[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography

["David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com>]

From: "R. Jackson" <jackson.robert.r@comcast.net>

> Again, if you are using a 10MP 4/3 camera, then the comparison is
> with the 70-200/4.0 (IS).

I know you like that f/4 comparison, but like you said earlier, with
the A/D converters as they are you aren't seeing a dynamic range
advantage at low ISO, so the comparison doesn't hold.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

It holds because under ISO 400 on the 5D is irrelevant; you don't have under
ISO 100 on the 4/3 cameras. The 5D doesn't deliver a dynamic range advantage
(at low ISOs), just a two stop sensitivity advantage across comparable ISOs.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> At the end of the day, one shoots a camera that meets one's needs.
> If the
> 4/3 meets your needs, there's no reason to move to a larger format
> (just don't try to tell me that it's better; it ain't).

It's better at some things, certainly. If, for example, you're doing
forensic work you have additional DOF and since you can use lower
stops you extend the range of your strobes.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Again, no. It all scales; ISO 400 is the same noise performance as ISO 100.
So ISO 400 at f/4.0 is exactly the same photographically as ISO 100 at
f/2.0.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Just as 645 meets my needs
> but not the needs of someone making larger landscape prints.

I prefer my 6x7. ;-)
<<<<<<<<<<<<

I like my Mamiya 7, too. But it doesn't replace an SLR, and you have to need
to print larger than A3 to need 6x7.

David J. Littleboy
davidjl@gol.com
Tokyo, Japan


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body