gdanmitchell wrote: Evan Baines wrote:
For what its worth:
-Just because a quality cannot be quantified, doesn\'t mean that it doesn\'t exist.
And just because it can be proven that a \"difference\" exists, it does not necessarily follow that a) the difference is significant or b) that one choice is the \"best\" one.
Dan
Indeed. You may note in my profile that for various reasons, I currently own a 5D2, despite the fact that I consider it to be one of the cameras producing more conspicuously \"digital\" looking files. How significant the difference may or may not be depends on the application and usage, as I said in my original post. I don\'t consider the difference to be meaningless, but nor do I consider it to overwhelm the other various other concerns that factor into the purchase and utilization of a camera for my business.
RDkirk: I think that calling digital \"film-like\" is misleading in many cases. I would say that I prefer \"less-conspicuously the result of digital processes.\" Personally, I\'ve reached the conclusion that the best way to achieve film-like results is... shooting film.
Jun 15, 2010 at 06:49 PM
Previous versions of Evan Baines's message #8572786 « 5D2 looks "digital" compare to 5D? »
