Nikon D100 vs 4x5 field camera side-by-side enlargement

http://www.widerange.org/resolution.html

On Jan 21, 7:28*pm, "." wrote:
http://www.widerange.org/resolution.html

I'm not sure I agree with the methodology of the 6 Mpix to 4x5 Velvia
comparison, but there are some very nice mountain pictures on the main
site.
http://www.widerange.org/

.. wrote:
http://www.widerange.org/resolution.html



So?

I'll give you a drag race with your 2-litre compact against my 7-litre
blown BMW. About as valid as your camera comparison, i.e. meaningless.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Jan 22, 10:28 am, "." wrote:
http://www.widerange.org/resolution.html

Why post a link without comment, Mr "." Are you shy? (O;

That's a 4"x5" camera being compared to 6Mp "DX" dslr, yes? That's a
120mm x 95mm capture area, compared to 24mm x 16mm...

I would have to ask... why?

The 6MP DSLR camera seems to "create" its own "details"?
I can see patterns I can't find in the 4x5 crop........?

It is interresting to see how it should have looked like......and how the
DSLR "manipulates" the real world :-)


"." skrev i en meddelelse
...
http://www.widerange.org/resolution.html

On Jan 22, 1:09 pm, "Max Perl" wrote:
The 6MP DSLR camera seems to "create" its own "details"?
I can see patterns I can't find in the 4x5 crop........?

It is interresting to see how it should have looked like......and how the
DSLR "manipulates" the real world :-)

"." skrev i en ...



http://www.widerange.org/resolution.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"For this resolution comparison, I enlarged the D100 shot to the same
width as the 4x5 shot, then cropped the same sized section from both.
"

To me, that means the "extra details" were added long after the camera
got done taking the picture and had more to do with Photoshop,
presumably, than the camera.
But would it really have been so much effort to at least take the
picture near the same time?
And at an F stop that wouldn't already be well in to the "diffraction
damage zone" for a cropped sensor DSLR?
There were a number of, at least in my mind, questionable photographic
decisions that did nothing to demonstrate the capabilities of Nikon
D100, yet were very "normal" for a 4x5 shooter.

"JimKramer" skrev i en meddelelse
...
On Jan 22, 1:09 pm, "Max Perl" wrote:
The 6MP DSLR camera seems to "create" its own "details"?
I can see patterns I can't find in the 4x5 crop........?

It is interresting to see how it should have looked like......and how the
DSLR "manipulates" the real world :-)

"." skrev i en
...



http://www.widerange.org/resolution.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"For this resolution comparison, I enlarged the D100 shot to the same
width as the 4x5 shot, then cropped the same sized section from both.
"

To me, that means the "extra details" were added long after the camera
got done taking the picture and had more to do with Photoshop,
presumably, than the camera.
But would it really have been so much effort to at least take the
picture near the same time?
And at an F stop that wouldn't already be well in to the "diffraction
damage zone" for a cropped sensor DSLR?
There were a number of, at least in my mind, questionable photographic
decisions that did nothing to demonstrate the capabilities of Nikon
D100, yet were very "normal" for a 4x5 shooter.

It is probably PhotoShop which did something........

But a brigwall test using a DSLR could be interresting and make a 100% crop
of
an area and then a full frame macro shot of the same area to see how the
DSLR
handles the details it can't handle......or how should I explain.......to
see if the DSLR
creates its own reality. It has probably been done many times........

On Jan 22, 2:32 pm, "Max Perl" wrote:
"JimKramer" skrev i en ...





On Jan 22, 1:09 pm, "Max Perl" wrote:
The 6MP DSLR camera seems to "create" its own "details"?
I can see patterns I can't find in the 4x5 crop........?

It is interresting to see how it should have looked like......and how the
DSLR "manipulates" the real world :-)

"." skrev i en
...

http://www.widerange.org/resolution.html-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"For this resolution comparison, I enlarged the D100 shot to the same
width as the 4x5 shot, then cropped the same sized section from both.
"

To me, that means the "extra details" were added long after the camera
got done taking the picture and had more to do with Photoshop,
presumably, than the camera.
But would it really have been so much effort to at least take the
picture near the same time?
And at an F stop that wouldn't already be well in to the "diffraction
damage zone" for a cropped sensor DSLR?
There were a number of, at least in my mind, questionable photographic
decisions that did nothing to demonstrate the capabilities of Nikon
D100, yet were very "normal" for a 4x5 shooter.

It is probably PhotoShop which did something........

But a brigwall test using a DSLR could be interresting and make a 100% crop
of
an area and then a full frame macro shot of the same area to see how the
DSLR
handles the details it can't handle......or how should I explain.......to
see if the DSLR
creates its own reality. It has probably been done many times........- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes it has, but film does the same thing when your details are past
its resolving power (or worse the lens' resolving power.) "New"
technology same "Old" problem. Want to resolve more detail? Go to a
larger image format. A simple expensive solution.

