Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/10/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Indeed....a moment of truth! ;-) In terms of the Diana (or worse, the Holga) I think a viewer could distinguish the difference from a mile away. But, I've probably mentioned this many times before, I have a 50/1.4 plastic barreled el-cheapo lens for my Minolta AF camera which I purchased new about 15 years ago for $179 CDN from a local store. I consider this lens the equivalent of my 50 Summilux-M (pre-ASPH, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the new ASHP version which would cost me > $3000 CDN). In a very unscientific, meaningless image comparison challenge I once posted to the LUG, everyone flunked, in an obviously meaningful way. In all seriousness, if you have more original pixels, by all means use them, you will end up with a better enlargement. But if you don't, bicubic or pyramid or fractal away at them, and you will still get good results. Or dust off that old enlarger and make a real print and remove all doubt. -dan c. At 07:07 AM 25-10-04 -0700, Frank Filippone wrote: > >Dan's point about that the images look OK, I accept as truth, when the >images are viewed at a preferred viewing distance. But then I ask, why not >use a Diana to create the images? Why use a $2500 lens on a $3000 body? >The images look OK....... >