From the website:
"Both cameras were tripod mounted beside each other. The Canon was
autofocused on the buildings at infinity and I focused the Pentax
manually. Mirror lock-up was used on the Pentax, but not on the Canon.
Aperture was set at f/8 on both cameras, close to optimum. Shutter speed
was 1/90th sec on the Pentax and 1/250th sec on the Canon (due to ISO 40
with Velvia and ISO 100 with the 1Ds)."
Just to keep things accurate.
Art
focus@adnc.com wrote:
> 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...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>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
