Marc, Moose and Jez have done similar comparison shots. But I'm getting
confused with the different sizes and stuff, which is probably a very strong
indication that I don't really know what the heck I'm doing. But that's never
stopped me before, so why should this time be any different?
Anyhow, my original TIF scan, after being rotated 2 degrees widdershins to make
it more or less level and then cropped, was 7408x4752 pixels, or a total of
35,202,816 pixels. Of course, I JPGed it to a mere 800x513 pixels before
posting it. The 1/225th portion from the original scan is 494x317 pixels, or a
total of 156,598 pixels.
So, I'm having trouble comparing things in an apples and oranges sort of way.
But it really doesn't matter. Like Moose said, this is all for fun.
And there will probably be an E-something-or-other in my future. If the E-2,
as some have speculated, will be the Olympus equivalent of the C*n*n Rebel,
I'll pass and wait for the E-3, or whatever comes next. If I don't like it,
then I'll probably -- those of more delicate sensibilities may want to stop
reading here -- go the C*n*n route.
See, I'm not really anti-digital. I'm just pro good photography for fun. And
since I'm doing more and more B&W and less and less color these days, digital
just isn't as appealing to me as it may be to others.
Now I'm going out to shoot some 6x9 Efke 25 sheet film, then soup it in Neofin
Blue. I betcha that'll knock yer digital socks off!
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|