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: film and scanning vs digital photography

From: "R. Jackson" <jackson.robert.r@comcast.net>

> Again, if you are using a 10MP 4/3 camera, then the comparison is
> with the 70-200/4.0 (IS).

I know you like that f/4 comparison, but like you said earlier, with
the A/D converters as they are you aren't seeing a dynamic range
advantage at low ISO, so the comparison doesn't hold.

It holds because under ISO 400 on the 5D is irrelevant; you don't have under
ISO 100 on the 4/3 cameras. The 5D doesn't deliver a dynamic range advantage
(at low ISOs), just a two stop sensitivity advantage across comparable ISOs.

> At the end of the day, one shoots a camera that meets one's needs.
> If the
> 4/3 meets your needs, there's no reason to move to a larger format
> (just don't try to tell me that it's better; it ain't).

It's better at some things, certainly. If, for example, you're doing
forensic work you have additional DOF and since you can use lower
stops you extend the range of your strobes.

Again, no. It all scales; ISO 400 is the same noise performance as ISO 100.
So ISO 400 at f/4.0 is exactly the same photographically as ISO 100 at

> Just as 645 meets my needs
> but not the needs of someone making larger landscape prints.

I prefer my 6x7. ;-)

I like my Mamiya 7, too. But it doesn't replace an SLR, and you have to need
to print larger than A3 to need 6x7.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

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


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.