A wonderful portrait of your nephew. Lucky uncle.
I did my own comparison almost a year ago. I used my OM4T and a
35-70/3.5-4.5 OM. Not the best but I did not want to take advantage
because I was shooting against my new Coolpix 5700 5MP with an 8 to 1
zoom which might be at an unfair disadvantage(I thought) compared to my
35-80/2.8 or 50/2. I scanned the slides at 4000dpi with a Polaroid film
scanner. The digital image was about half the size of the scanned
image, i.e., the 100% digital images details were about the same size
as the 50% scanned film image details. At every enlargement up to 100%
for the digital image and 50% for the scanned image the digital image
had truer color, better sharpness, more detail, better
transparency(that ineffable quality of a sky you sense you can see
through, that it is not painted.) and no grain. I was shocked because I
realized my CP was not a pro camera, just a little better digicam. And
the difference was not subtle. It was marked. I have to admit that
when resized up to 3 or 4 hundred percent the differences evened out
and they were both ugly, but in different ways. An amateur digital
image does not improve on a 35mm frame in a two by three foot image. I
don't print that large anyway. Sorry, no web site to show all this. And
this was for me. Maybe you could argue with my subjective opinion.
The image quality of my D100 is a big improvement on my
Coolpix.(Similar side by side on tripod down at the marina using an
inexpensive Nikon zoom of recent design.) I am convinced without
further testing that its images exceed what I could get with my very
best OM lens with a super fine grain, super sharp film that has not
even come out yet and probably will never come out as less and less is
sold. It may even do a decent 2x3 footer. I sold most of my Oly stuff
with a good deal of nostalgia for a wonderful film camera and an
ergonomic wonder. But photography has moved on, at least in my opinion,
and I don't want to be one of those old guys mired in the past because
he is too lazy to move ahead with the technology of his hobby.
Still have an OM-1 which is a beautiful little antique that is fun to
use occasionally with a 50/3.5 and a 35-70/3.6 and which may serve well
if I ever get a clock drive for my telescope. Could not get much out of
them anyway. Certainly not what they are worth in their sentimental
value.
Winsor
Long Beach, California
USA
On Jul 27, 2004, at 6:48 PM, Marc Lawrence wrote:
>> Walt [mailto:hiwayman@xxxxxxx] wrote:
>> I have also posted from the cropped scan a small section comprising
>> approximately 1/225th of the whole. (I think that would be
>> .025%, but I'm a math retard, so maybe not.)
>
> Okay, I've tried to do the equivalent for a Canon 10D image. (This
> is not meant to be reactive - but just to give a start to digital
> comparison to Walt's image example). I could do it with a c5050z
> image if anyone wants:
>
> This is my maths behind the webpage...
>
> A 10D picture is 3072x2048 pixels, or 6291456 pixels. 1/225th of
> that is approx 27962 pixels. To get a crop, I've been lazy at
> working out ratios and just gone for a square crop of 167x167
> which is 27889 pixels - close enough. (I tell you this, because
> of fears that I have the same level of retardation when it comes
> to maths as Walt claims. :) Please correct me as necessary)
>
> The webpage is here:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/montsnmags/crop/crop.htm
> (See below before loading. If there are any "over-quota" problems
> and you're desperate, I can email the images)
>
> Note, the first link in the above page is to the full size jpg
> out of the camera, and is about 2.5Mb - to initially avoid
> bumping my geocities quota over the limit you might want to avoid
> clicking that thumbnail for a few days if you want to look at it.
> For those on limited bandwidth, well, you're warned about that
> first picture. :-)
>
> The second link is to a resized, rotated and USM'd copy of the
> image, so you can see what the original is like (apart from USM -
> which I'll mention further on)
>
> The third link is to a 167x167 crop of the original image, no
> manipulation other than the rotate.
>
> The fourth link is to a USM'd (200/0.3/0) version of the above.
>
> The image is my nephew, Jake, taken at Australia Zoo, just in
> front of the croc' pens, though Steve wasn't there to feed any
> of his children to them that day. It was taken at the 300mm end
> of my "consumer" 100-300 EF lens (note, FWIW, this is not considered
> a very good quality lens in Canon's lineup - certainly not an "L")
> at 1/200, f8.0, ISO 800 (some fill from the in-camera flash).
>
> (I've included the USM version because the general consensus I've
> read on the 10D is that, depending on content, the images out of a
> 10D require *some* sharpening, as at default settings (or at RAW)
> there is little (to no?) sharpening done in camera.)
>
> I don't know if the above "comparison" has any relevance, but I
> was bored. :-)
>
> Cheers
> Marc
> Sydney, Oz
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|