lol, that's a nice shot! Makes mine look a bit feeble in comparison.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I tried for a shot with Andromeda but was unable to get one. Nice capture.A shot of Panstarrs from the UK, noisy and not the sharpest due to being shot at ISO 6400 on a 7D with no post processing, but the comet is plainly visible along with a fuzzy patch of light that is Andromeda up top!
It is hardly an advantage. You take an expensive UWA and convert it to something like 28mm with lower resolution everywhere but better borders. On FF, you can just use your garden variety zoom to do much better.
I enjoy telephoto compression in landscape as well. I would also like to try a T/S lens. I didn't realize the 17-40 Canon needed to be closed to f/11 to be sharp in the corners. That's too much like what I have had to do with crop lenses...so maybe I should forget about ever buying a 17-40. The Tokina 16-28 seems like it will be great, but it only goes to 28...
But then, it is good to know if there are major problems in tech land. My experience is that Canon aren't going to tell you (banged my head against wall with mass CCD failure, 7D CF failure) unless they really have a gun at their heads.
Pardon me, but I thought the topic was achieving sharp images. Is this the same as resolution?
No, of course, you can sharpen to death and get a sharp image from any original.
Was that the topic of the discussion?
QuoteSize doesn't matter anywhere near as much as most people think. This is not a question of sensor size, more a question of technique and light.
And what part of your quoted text is stating that a full frame 35mm sensor can capture as much detail as medium format?
The second sentence, in the context of the discussion.
Where was privatebydesign stating that a 35mm size full frame sensor could resolve more/as much detail as medium format?Size doesn't matter anywhere near as much as most people think. This is not a question of sensor size, more a question of technique and light.
So you upsampled it once, then you downsampled it by a factor that you cannot tell... and you presented this as a proof that the 1DsIII can resolve as much as MF?
BTW, I confused you with ragmanjin, sorry for that.