hookonclassic
Member
Wow...just great.
Thank you Akarin and Downstairs for sharing your interesting research.
Thank you Akarin and Downstairs for sharing your interesting research.
downstairs
downstairs
Beyond the comfort of handling a full-frame M, there is no strong reason to ditch the M8 from what I can see in these shots.
The set is still up and I'll do a scanned M6 and a M9 stitch (about 6 frames) with the 90 Macro.
Maybe the stitch will better the Hasselblad so then I can ditch it and pay back what I owe for the M9.
The scan will be sad but nobody reading the LF digital section will care.
The set is still up and I'll do a scanned M6 and a M9 stitch (about 6 frames) with the 90 Macro.
Maybe the stitch will better the Hasselblad so then I can ditch it and pay back what I owe for the M9.
The scan will be sad but nobody reading the LF digital section will care.
_mark__
Well-known
Viewed on a Reference 21, Downstair's M8, M9 they are almost indistinguishable in quality apart from sharpness.
downstairs
downstairs
Just added to above a 3-shot stitch done with the 90mm macro elmar from the same position as the 50mm. Seems like you can save the extra twenty thousand dollars you would pay for a Hasselblad.
The sensor size of the stitch works out at about 36x54 - like the HB sensor.
There's also a 3-shot tonemapped 50mm which of course looks more interesting.
My regular stuff is here.
The sensor size of the stitch works out at about 36x54 - like the HB sensor.
There's also a 3-shot tonemapped 50mm which of course looks more interesting.
My regular stuff is here.
Last edited: