Winsor Crosby wrote:
>And here is a page that does side by side shots with different film
>and digital cameras by a guy with a PhD after his name. I like it
>because it shows the pitfalls of these comparisons with variations in
>sharpening, exposure and color balance making as much difference as
>the cameras.
>
Which is best? Probably an unanswerable question in general, but just
flipping through the images trying not to look at which is which, and
ignoring color balance to look only at sharpness, detail resolved,,
tonal range, etc., tree shots just jump out as superior, the MF film and
the two with the 20D 20D, with the D2X quite close. Looking at the Hassy
shot closer, it is slightly biger on screen than the rest. i think at
the same size, it wouldn't look as good. And the film is obvious for the
grain in the sky and clouds and the loss of detail in the clouds. The
D2X shot in the first series looks great in the shadow areas compared to
everything else, but the overall exposure is so different, I'm not sure
it means anything.
Color is pretty much uniformly awful except for the film, but I gather
that these cameras were just grabbed off a retail shelf for steps
outside to take the pics.
>But certainly the differences would not be nearly as
>apparent at normal viewing distances hanging on a wall.
>
>
Well, not the top ones, but I imagine it wouldn't take a very large
print before the *istDs and S3 would start to look less sharp than the
rest. Of course the Pent*x is the kit lens and the lens for the S3 isn't
noted, so it probably isn't a fair test for them
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|