I am distraction limited.
I am distraction limited.
Well, you're certainly wasting time...Originally Posted by Policar
BTW, "pro" cameras like the 5D Mark II are limited to around the same lp/mm as color film, so your argument has some obvious flaws. Unless you're really serious about comparing your 10 MP point and shoot to 4x5.
When I see a 4x5 digital sensor, then I'll switch.
But to compare a tiny sensor less that 1 sq inch to film area of 20 sq in or 35 sq in or 80 sq inches makes no sense.
The lenses can not make up for the greatly required enlargement when outputting to a print of any appreciable size/
I suspect your correct when comparing film to sensor in a 1 to 1 comparison, but that is unrealistic when outputting to a permanent medium i.e. paper.
I have and use digital so I'm very familiar with the issues. There is no way a greatly enlarged sensor capture can even come close to a loafing large piece of film properly scanned into the digital realm..
Not even close.
And tilt/shift lenses have movement solely on the front end and are typically limited to one axis. Not the same as a view camera (useful, but not the equivalent).
bob
If you are going for the highest cost for the lowest resolution, as you appear to be, maybe you should get an iPhone.
Color film and black & white film store images on the molecular level which is much smaller than any pixel will be for a long time. Newer is not always better.
Please do some more research before posting the pseudo triumphs of digital over film.There is a reason for last line of my signature.
Steve
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
"I've read repeatedly that in real world situations no one ever gets above 25lp/mm, except maybe in the very center, at any stop in 4x5."
Sounds like horseshit to me. But then, misinformation oft gets repeated, sometimes seemingly endlessly, on the web.
If I wasn't doubling that 25lp/mm resolution with every one of my lenses, I'd long ago have thrown in the towel, myself. (Certain lenses like my Nikon SW 90mm, handily triple that figure. Real-world. Though not at f/64. And neither does your Canon, at f/22, incidentally).
And yes, some of us did come late to LF expressly due for the greater resolving power. My interest in it sure wasn't due to ergonomics, speed, or convenience.
Haha, exactly.
When digital can give me the tonality and sharpness of the attached image (second image is a detail), my interest will be piqued. Until then, it's a joke. Digital is fine for small prints and family snapshots, but you're not going to get a 40x50" print out of it.
The think the 25 lp/mm argument is based on what paper can resolve.
At f64 yes pretty much (the old 1800/f stop routine). At larger apertures look at http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html.
Of course the other trick is not just to stop down to f64, but to use movements and a larger stop to get the best of both worlds. See http://www.largeformatphotography.info/fstop.html for examples. As discussed there John Sexton in one book used f64 ~5% of the time and f32 50% of the time. So in most of his pictures he was kicking in a 40-60 lpm resolution bracket.
And of course as previously been stated lpm is only one facet of many choices in making an image.
"In the field of observation chance favours the prepared mind" -- Pasteur
25 lp/mm is pretty good if you have enough mm.
Of course, I shoot at f/9-11, so I get a lot more than that.
I have a feeling that if I try to make a carbon print by contact printing a digital camera sensor, I won't get much of an image! LOL!
I enjoy using camera negative to make pt/pd prints and carbon prints. Problems of diffraction at f64 or f90 do not worry me. Never give it a second thought.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks