Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]No, it's a bogus argument. If he wanted to compare 4x5 to digital, he should have compared film to a 4x5 camera with a digital back that is 26 megapixel. Or at least to the Leica digital camera (the big one that produced 165 meg files.) He would have found otherwise. To conduct the test he did and promote it only shows he had an agenda that was not honest with at least himself. This comparison is the equivalent of comparing an 18-wheel truck to a railroad locomotive for tons-per-mile pulling efficiency. Eric Welch Carlsbad, CA http://www.jphotog.com "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer On Feb 2, 2004, at 10:51 PM, sam wrote: > Are you suggesting that had he used the lastest Canon digital it would > have smoked the 4x5? I believe the point he was making was that for a > few hundred dollars one could get unsurpassed image quality. This > whole digital thing has been framed in relation to 35mm film cameras. > Why? If the issue is image quality why would one not go medium format? > Or large format? The issue is not about image quality and never was. > The issure is about toys. > > Sam S > > > Eric Welch wrote: > >> Well, duh. Could it be that the latter site is matching a 4x5 camera >> against an ancient (by digital standards) Nikon D100 that has CCD >> (and thus more noise at high speeds) than the CMOS chips Canons >> have? >> On the other site, I didn't see any mention of a digital vs film >> debate. >> Eric >> Carlsbad, CA >> > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html