[LRflex] Re: The limits of digital... Is this a real limit?
- From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@xxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:17:40 -0700
Aram Langhans offered:
Subject: [LRflex] Re: The limits of digital... Is this a real limit?
> I guess that was my point. If you are looking for perfection, then ISO
> 1600 isn't the palce to get it, film or digital.<<<<
> > Aram<<<
Well gee whiz Aram I'd take a Canon digital 1600 frame for quality way over
any 1600 35mm film I've ever used. Colour or B&W.
The quality of the 20D at 1600 where the lighting requires that high an ASA,
is superb. Absolutely no comparison to film at similar rating. Actually it's
been said here on list more than several times that 1600 looks much like a
properly exposed and developed ASA 400 film!
I don't hesitate for one second to make 13X19 size prints including cropping
of image shot at 1600 and they are beautiful.
Heck, without hesitation I shoot at 3200 if required and make 13X19 size
from them that leave people saying "Gee whiz eh? Great shot and the print is
amazing!" Then I tell them it was shot at 3200! Then they near freak out at
the quality of the image and print! Trust me as I have pretty high standards
of acceptance for my prints.
And I imagine if the DMR goes to 3200 it probably does a smashing good job
itself and one would think far better than the 8.5 mgp of the 20D.
If it doesn't go to 1600 or 3200, what a hell of a waste of technology and
purchasing money! :-(
I put this in the aspect as a photojournalist over the years we shoot at
high ASA if and when the subject to be recorded requires it, so a digital
camera today if one is shooting as a photojournalist and you're using a
digi-cam that doesn't give excellent prints and image capture at 1600 then
what the hell is the point of buying a camera that doesn't?
If one is into rocks, ferns and peeling paint? "Heck one could almost get
away with it not going any hire than ASA 100!" ;-)
But shooting where quite often it's in "available darkness" and we don't
have a Noctilux on the digital camera, the camera had better reach 1600 with
acceptable image quality and produce it on paper.
If not, why waste ones money for a lesser piece of gear?
ted
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
