I don't consider that he lied to me about the Nikon lens. He may have a
perfectly fine 85/2. I don't know. But we got lost here somewhere
since the real meat of the article is at the bottom where he is favoring
large sensors or, more correctly, large pixel pitch based on the
diffraction limits imposed on the sensor by too many pixels.
Chuck Norcutt
Winsor Crosby wrote:
> Read my other post. He lied to you about the Nikon lens. It is a poor
> lens and is 10 years older than the Canon lens. And his pictures do
> not really prove anything. I am not saying that there is not an
> advantage to a larger format, but neither his images nor his
> discussion is enlightening, as usual.
>
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California, USA
>
>
>
>
> On / April 19, 2008 CE, at 6:56 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>> But the point was exquisitely simple. The 5D with its large sensor
>> made
>> a significantly (not just a little) better image than the smaller
>> sensor
>> camera even when the smaller sensor camera had one of the best lenses
>> Nikon offers. That's all. I think the point was made. Calling him
>> whatever doesn't change the data.
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|