I do find it very difficult to reply to somebody without using a name so.
SqueamishOssifrage
Thanks for the trouble you have taken with your reply. So it woud seem that in terms of resolution you are saying that an Epson R1800 is more capable than a D2xs. Now we would be led to believe that the D3 is on another planet to the D2xs so maybe the gap has narrowed, maybe the camera now is better, I just wonder. And would it be fair to expect a Sigma 30mm F1.4 a rather eosoteric lens to have the equal or higher resolution to your Zeiss 50mm F1.4.? It could be that you were testing lenses rather than cameras/printers.
The only thing is I have just printed a D3 file from the Nikon site to A3 and WOW to all intents and purpose this ain't a substitute for 35MM it's M/F at it's best.
If only the D3 wasn't such a clumsy lump.......Oh dear. But I am sure the D300 ain't that far behind although at present I can't find a decent sample to download....American football piccies BAH.
Note to AP.
Would a head to head article, Nikon F6 with 105mm macro or something similar against D3 with ditto, both printed on an Epson ( or whatever is considered best) printer to A3 ? And for the purpose of the test both film and digital set at 200-400 ISO. Because over that I'm sure the film fans would shout foul.
To my mind that would show the average guy what he would get from FF and £2000 over the D300 if any. Obviously only in terms of image quality
You don't know if they did I might even buy a copy.
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Re: In the good old days
Edit
Reply
Quote
