Every once in a while one of you guys says something like that, but I
don't see it. I did a relatively careful side by side comparison with
an OM4T and an OM 35-70/3.5 to 4.5, scanned at 4000dpi with a film
scanner and Provia 100F against my Coolpix 5700(5MP with an 8 to 1
zoom). There was very little difference in the amount of detail and
the digital image was clear and grainless, and had more accurate
color. That is when I knew film was gone and I was going to get a
DSLR. I know I could have used a better OM lens, but it seemed more
than fair to pit it against an 8 to 1 super zoom. And I know that a
very large print from the scan would have been better than one from
the digital, exceeding its native resolution. Truthfully a very
large print from either would have been ugly but the grain artifacts
would be less objectionable than the digital artifacts.
This might give a different perspective on test charts.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml
And there is more to a good image than lpmm. Norman Koren uses
information theory to analyze the situation and he finds that an 8MP
Canon has 95 percent of the resolution of film and that an 11MP Canon
exceeds it by a considerable amount.
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Aug 21, 2006, at 5:24 PM, Johnny Johnson wrote:
> Anyway, were you comparing your 5D to scans from Velvia or negative
> film? I get measurably better resolution, in lpmm, from scanned 35mm
> Velvia compared to 5D files.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|