Re: Nikon D200 (for alt)

> Christina Z. Anderson wrote on 2/6/06, 9:57 AM:
>
>> I almost balked
>> at buying digital after seeing the comparison of 4x5 film and digital.

Now let's see if I got Ken Rockwell's comparison straight:

*He shoots a 4 X 5 with a Schneider prime lens.

*He shoots the D200 with an 11X zoom lens (18-200 Nikkor).

Wouldn't you think that using a similar FOV (field of view) prime lens
on the D200 would have made more sense?

Then Ken says the following: > Because the D200 has less resolution
than the film scan I uprezed the D200 file by 3x to match the scan.

I used PhotoShop CS2's BICUBIC SHARPER function for the best conversion.

Either Ken doesn't know how the various interpolation schemes in
Photoshop work or he typed the wrong words. When upsampling, you use
"Bicubic Smoother" for best results. Bicubic Sharper (what Ken says he
used) is designed for downsampling for web and such. And let's not even
get into other upsampling methods that can be even better.

On another page Ken declares: > Film also has much better highlights.
They don't blow out as digital cameras do.

Now Ken is talking about shooting landscapes, right? That is, subjects
that don't move. With a digital camera on a tripod he can easily bracket
exposures (the D200 will do a NINE STOP bracket with one shutter press)
and combine them in CS2 to achieve more dynamic range than any film can
hold.

Don't get me wrong, one should not be surprised that a well-scanned 4x5
chrome or neg. has more "resolution" than a 10 MB digital capture. But
for Ken to suggest his total expense for his 4x5 system is just $2000 is
a bit misleading at best. Heck, if he's going to fudge his results by
using an 11X zoom on the D200, the least he could do when comparing
system expenses is to quote a 4x5 system that encompasses lenses that
cover that same 11X-wide-to-tele range. Sheesh! And let's not even talk
about how it's costing Ken $2.50 every time he exposes a sheet of Velvia
(not counting processing). Once you have a digital system, you can shoot
with abandon for pennies. Oh, I nearly forgot, if you read Ken's "4x5
system" specs, he's allowing for TWO film holders. Now THERE'S a system
ready to tackle a week of shooting. What does Ken do when he want's to
take that rare 5th shot?

If you want to see a more viable comparison by Charles Cramer, check the
following:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

Cramer does a much more responsible job of analyzing the differences and
expenses. In other words, it's more of an apples-to-apples comparison
than Ken's piece.

Hope this helps. (And yes, I've had more than one cup of coffee.)

Dan

-- 
www.DanBurkholder.com
www.TinyTutorials.com