So here I was, on my way back from Las Vegas, and I came across a run-down old building that has a certain "character". I pulled over and took a few pictures with my A99 II and Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8, then started to head back to the car. Then I hesitated.
"These conditions are pretty good. Strong light, so I can shoot at a low ISO with a small f/stop. I wonder how the RX-100 V compares in these ideal conditions?". I went back to the car and tried to duplicate the shots I just took using a small-sensor point-and-shoot. Then I drove home.
The subject matter and the lighting were so good that I suspected enlargements from the two cameras would be indistinguishable. (Click on any image to see a larger version.)
(Okay, that's a misleading headline, since you also need a camera and a
macro lens as well. But it works and the results are great!)
This method works
much better than the dedicated film scanners that were once available: Using a
24 megapixel camera, you get a larger file size: 6000 x 4000 pixels versus 3779
x 2522 of the Nikon Coolscan LS-2000 (which continues to gather dust under my
desk). If you use an even higher megapixel camera, you can easily see just how unsharp your old film lenses were.