Why do you relate this tale as a comparison of the E-1/digital vs. the
OM-4/film instead of a comparison of the ZD 14-45 and the Zuiko 35-105?
And especially not of the same scenes and not on a tripod.
As you say: "I must try more equal comparisons some time soon."
Chuck Norcutt
Brian Swale wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today I had two 8 x 12 prints made of panorama shots (unfortunately
> different scenes).
> One was from the E-1, sharpened twice with Unsharp Mask.
> E-1 + ZD 14-45 f/3.5-5.6, asa 100. Aperture and focal length uncertain at
> present..
> Camera held in hand firmly against building wall (or on a steel railing).
>
> Second was from the OM4T, Zuiko 35-105 f/3.5-4.5 at f/8 and 105mm, Fuji
> Superia Reala asa 100 print film. Camera used in the portrait position, held
> down on top of a wooden post set firmly in the ground. Image from a negative
> scan was sharpened once with Unsharp mask.
>
> The print from the OM4T / Fuji Reala asa 100, is clearly more sharp; the
> detail it holds is just great. The E-1 shot shows the smudging of detail
> typical of digital shots being asked to do too much.
>
> I must try more equal comparisons some time soon.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|