Ken Rockwell - D200 vs Film

[d2creative]

Anyone else see this? I've only skimmed it so far but it seems like an interesting read.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200/d200-vs-4x5.htm

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by d2creative

Anyone else see this? I've only skimmed it so far but it seems like an interesting read.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200/d200-vs-4x5.htm

This just reinforces my veiw that Kent Rockwell has no credibility on matters photographic.

I'll stick with Michael Reichmann and company at Luminous Landscape for matters such as this.

[d2creative]

ROFL!

Ya, i didn't want to give it away.
He makes some good points, but for the most part I found it damn funny. Purely entertainment value.

[petert]

Originally Posted by d2creative

Ya, i didn't want to give it away.
He makes some good points, but for the most part I found it damn funny. Purely entertainment value.

...no fair! Now I'm way too curious to just let this slide by...

[WLPelzmann]

I love his 4"x5" examples.

Thanks for the laugh!

[jeffkohn]

Well if you get past his rhetoric he basically states that the latest DSLR's have surpassed 35mm film but still can't compare with large-format. Unlike much of what he says, I actually agree with that. (And I have to admit the "real world" 4x5" samples were pretty funny).

[Nevyn]

What a heap.
I read that again and I'm still not sure what he was trying to say, other than "listen to me"

You ever wonder what someone starting into this as a hobby would end up thinking if they took all his articles to heart?

[WLPelzmann]

Nevyn,

His point is "I prefer the great results from the D200 over blank (4x5) film not shot".
i.e. who cares about image quality superiority, if you don't take any pictures.

The same can be applied to DSLR vs P&S.

[Nevyn]

Originally Posted by WLPelzmann

Nevyn,

His point is "I prefer the great results from the D200 over blank (4x5) film not shot".
i.e. who cares about image quality superiority, if you don't take any pictures.

The same can be applied to DSLR vs P&S.

Hey Bill, that's kinda what I got from it.
My thought on that would be "No sh*t Ken, what gave you that brainstorm?"
If he wants to take that route, he should grab a $60 point and shoot and go hog wild.

Can you guess I'm not a fan of his?!

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

Well if you get past his rhetoric he basically states that the latest DSLR's have surpassed 35mm film but still can't compare with large-format. Unlike much of what he says, I actually agree with that. (And I have to admit the "real world" 4x5" samples were pretty funny).

Sure if you look at small sensors. But I think and this article supports it that digital backs now equal or surpass 4x5 film.

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

and even the 35mm is pretty damn close.

http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml

[jeffkohn]

True but the Phase One is beyond the realm of possibility for most of us, and wasn't the focus of Rockwell's article. As for the 1DsMkII versus 4x5, looking at the crops in that article it doesn't really look all that close to me as far as resolution goes. Of course there are a lot of other advantages to the DSLR compared to large format, which I think is the point of that second article (eg, even though the quality is not as good as 4x5, it's good enough that the other advantages make it the more compelling choice for most of us).