Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/12/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]If you say Mush once more, your Govt will send you to Pakistan....:-) Cheers Jayanand On Dec 15, 2007 11:58 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark@rabinergroup.com> wrote: > > The question should not be, "what are the dimensions of the sensor?" > Rather, > > it should be "what is the qualilty of the image?" > > > > Somehow there seems to be general amnesia about the literally decades of > > scoffing at the 'tiny,' 'toy' 35 mm negative. > > Now, in an era when there are 35 mm digital sensors matching higher > speed 2 > > 1/4 films, the only important question is whether a particular sensor > size can > > produce the image quality YOU - or your client - requires. > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > > > > Yes 35 seemed impossibly small in the days of the Speed Graphic 4x5 and > Rolleiflex square medium format. > But proved to be the format which could. > Against all odds. > Speed Graphic and Rolleiflex odds. > Brownie film and sheet film odds. > > But in those terms of film what I had in mind was what people a little > bit further down the road than that could get with the new Minox and half > frame camera formats. > If like most serious or pro photographers they had an 11x14 portfolio > those > shots stood out in the stack as being a step or two down. > Mush! I say Mush! > Hence perhaps the history of those formats. > If you were into snapshot output; which were smaller than 4x6's those days > I > forgot what they were: you'd not see or care. > But even 8x10s are a strain for Minox format. > A "blow up" from that format was a mighty 5x7". > So it could but a strain on your serious photography endeavour. > > They're selling a lot of inkjet paper nowadays. > First thing you see when you walk into Calumet or Adorama or K&M and lots > of other cameras stores. Stacked up to the ceiling. > Mostly letter sized sheets. > How well do prints look like from those point and shoots with a sensor > smaller than the size of your pinky fingernail? > They make GREAT Uploads to web galleries or websites! > But your short stack of prints had better be pocket sized. > > When these cameras are marketed they don't come with a normal lens. > Its always some outlandish zoom. > If there was cute little normal 7 millimeter lens on the camera it might > make one or two people who used to work in the darkroom pause before the > bought the thing. They are realizing just how small a format they are > getting themselves into. > > All they look it is the megapixels. Which is funnily called "resolution". > > Which is like saying "This Minox can make 16x20 prints!" > Does not say what they look like. > -its like a comparison between shooting regular TRI X WITH your Rolleiflex > and Pan F ISO 50 with your half frame or Minox then matching up your > 16x20 > prints side to side. > And there IS NO comparison. > > The results from the tiny neg even with information packed tightly > together > with slow high rez film does not even come close to what you get from the > breathing room of the 2.25 cubed inch large neg on regular 400 rez film. > > But they BOTH MAKE 16x20 prints. So you could say they had the same > resolution. > > Cramming your pixies together tightly on a small service does not true > high > rez output make just like with film. > The pixels on MY head of a pin need to BREATH! > > I'm a wishing and a wanting 24x36 format digital in my stocking this year. > Trouble is I have a radiator instead of a fireplace! > > I wonder if there are any people who spent 5 grand on an m8 but which > they'd > spent it on a D3. I have no idea how I'd feel about it. > > Mark William Rabiner > markrabiner.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >