Roger Hicks
Veteran
I refer to scintific tests as an engineer, not to marketing fairy tales. . . . Sorry, but that is complete nonsense.. . .
Dear Jan,
Yes, well, OK, believe what you like 'as an engineer', and feel free to dismiss the opinions of lens designers and film manufacturers, but I can't help feeling that your high horse is a little too high.
Note the careful qualifications in what I wrote, about ". . . honest enough (and rash enough) to make comparisons are of the opinion . . . roughly equivalent to 18-21 megapixels", and note what I said about film flatness (chiefly relevant with 120) and film location. Note also that I said in most cameras at that. No-one disputes that it is possible to get 200 lp/mm on the film -- but with most cameras, you'll need 'focus bracketing' (tweaking the focus to and from and choosing the sharpest image) to see it.
Unlike you, I am not claiming eternal verities, merely broad working assumptions, but honestly, you are the only person I have encountered who is quite so dismissive (and indeed, rather rudely dismissive) of the generalizations I reported. And as a matter of interest, why would film manufacturers have a stake in promoting what you dismiss as 'fairy tales'?
Cheers,
R.
Last edited: