Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/03/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Didier Ludwig <leica@screengang.com> wrote: > Talking of small film format, your argument might be true for ASA 25 to 50 films - but > above... not shure. I'm far away from being a scientifically comparing/testing dude, > but found this interesting: > > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml >> Sorry Didier, I disagree. Film is still a long way >> ahead of digital in resolution and will continue to >> be in that position for the foreseeable future. And I find that at ISO 400 where I've used the DMR most, the DMR is much better than film. For the kind of photography I do using long lenses, film would have to be one stop faster than the DMR for a comparable image size and shutter speed. For example, taking the base case of the DMR and 560 I'd have to use the 560 plus 1.4x extender on a film camera to get the same angle of view. Since this is combination of optics is one stop slower than the 560 by itself I'll need a film ISO one stop faster in order to use the same shutter speed. Anyone who has used lenses this long will be watching those shutter speeds carefully. So for most my uses the DMR at ISO 400 should be compared with film at ISO 800. I love using the Leicaflexes but considering the technical quality of the pictures it's no contest at higher ISOs, DMR wins. Doug Herr Birdman of Sacramento http://www.wildlightphoto.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com ? What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint