Digital BW, The Print

> From: <claudej1@...>

>  
> I am even more surprised by the double standard in your comparison.  You are
> comparing old zooms to fixed focal lenghts. Even the new zooms woudn't  hold
> up to the Contax Planars. You can't compare zooms to fixed lenses and call  it
> fair.

Old to new - no. And I noted such.  As for primes vs zooms that's an old
debate.  Yes primes have an inherent image/design advantage but this has
been dramatically reduced over time.   In general though I agree I was
making a tough comparison.
>  
> Let's try a $1,600 L series 85mm f/1.2  at f/4 vs. the 120 Planar  at f/8
> which for the format differential would be about the same DOF. All Canon  has
> to 
> do is make a chip that would "use up" that extra resolution and MTF and  put
> the 50mm f/1.4 Canon (non-L) against the 80 Planar. Since the lens  formulas
> are similar in all cases the smaller image circles of the canons would  make
> them at least 25-50% sharper, all other things being equal in optical
> design.....all for 1/2 to 1/4 the price depending on which repsective lenses
> you  
> compare.
>  
> Also, the P25 doesn't use an Anti Aliasing filter, which give it a  sharpness
> advantage and a moire/color aliasing disadvantage.

Yes but their PS moire filter is extremely effective and need only be used
when necessary.

>I shot the original  Phase
> One lightphase against the Foveon in 1999, and the Foveon equaled the  Phase
> One sharpness (after USM), had better color, no moire and no aliasing. I  know
> the P-25 is one of the top dogs out there and in the right application, for
> the right client, it's the better choice.
>  
> My point was about 80% of the performance for 1/3 the system price with a
> whole lot more choices in glass than a few single focal lengths from a defunct
> camera company.
>  
> A few years back, I tested the full frame Contax N Digital camera with the
> superb 85mm f/1.4 Planar which is every bit the lens the the Canon L is. It
> was 
>  too few pixels, and 2 years too late to market. Nice try, but no cigar. If
> they  had gone to the 11 Megapixel Dalsa Chip they might still be here. Now
> they are a  memory unless some other Chinese
>  company picks them up, mostly for name, like Hasselblad.
>  
> Unless MF back and camera makers start thinking in terms of 40-50  Megapixels
> with those big chips, Canon will eat their lunch within a few years  because
> for some things, it's plain and simply "good enough."

I don't disagree with your general point here.  The MF backs have a long way
to go and Canon are certainly trying to nip at their heels.  The question
though is how much room is there on their respective leashes.  I would argue
that at 16-22 mp 35mm is running out of room on resolution (the glass is
already being thoroughly tested) and progress will focus back in on noise.
At 22mp, the MF boys are just getting going.  They are still using the sweet
spot of their existing glass and have an inherent workflow advantage when it
comes to managing noise.  Now is a great time for even the passionate
hobbyist to be taking up 35mm digital (although it's still not cheap).  In
645 digital you would need a very healthy cash flow business to ride the
pace of change we are likely to see in the next three years.  These are
tough times for the pro MF shooter.  Not only is business generally tough
but the instrumentation used is going through a substantial transformation
requiring significant capital expenditure.