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

Based upon what you are shooting, you don't need "reach" you need a spy
satellite ;-)

It all comes down to how much you want to pay, how much weight yo want
to lug, and how long the lenses are you wish to carry.  Have you
considered a Telescope?


gary wrote:

>I'm a person that needs "reach", if you define reach as getting shots of
>distance objects. Now generally a person who needs reach is using a
>telephoto lens and possibly combined with a teleconverter. Such a setup
>doesn't put out a lot of light, so the bigger pixels are certainly an
>advantage. Also, I've been told that even if noise was not an issue, you
>can't simply keep reducing the pixel pitch due to difficulties in lens
>design. If anything, a 10um pitch would be optimal.

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.