Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Grant" <tedgrant@shaw.ca> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 5:05 AM Subject: Re: Re: [Leica] Re: Digital M > 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 > Hello, Finally had the first round of head to head with my Canon friend shooting the hairs on a rats tail at 100 feet with his D1 camera with image stabilised 70-200? zoom and my M3 with 90 mm summicron. We,ll also rerun the series with his 180 f 2.0 against a 135 mm tele elmar. It might give better results for him. I,m sure that the claims made here http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html are wrong for ISO 800. Don,t get my wrong i,m not a film fanatic. Pitted against a running around 2.5 year old his stuff is vastly superior. Those sonic focusing lenses move so fast you think they don,t even work,exposure is spot on all the time and all this at 7.something frames per second 20 raw files in less then 3 seconds. Wow Ofcourse the whole lot put in folders thumbnailed and silk wrapped on the laptop pht shopped(not really necessary) and sent around the globe at 2gbps wireless)within 5 minutes . Especially nice i found his 1 gig hard drive he just transfers to the laptop no cable hassels and very fast. But 5 megapixels is not enough to compare against our stuff. Not taken into account with these tests is the inability of a 4000 dpi scanner to extract all the info from our slide films. What suprised me is the resolution of underexposed slide film. His exposure at ISO 800 was 1/60 and f5.6 and I used the same. Got the two M,s mixed up so took a few with the slide film i.s.o. the black and white 800. While it had a funny colour it had the highest resolution.The shot with 1/8 th and 5.6 showed a little motion blurr but still outperformed the black and white at 800(stabilised with a gyro) I,ll post the results when i receive his CD,s. best regards simon jessurun - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html