Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/08/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Not in terms of resolution. At normal viewing distances for an 8x10, even 40 lp/mm is difficult to distinguish visually. GD: You're entitled to your opinion. I'll rest my opinion on years of viewing. > If this were the case, you can imagine that > a lot more magazine covers, to say nothing of > fine art prints, etc., etc., etc., would be shot > with the far greater convenience of 35mm. Most of them already are, when they are not being shot digitally. GD: ah, wrong. Many, many of my friends and acquaintances in the industry shoot for some of the leading mags. Covers -- especially product/people covers -- are almost uniformly medium or even large format. Quite a few are using digital, but pretty much in those formats. MF certainly provides potentially greater image quality than 35mm, but that does not mean that the difference can actually be seen under most viewing conditions. GD: You're entitled to your opinion. I rest rather comfortably in experience and don't see a reason to belabor this. Perhaps, after a few years in the industry, you'll reconsider your opinion. If the difference were so consistently obvious and large, 35mm would not be the leading format today.