Digital BW, The Print

On 2/25/02 6:57 AM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:

> Digital imaging sensors, at this point in time, are the great equalizer.  A
> Leica or Canon or Zeiss lense will NOT give you a better image than a Sigma
> lense with a digital sensor.  Yes, some characteristics MAY be
> noticeable...but from my experience (and I've been using digital cameras for
> 10 years now), they aren't.
> 
> The digital sensors require far less lp/mm than film does, since digital
> sensors have much larger sensing elements than film does...and therefore,
> the extra resolution is actually a deficit.  Through the use of a low pass
> filter over the digital sensor, only so much lp/mm will actually get to the
> sensor, therefore rendering the higher lp/mm lenses, well, basically,
> useless.
> 
Except in very low light situations.  I had a job photographing a theater
production several weeks ago.  I shot the job without flash with the ambient
theater light.  If I used my fast nikon (50mm 1.4; 85mm 1.8; 20mm, 2.8; 35mm
2.0) lenses I was able to shoot at "400 ASA".  If I used a slower lens
(24-120mm, 3.8-5.6) I had to switch to 800ASA.  At 800ASA the D1x still does
pretty well...but not as well as it does at 400ASA.  The difference to my
eye is much the same as shifting from 400 to 800 speed film...increase in
grain (noise).  Fortunately the noise in the D1x (unlike the D1) is more
random and really reminds me of film grain.  But I agree...in the 400 and
under ASA range the faster lenses don't get better image quality...they just
allow more artistic freedom with respect to depth of field.

Robert

PS Austin...I realize that your first paragraph was talking about lens
quality, not aperture...I just figured I'd mention this because of your
second paragraph.