Derek,
It's my personal opinion that a lot of Reichmann's reviews and "tests" are very biased and scientifically flawed. Do you realize the guy worked as a salesman in photo industry?
http://luminous-landscape.com/about/michael1.shtml
Quote:
"In the mid-70's he shifted to the business side of photography and worked for several major Canadian equipment distributors. He was a product and sales manager for several brands of professional photographic and video products. During that time he also taught view-camera technique at community colleges in the Toronto area."
"In the early 1980's Reichmann left behind an active role in professional photography and worked as a senior executive and entrepreneur in the computer software and telecommunication industries."
Also, I commented on a similar issue earlier, but to make it short and easy, the whole idea of comparing quality of digital vs. quality of film by SCANNING film is totally flawed! You want to judge the real resolution of film? Take microscope. Not a scanner. Not even a $10,000 "drum" desktop scanner (no, Imacon is not a drum scanner. Their marketing reps can get blue in their face, but it won't make their scanner a DRUM scanner). Technically, not even any scanner is a right way to judge true resolving power of film.
Besides, I really love this part:
"The most obvious difference (other than the overall colour balance — which we ignored), is that the 1Ds print shows more detail. In other words it has higher resolution"
Yeah, right, colour is not important. Not at all. Who cares if the skin of your bride shows green? The important part is - there is more detail as evident by the flawed comparison!
))
And then the resolution again! How about microscope, for crying out loud?
Another problem is "test" itself. He is shooting modern buildings! Lots of straight lines, perfect target for camera's firmware to work on improving the lines - good job Canon, your anti-aliasing algorithm works!
Besides, how can you judge the quality of image by looking at it on your monitor?
So, you must take his word on its face value, right? WOuld you do that when buying a used car?
Or suppose you did have a chance to look at the actual inkjet prints. Then, oops, INKJET prints! Not even traditional print vs. inkjet print!
Another few lovely snippets:
"So I contacted one of the best drum scanning experts in the U.S.A. and had him produce the highest quality drum scan possible. This one frame scan alone costs $300."
"The scan was done by a high-end scanning lab on an optically modified Isomet 405HR at RES 210"
Who is that mysterious anonymous expert? And what's this "optically modified" super-duper Isomet scanner that is not even available and purportedly *could* go up to 12500dpi, while being actually used at 5334PPI
( Check this one out -
http://www.flatbed-scanner-review.org/drum_scanner_reviews/drum_scanner_reviews_links.html )
Besides, as a side comment. You want a truly good drum or hi-res flatbed scan? Heidelberg, Fuji and Scitex are your ONLY good options.
Last one, typical sales pitch:
"Goodbye film. Goodbye medium format."
Goodbye Luminous-Landscape
Mike.