> But it is more like cropping out of the center AND > using a film that doubles or quadruples the resolving power of the film at > the same time. That remains debatable. For fine detail it seems false. Actually, offsetting it is the real limiting factor for most (hand holding) photographers: camera shake. Even with IS the image is not as stable as a sturdy tripod. Camera shake in hand held shots is generally more limiting than lens or "film" quality. > 2. Psychologically, when you use a camera -- any camera -- you look through > the viewfinder and you compose based on what you see. So while shooting you > really are not thinking in terms of a crop. If you look through the > viewfinder and see nothing but the eye of the raven at 700 meters, then > that's the picture you are going to wind up with. Sure, a bigger sensor > would show the entire head, but that's not the format you are using. I guess I must be odd in that sense. I always use gridded focusing screens. I'm used to "seeing" other formats - indeed I use the grid to compose them. Sometimes square: sometimes panorama. Hassleblad photos were not always printed square ;o) > 3. The way we look at it in practical terms is just using a different format > film. Do you consider a 240mm lens used on a 35mm camera to be "just" a crop > of the image produced by a 240mm lens used on an 8x10 camera? I doubt that > you think that way, but It is the same argument Well, yes actually. If I could afford a 600mm lens for a hassie I'd buy one. Bob
