will, however, restate. I downloaded a couple of the dcs-14n tiff files from the Kodak site. Printed them and compared the prints to DP prints from 6x7s I had. The digital prints didn't make it in comparison. And as I said, I am tired of this argument. I have consistently tried to point out both sides of this issue. Being in the middle just gets me snarled at by both sides. The hell with it. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 11:02 PM Subject: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67 Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you compare a high quality photographic print from film to a digital print from a digital image the photographic print is still better. And if you compare a large format photographic print to a digital print it is quite a lot better. a couple of people i know who shoot 4x5 and make large exhibition prints would disagree with you. the digital print from a scan of the 4x5 is almost invariably better, in their opinion. the most recent example i have met is a professional fine art landscape photographer who makes most of his money from print sales. he's the guy i took the workshop from recently. have you had an exhibition print professionally made from a 4x5 via traditional enlarger and then by scanning recently? everyone of the people i have talked to didn't switch to scans and digital prints because of control, although they like that aspect of it. they did it because of quality and durability. i see what the professionals around me who have made it (they derive all their income from their photography) in the fine art landscape photography business are doing and no matter what film they shoot, they do digital prints. Herb
Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
We don't have to admit that at all. If you compare a high quality photographic print from film to a digital print from a digital image the photographic print is still better. And if you compare a large format photographic print to a digital print it is quite a lot better. I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but _nobody_ is making extra-large chemical prints from 4x5 any more. It's _all_ digital from scanned originals, because the prints are so much better. You need a place to go see some really good digital prints. Hell, some labs won't even make prints larger than _11 x 14_ unless they're digital. Much less 40 x 60. Look, I'm still shooting 35mm BW. I'm going to keep doing so. But EOS 1Ds color prints are better than 35mm color prints by every single conceivable qualitative measure except the cost of the camera. (Try to name one other if you want to.) This is just not in dispute out where this question matters, or with ANYBODY who has tried both. (Try to name one person who has tried a 1Ds who is willing to say 35mm is better. Find me one person, anywhere on planet Earth. I'm willing to bet that person doesn't exist.) In some ways I get very tired of this argument. That can happen in arguments when you're on the wrong side. g --Mike
RE: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
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 overAnd I think that time may have already arrived. JCO
RE: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
Once 35mm DSLRs equal medium format in quality, the WAR is overAnd I think that time may have already arrived. Would that be the end of Pentax since they would lose both 135 120 systems? regards, Alan Chan _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
