[filmscanners] Re: film vs digital test

["bob geoghegan" <bobgeo@dgiinc.com>]

RantMode=On

Does it bug anyone else that so many of these tests are run at small
apertures?  Too few are at f/5.6 or f/8 where a typical good prime is at
its best.  It's not like subjects hundreds of feet away need f/16 for DOF,
so the lenses are needlessly handicapped by diffraction.

RantMode=Off,
BobG


At 02:54 AM 7/15/2004, you wrote:

>Norm,
>Although both of the below sites compare the 1DS
>(similar to your SLR/n) with a Rollei and a Mamiya 7
>(more sq. mm than your Hassy), I found the sites to be
>informative and ran tests much better than I could
>hope to do.
>
>http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_mf.html
>
>http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/Eos1Ds/build/building.htm
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Warren
>
>
>--- Norm Carver <nfcarver@iserv.net> wrote:
> > I am in the midst of doing a basic comparison
> > between my Hasselblad and the
> > new Kodak SLR Pro (14mb, full frame).
>
>=====
>Warren Xato
>
>For where to go when you know when
>-PhotoDates-and-Places@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
>http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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