Now if I could get up the courage (and funds) to get an 8x10" camera
and a drum scanner to go with it. :-)

"JimKramer" skrev i en meddelelse
...
On Jan 22, 2:32 pm, "Max Perl" wrote:
"JimKramer" skrev i en
...





On Jan 22, 1:09 pm, "Max Perl" wrote:
The 6MP DSLR camera seems to "create" its own "details"?
I can see patterns I can't find in the 4x5 crop........?

It is interresting to see how it should have looked like......and how
the
DSLR "manipulates" the real world :-)

"." skrev i en
...

http://www.widerange.org/resolution.html-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"For this resolution comparison, I enlarged the D100 shot to the same
width as the 4x5 shot, then cropped the same sized section from both.
"

To me, that means the "extra details" were added long after the camera
got done taking the picture and had more to do with Photoshop,
presumably, than the camera.
But would it really have been so much effort to at least take the
picture near the same time?
And at an F stop that wouldn't already be well in to the "diffraction
damage zone" for a cropped sensor DSLR?
There were a number of, at least in my mind, questionable photographic
decisions that did nothing to demonstrate the capabilities of Nikon
D100, yet were very "normal" for a 4x5 shooter.

It is probably PhotoShop which did something........

But a brigwall test using a DSLR could be interresting and make a 100%
crop
of
an area and then a full frame macro shot of the same area to see how the
DSLR
handles the details it can't handle......or how should I explain.......to
see if the DSLR
creates its own reality. It has probably been done many times........-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes it has, but film does the same thing when your details are past
its resolving power (or worse the lens' resolving power.) "New"
technology same "Old" problem. Want to resolve more detail? Go to a
larger image format. A simple expensive solution.

Now if I could get up the courage (and funds) to get an 8x10" camera
and a drum scanner to go with it. :-)

Yes.....but it is quite heavy and it will be another kind of images you will
get
I assume.... :-)

With film the details seems to fade out a nicer way than with digital which
is more
ugly in my opinon.

Maybe it is because I have so many nice old analog cameras I want to
use......e.g.
Voigtländer Prominent, Koak Retina IIIc, Contax II, Kiev 4a etc :-)

On Jan 22, 3:24*pm, "Max Perl" wrote:
"JimKramer" skrev i en ...





On Jan 22, 2:32 pm, "Max Perl" wrote:
"JimKramer" skrev i en
...

On Jan 22, 1:09 pm, "Max Perl" wrote:
The 6MP DSLR camera seems to "create" its own "details"?
I can see patterns I can't find in the 4x5 crop........?

It is interresting to see how it should have looked like......and how
the
DSLR "manipulates" the real world :-)

"." skrev i en
...

http://www.widerange.org/resolution.html-Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"For this resolution comparison, I enlarged the D100 shot to the same
width as the 4x5 shot, then cropped the same sized section from both.
"

To me, that means the "extra details" were added long after the camera
got done taking the picture and had more to do with Photoshop,
presumably, than the camera.
But would it really have been so much effort to at least take the
picture near the same time?
And at an F stop that wouldn't already be well in to the "diffraction
damage zone" for a cropped sensor DSLR?
There were a number of, at least in my mind, questionable photographic
decisions that did nothing to demonstrate the capabilities of Nikon
D100, yet were very "normal" for a 4x5 shooter.

It is probably PhotoShop which did something........

But a brigwall test using a DSLR could be interresting and make a 100%
crop
of
an area and then a full frame macro shot of the same area to see how the
DSLR
handles the details it can't handle......or how should I explain.......to
see if the DSLR
creates its own reality. It has probably been done many times........-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes it has, but film does the same thing when your details are past
its resolving power (or worse the lens' resolving power.) *"New"
technology same "Old" problem. *Want to resolve more detail? Go to a
larger image format. A simple expensive solution.

Now if I could get up the courage (and funds) to get an 8x10" camera
and a drum scanner to go with it. :-)

Yes.....but it is quite heavy and it will be another kind of images you will
get
I assume.... :-)

With film the details seems to fade out a nicer way than with digital which
is more
ugly in my opinon.

Maybe it is because I have so many nice old analog cameras I want to
use......e.g.
Voigtländer Prominent, Koak Retina IIIc, Contax II, Kiev 4a etc :-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ugly on a computer screen or ugly on a print? :-)

I've seen plenty of ugly pictures either way, but the newer print
shops with the digital printers are set to print at the lowest
possible resolution for speed and turn out consistently worse stuff
then they did 15 years ago. A good scanner and printer will make you
look at your films a different way then optical printing will allow
and makes pretty digital prints much easier. I was less then happy
with anything I ever did in the darkroom, but the same films scanned
are truly lovely.

Just keep using the cameras; don't let them get too dusty. :-)