Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]No, Ted. You are neither a klutz nor dreaming. 5 MP from a good camera, and the G5 is a good camera, is certainly good enough for a fine 11 x 14 inch print. And I have experienced the same superiority of digital over film - regardless of what the digital numbers people can "prove" in text - countless times with my 10D. Today I printed a 12 x 16 inch print of a statue of the Buddha I took last month at the Huntington (www.huntington.org). It is a technically flawless print in every way. Canon 9000 printer, if it matters. Film grain anti-aliases an image, and blurs detail in some cases. Go Leica - and get that digital M done! I too want to use my best glass. Will von Dauster On Feb 10, 2004, at 9:05 PM, Ted Grant wrote: > 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