You beat me to it. Sounds like a web site to avoid as a waste of time.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Nov 23, 2006, at 9:34 AM, AG Schnozz wrote:
> Absolute bunk! At 8x10, you will see absolutely NO observable
> difference between a D200 and 5D when EQUIVELENT amounts of
> corrective sharpening (to counteract the AA filter) are applied
> to the files.
>
> Another list-member and I did an experiment a few years ago
> where he sent me two B&W 8x10 prints taken with a Mamiya-6 and
> an OM camera. Same scene, same picture, different cameras. The
> only way I could identify which was which (If I remember they
> were shot on TMAX 100) was the DoF being slightly different
> between the two. In the pictures, grain wasn't even visible
> enough to differentiate. Now, we're not even talking about
> one-foot viewing distance, we're talking careful examination
> with a loupe. With the loupe I could figure out which was which
> ONLY based on grain size.
>
> Sharpness? Both were identical. Detail? Both were identical.
>
> At 8x10, these two digital prints from D200 and 5D will be
> maximizing the resolution of the printer--hence even our eyes.
> At one foot viewing distance? Get real. There is no way you'll
> hand the advantage to one sensor over the other.
>
> Optics? That's another story. What lenses were they using, how
> was it shot, etc. There are so many factors that go into
> sharpness that based on the conclusion of this published test, I
> reject their testing method. Absolutely no way that it would be
> a runaway success towards the 5D. If the test prints were A2 in
> size, you *might* be able to see a differenc, but only slightly.
>
> AG
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|