Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]You have hit the nail on the head. People want more because it is possible not because they need it. People use computers which shame everything available when man went to the moon as a typewriter. Very few photographers need more pixels - but they think they do. I have great 3.3 megapixel images at A4. Frank On Wednesday, February 11, 2004, at 04:05 am, Ted Grant wrote: > B. D. Colen said: > Subject: RE: Re: [Leica] Re: Digital M > > >> I'd certainly be happy with a good 5 mgp sensor - I'd like larger, >> but 5 >> can do just fine.<<<<<< > > Hi B.D., > I know I'm a total klutz when it comes to digital techie stuff like mgp > sizes. However, much to my surprise it appears a number of folks say 5 > mgp > isn't very big and you can't make good big prints larger than 5X7 or > at best > 8X10. > > So if that's the case, how is it when I look at an 11X16 print of an > Epson > 2200 in colour, I can see the pores in the skin of the subject? I mean > really see the pores easy enough to count and each hair in the subjects > moustache? Or in a landscape almost each blade of grass stands out > individually? > > I know there's my klutz factor here some place, but is bigger mgp's > better? > We're shooting with a Canon G5 and some prints made 13X19 appear > better than > anything shot with a Leica M7 and an aspherical lens. And that's > absolutely > not an exaggeration. > > So what am I missing in why everything should be bigger and more? Or > is this > just the typical call of society these days that bigger is always > better, > but in truth has no real relevance to the end product quality? > Certainly up > to say 16X19 prints. > > ted > > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html