You must have really lousey prints from that 6x7. Everybody on this list nit-piks about lens qualitity. I have come to the conclusion from this thread. That they are all a bunch of bullshiters. They certainly can not tell the difference.
Who else besides me on the list compared a first generation print of both? If you have not you are full of it. You are letting someone bullshit you, and trying to bullshit everyone else on the list. And I am one of the people who if he had the money would buy a high end DSLR in a heartbeat. Not for its image quality, but for its money making potential. Geeze! Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 2:40 AM Subject: RE: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67 > Based on the JPEG ( not even a tiff ) from kodaks > 14Mpixel SLR, it CERTAINLY beats even the best > 35mm film image, and to my eye, equals or even exceeds > my best P67 images. > > Even if it just equals P67, that gives the 35mm DSLR > a huge enuff advantage to be the winner. Why? > Think about the variety, size, cost & speed of 35mm lenses. > > There are no medium format F1.4 lenses, 28-85 > zoom equivilents, 17mm equivilents, 1000mm equivilents, > etc. etc. etc. The size and weight of medium format > lenses is a BIG (no pun) liability, let alone their > cost. Once 35mm DSLRs equal medium format in quality, > the WAR is over....And I think that time may have already > arrived. > > JCO > > >
