gyoung143 Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
We certainly got used to poor repro in books, but I have been scanning 35mm slides for a long time, and even done at home with such as Nikon Coolscan V the results from Kodachrome and Fuji Provia are very close to what I can get from an A7, it takes A3 prints or more to see a difference, although 100% pixel peeping on screen will show more detail in the shots from even my nex 6 and D7000, which is why I finally gave up using film for 'normal' stuff and embraced the other advantages of digital.
There's still something really nice about using a completely mechanical camera though, so I am keeping at least the M3 and FM2 for play time!
Gerry
philip_pj wrote:
People have such different sensitivities these days. Many from the old days are far more tolerant when the final image quality is weighed against the rather small adjustments we need to make.
The places I go, it seems almost churlish to complain about the a7r; It is a pleasure to use - for me. Whatever takes the image, I am into that, and if the a7r is problematic, you are extremely lucky to be shooting FE now, not say medium format in 1980-90.
This is why so few travel guys used MF to get high quality with film; they were forced to make do with 35mm and even say, Galen Rowell's work is far the poorer for it, which is sad, given what he did. The a7rII is of course the best of its kind, but the 95% as good overall IQ of the a7r - used in its envelope - still leaves almost everything ever made in its dust, more so when you include its real advantages of size/weight/flexibility. No rush here.
...Show more →
|