At 10:01 PM 3/1/2017 +0200, you wrote:
I have been following the digital debate for some time now, but some of the
things I don't understand are :
1] A DSLR needs a lens of a higher resolution capability than a film lens?
Yes/No
Either would benefit from a lens of higher resolution but once you are
beyond the resolving power of the recording medium there's no real benefit
to a higher resolution lens. (Ok that's simplified but...)
2] All else being equal a 11-14MP DSLR image equals or betters a 35mm scan
in some instances? Yes/No
It would depend on the scanner's resolution and what you are looking for
in quality but, in my opinion no. Some 35mm films have twice the resolving
power of a 14mp digital camera.
3] If you used a full frame lens designed for a DSLR than all else being
equal the digital image would better the 35mm scan in most instances? Yes/No
That would be a matter of taste. If you equate image quality with resolution
however the answer is no.
4] What would, assuming the above are all true , be then the result of using
a high resolution lens on a SLR eg a MZS with ISO 100 B & W film, would the
lens resolve too detail much for the film?
That has nothing to do with the previous 3 questions. The lens could
resolve more detail than you could record on the film.
Not trying to start an argument BTW.....
Regards,
Feroze
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
