sorry about the post I rushed it, With the following sentence I didn't
mean they sell more 22 megapixel backs, I meant that the backs have more
megapixels than the 35mm dslr based cameras, but is there any point, if
the lenses can't resolv more detail, from what I can see there isn't
much more light coming through the bronica lens compared to a zuiko F2
> i.e. if as discussed before we are reaching the limits at 35mm why do
> they sell more 22 megapixel backs for medium format.
Geilfuss Charles wrote:
> Ian,
> I'm by no means an expert on MF lenses, but since it's a slow
> Friday afternoon I'll put in my half pence. While there may be some
> exception ('Blads and other hallowed brands) 35mm lenses are *sharper*
> than MF lenses and must be so to have a chance of producing a decent
> image with so little film. MF achieves its wonderful images by sheer
> brute force of square inches of film.
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|