I'm not sure how I missed that. Guess I win the "Arrogant Moron of the Week"
award!
I do, however stand behind the part about the Pentax having to resolve less
than 30 lp/mm to get
outresolved by the Canon (and um, it should be 30 not 29 as in the original
post--I should have
divided 2700 by 24, not 25.2, but it's not really significant). Something's
gotta be wrong.
Maybe his film plane and ground glass are at different distances, maybe the
huge focal-plane
shutter is contributing shake, maybe he fired with the release on the body
instead of using a
cable, maybe he didn't let the vibration from winding on settle before he
fired, maybe his lens
has a manufacturing problem, maybe a dozen other things. I just refuse to
believe a P67 can only
resolve 30 lp/mm!
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> From the website:
>
> "Both cameras were tripod mounted beside each other. The Canon was
> autofocused on the buildings at infinity and I focused the Pentax
> manually. Mirror lock-up was used on the Pentax, but not on the Canon.
> Aperture was set at f/8 on both cameras, close to optimum. Shutter speed
> was 1/90th sec on the Pentax and 1/250th sec on the Canon (due to ISO 40
> with Velvia and ISO 100 with the 1Ds)."
>
> Just to keep things accurate.
>
> Art
>
> focus@adnc.com wrote:
>
> > This is B.S. -- if I set out to make MF look bad, a Pentax 67 with a long
>lens at a
> > middling shutter speed without the mirror locked up is EXACTLY what I'd
>choose.
> >
> > How much is Canon paying this guy?
> > The Canon can at the very best resolve a little over 50 lp/mm
>(2700/25.2=107 pixels/mm,
> > 107/2=53.5 lp/mm.)
> >
> > Since the Pentax' capture area is 1.86 to 2.25 times larger (depending on
>the dimension you
> > choose) it would need to resolving no more than 29 lp/mm (53.5/1.86) to be
>outresolved by
> > the Canon. Does anyone really believe that the Pentax, properly used, can
>only resolve 29
> > lp/mm?
> >
> > The Pentax 67 is notorious for shaking like a junkie on the first day of
>rehab, and this
> > was shot at 1/90th, with no mention of using mirror lock-up. A tripod does
>not "cure"
> > mirror slap; it reduces it, but it does NOT eliminate it. And the long lens
>chosen for this
> > test makes it much more of a factor. Show me a test where the Pentax had a
>100mm lens at
> > 5.6 on Provia 100 (which should give you at least a 250th in the same
>conditions) and the
> > mirror locked up, and I'll bet anything the Pentax wins by a lot.
> >
> > And why screw around printing it out? All that does is introduce another
>irrelevant factor,
> > one which almost certainly downsamples the Pentax image. Just show us
>digital file to
> > digital file, with the smaller file upsampled to match. This was about "is
>digital better
> > than 6 x 7" not "is digital better than 6 x 7 given my particular printing
>workflow".
> >
> >
> >
> > Karl Schulmeisters wrote:
> >
> >
> >>There have been quite a few less biased analysis than the crusade
> >>luminous-landscape has been on for about 2 years. One of the better ones I
> >>have linked at my work machine (photog doesn't YET pay all the bills :-( )
> >>and I'll repost it later this PM. Essentially what the person did was to
> >>shoot a highly detailed landscape on film vs digital camera, and zoom in on
> >>particularly high details of each image and look at the results. His
> >>conclusions are that 16mpixels in a 35mm format are equivilant to the best
> >>grain resolution - something the 1Ds approaches but doesn't reach.
> >>
> >>Some other ways of making comparisons:
> >>
> >>1) take the film image, enlarge it via standard 'wet chem' methods using
> >>the best equip you can find. - scan the result at the highest resolution
> >>you can
> >>2) compare the 1Ds output, similarly enlarged, to the result.
> >>
> >>Film still wins - just don't tell Luminous Landscape.
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Nagaraj, Ramesh" <Ramesh.Nagaraj@ca.com>
> >>To: <karlsch@earthlink.net>
> >>Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 6:40 AM
> >>Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II
> >>
> >>Andre wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>This one will spark heated debate...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>I am not a professional and have not done any tests, but heard & read about
> >>this.
> >>There has been a great deal of discussion going on about same article in
> >>Pentax Discussion Mailing List.
> >>I agree with the some of PDML members that this is comparison of Scanner v/s
> >>Digital Camera.
> >>
> >>I am curious to know about other ways of comparing the DSLRs and Film/slide.
> >>I think you can compare them both
> >>theorically and practically (means comparing the output. Example: Print).
> >>
> >>In "practical" way of comparing, out put from DSLR and Film/Slide are
> >>converted to some other form(Print) and then
> >>compared. This is not a direct comparison of DSLR v/s Film/Slide. Other than
> >>using print as for comparison,
> >>I do not know any other (experimental)way of comparing it.
> >>
> >>Thanks
> >>Ramesh
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>------------
> >>Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> >>filmscanners'
> >>or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
> >>or body
> >>
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>------------
> >>Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> >>filmscanners'
> >>or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
> >>or body
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
