17mm at f22 ? Sounds like he thinks "large format". It's hard to imagine
stopping down that much but maybe he wanted to be very close to the monument
valley flower.
I hope his real prints make a better case. I tried comparing the detail of
some medium format pictures that I have on the wall printed at 16x20 to the
1DsII he has posted. I see more detail in a 3/4" slice of the print than in
his crops sized to 3/4" on my computer screen.
I agree, his article doesn't add any understanding for me.
-jeff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Winsor Crosby
>
>
> I think he disproves his own point even in the small prints.
>
snip
> I know my D100 with 6MP would do a better 200 X300 pixel
> crop than his Canon example, it does not have the sharpest
> pixel acutance around these days. Certainly it would not have
> the obtrusive color fringing.
>
> I saw this article when it was first put up and did not
> mention it because it was so flawed. I don't think it
> advances an argument either way.
>
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California, USA
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2005, at 1:10 PM, R. Jackson wrote:
>
> >
> > Is it just me? In those comparison crops between 4x5 and the C@non
> > there was really no comparison at all. The digital image looked
> > hideous.
> >
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|