Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II



This is B.S. -- if I set out to make MF look bad, a Pentax 67 with a long lens 
at a
middling shutter speed without the mirror locked up is EXACTLY what I'd choose.

How much is Canon paying this guy?
The Canon can at the very best resolve a little over 50 lp/mm (2700/25.2=107 
pixels/mm,
107/2=53.5 lp/mm.)

Since the Pentax' capture area is 1.86 to 2.25 times larger (depending on the 
dimension you
choose) it would need to resolving no more than 29 lp/mm (53.5/1.86) to be 
outresolved by
the Canon. Does anyone really believe that the Pentax, properly used, can only 
resolve 29
lp/mm?

The Pentax 67 is notorious for shaking like a junkie on the first day of rehab, 
and this
was shot at 1/90th, with no mention of using mirror lock-up. A tripod does not 
"cure"
mirror slap; it reduces it, but it does NOT eliminate it. And the long lens 
chosen for this
test makes it much more of a factor. Show me a test where the Pentax had a 
100mm lens at
5.6 on Provia 100 (which should give you at least a 250th in the same 
conditions) and the
mirror locked up, and I'll bet anything the Pentax wins by a lot.

And why screw around printing it out? All that does is introduce another 
irrelevant factor,
one which almost certainly downsamples the Pentax image. Just show us digital 
file to
digital file, with the smaller file upsampled to match. This was about "is 
digital better
than 6 x 7" not "is digital better than 6 x 7 given my particular printing 
workflow".



Karl Schulmeisters wrote:

> There have been quite a few less biased analysis than the crusade
> luminous-landscape has been on for about 2 years. One of the better ones I
> have linked at my work machine (photog doesn't YET pay all the bills :-( )
> and I'll repost it later this PM.  Essentially what the person did was to
> shoot a highly detailed landscape on film vs digital camera, and zoom in on
> particularly high details of each image and look at the results.  His
> conclusions are that 16mpixels in a 35mm format are equivilant to the best
> grain resolution - something the 1Ds approaches but doesn't reach.
>
> Some other ways of making comparisons:
>
> 1) take the film image,  enlarge it via standard 'wet chem' methods using
> the best equip you can find.  - scan the result at the highest resolution
> you can
> 2) compare the 1Ds output, similarly enlarged, to the result.
>
> Film still wins - just don't tell Luminous Landscape.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nagaraj, Ramesh" <Ramesh.Nagaraj@ca.com>
> To: <karlsch@earthlink.net>
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 6:40 AM
> Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II
>
> Andre wrote:
>
> > This one will spark heated debate...
> >
> > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
> >
>
> I am not a professional and have not done any tests, but heard & read about
> this.
> There has been a great deal of discussion going on about same article in
> Pentax Discussion Mailing List.
> I agree with the some of PDML members that this is comparison of Scanner v/s
> Digital Camera.
>
> I am curious to know about other ways of comparing the DSLRs and Film/slide.
> I think you can compare them both
> theorically and practically (means comparing the output. Example: Print).
>
> In "practical" way of comparing, out put from DSLR and Film/Slide are
> converted to some other form(Print) and then
> compared. This is not a direct comparison of DSLR v/s Film/Slide. Other than
> using print as for comparison,
> I do not know any other (experimental)way of comparing it.
>
> Thanks
> Ramesh
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
> or body
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
> or body
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.