Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jonathan Borden wrote: > I certainly see the difference in quality with better lenses ... my > point really is that if you do care about such quality and if you are > willing to shell out the $$$ for such lenses, then you ought capture as > many as possible of the pixels such lenses are capable of resolving. > > The other point is that for low res web images, you can do lots of > things in Photoshop (essentially multiple unsharp masks with different > parameters) to increase the local contrast of the image -- this often > mimics a higher quality lens, with the downside of introducing some > digital artifact not easily see in low res images which already have > JPEG artifact. I am not really arguing with you. Of course I would prefer 11 or 16 megapixels to the 6 I get with the 10D. I simply wanted to say that better lenses make better pictures, whether on film or digital. And my conclusion is based on RAW files, no sharpened JPEGs. I treat my digital images more or less the same (in PS) as I do film scans, meaning that I keep manipulation to a minimum. Nathan -- Nathan Wajsman Almere, The Netherlands General photography: http://www.nathanfoto.com Seville photography: http://www.fotosevilla.com