Digital BW, The Print

The depth of field characteristics is a function of the focal length and 
aperture - independent of the film/sensor format. However, the coverage 
on the sensor angle is dependent of the film/sensor format. The smaller 
a sensor, the shorter the focal length to that will be a "normal lens" 
what ever you want normal to mean but it usually means the diagonal of 
the image area is equal to the focal length. One of the issues I have 
with the small sensor is it is very difficult to get any creative 
control on the depth of field unless you go so long relative to the 
sensor size it becomes unmanageable.

The 35 mm format is marginal when it comes to creative depth of field 
control. The medium format is much better and of course the view camera 
is the best with it's movements and long normal lens. So that's the 
reason that I am waiting for awhile before I consider digital for 
anything more than a P&S vacation camera. If I were a newspaper 
photographer I would probably think otherwise - but now there is a 
photographer down in Miami under a little bit heat with some  lawyers 
demanding to see his negative of the photo he took during the Kentucky 
Derby - a negative he can't produce because it was taken with a digital.

Truman



Seth Rossman wrote:

>Take a gander over to the D1 list.  WHY spend $4000 on a 300 2.8, when the
>80-200 now does the job?  Why spend $7000+ on a 400 2.8, when the 300 2.8
>works.
>
>If it's any clue, read the specs on the new 12-24G.  The COI is made for the
>current CCD. It will not work on film cameras --except as an artsy lens. 
>
>As one person over there also pointed out, it's not the size or shape of the
>CCD that is now as important, it's the quality and resolution they are
>concentrating on.  Canon is doing the same thing.
>
>Think of it as: 120 comes in this size, 35mm comes in this size, and digital
>comes in this size.  The D series - either Nikon or Canon, is NOT 35mm.
>They are working bodies adapted to digital.
>
>Seth
>
>  
>