Just 10Mp??? What was Leica thinking?

JohanV said:
Totally OT, I know, but do the people who love Leica have this nostalgic treat that makes us also go for classic cars?
I sold my Jag E type and MG TC last year, to buy, wait for it...
a brand new Morgan Roadster.
If I find the time, I'll open a thread about this somewhere else...
Click to expand...

Nope. I am perfectly happy with a modern, comfortable automatic with good fuel mileage. I drive a VW...
 
An interesting read I had just now. NaturFoto of Feb. 2002, a test of the Canon D30, a 3.2 MP camera of at least 4 generations back:
" The contrast latitude of the sensor is superior to slide film. The detail in the shadows is kept."
[about final prints for professional use] In sizes from A4 to A3 "a quality difference between analog and digital is scarcely, if at all, noticeable"
I might add that this magazine, back then, could be firmly placed in the digital-sceptic group.
 
jaapv said:
I might add that this magazine, back then, could be firmly placed in the digital-sceptic group.
Click to expand...
You know that saying.. an honest journalist sells only once, but for a good price :)
 
I have given up saying film wins on x digital wins on x, X megapixels at 11x14 makes a better print than xISO film...it really doesn't matter. The point is THEY LOOK DIFFERENT. And they look different from members of the same family too. By that I mean that digital from a 20D looks different from digital from a Fuji S3 and different from a PowerShot A620 and different from the DMR. At the same time, E100G in 35mm looks different than Velvia 4x5 and Lucky film looks different than Acros and so on. The key is not to get in a pissing contest about what is better, who can make a larger print and so on. It is about choosing the right medium for your intended use! If I want to make a 16x20 black and white fiber print, I am going to choose a film like Acros in 120 or 4x5. If I am going to be shooting wildlife I am going to choose a digital SLR. Obviously preference comes into it, but the most important thing to know is how to select the right tools for your job. The right tools for one person might be different for another.
 
Owning D200 I can asure you 10mpix is enough for almost all the apliactions and print sizes, but again digital is lifeless :)
 
StuartR said:
I have given up saying film wins on x digital wins on x, X megapixels at 11x14 makes a better print than xISO film...it really doesn't matter. The point is THEY LOOK DIFFERENT. And they look different from members of the same family too. By that I mean that digital from a 20D looks different from digital from a Fuji S3 and different from a PowerShot A620 and different from the DMR. At the same time, E100G in 35mm looks different than Velvia 4x5 and Lucky film looks different than Acros and so on. The key is not to get in a pissing contest about what is better, who can make a larger print and so on. It is about choosing the right medium for your intended use! If I want to make a 16x20 black and white fiber print, I am going to choose a film like Acros in 120 or 4x5. If I am going to be shooting wildlife I am going to choose a digital SLR. Obviously preference comes into it, but the most important thing to know is how to select the right tools for your job. The right tools for one person might be different for another.
Click to expand...

Well said!!!
 
varjag said:
That's actually interesting. A simple example illustrating Shannon theorem (also known as Nyquist as ampguy pointed out) would be to imagine what happens when we have a line 1 pixel wide, and the boundary for line pair falls in the middle of pixel: we lose it. Hence the detailwidth/2 sampling (or pixel size) criterion.




It's a nice camera, although it is older than my father by a decade :) Apparently it was used by press or wedding photographer, as serrated limbs are nearly polished down with fingers and aftermarket flash synch socket also seen some use. Picked it up fairly cheap, to replace a Kiev body that I wore out, amazing that it still works.
Click to expand...
One website that digs into this and tries to cover the film vs. digital issue is Norman Koren's at http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html
The Contax II was made 1936 to 1940. Mine saw the most use by a U.S. Army officer observing the Japanese invasion of China. I also had a Contax IIa made 1950 to 1961. When I got the Contax there was a competition between Leica and Contax users (we haven't changed:rolleyes: ) and Contax bragged about the vertical travel metal shutter, combined rangefinder-viewfiner, bayonet lens mount, higher shutter speed and lens focus on the body. Well, it looks like we are going to see Leica adopt all but the last with the M8....Contax died, but Leica carries on the tradition....:cool:
 
try a fuji

try a fuji

or an adapter for m42 lenses on your d200


Nachkebia said:
Owning D200 I can asure you 10mpix is enough for almost all the apliactions and print sizes, but again digital is lifeless :)
Click to expand...
 
Nachkebia said:
but again digital is lifeless :)
Click to expand...
Now, this deserves some discussion:) My experience is about four decades of making all the mistakes possible in a home-hobby dark room. Digital to me looks like some of my better mistakes:rolleyes: ....but not lifeless, since some of my mistakes have a life of their own...:D
Digital is different. The biggest difference to me is the rate at which detail falls off in the highlights. The noise shows up in the shadows and diminishes towards the high lights, the opposite of the way grain revealed itself. This alters the tactileness of images. Many people cure this by eliminating noise, when they should be adding it. I think too, that much of the lifelessness might be a result of inexperienced post processing, because people aren't aware of what brings life to an image. For some digital users, the only thing they have to go by is the image on their TV or monitor screen & magazines. They have never visited a gallery of fine art prints.
What do you think makes digital lifeless and is there any hope?
 
Bob Ross said:
...What do you think makes digital lifeless...?
Click to expand...
Nothing.
Ever tried the R-D1 with Leica lenses?
More life than Leica M with same lenses and Kodachrome 200.
Less grain though.
sifflet.gif
clin d'oeil_droit.gif

Best,
LCT
 
LCT said:
Nothing.
Ever tried the R-D1 with Leica lenses?
More life than Leica M with same lenses and Kodachrome 200.
Less grain though.
Best,
LCT
Click to expand...
No, but I use R lenses on my E-1.....:)
I don't think I ever shot a roll of Kodachrome 200.
Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top