Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dan C asked: Subject: RE: [Leica] new 1ds mark II > Is 16.7 mp even required? My dealer showed me two well made prints on > 13x19 paper of the same subject shot by a 6mp Canon 10D and an 11 mp Canon > 1Ds. They were indistinguishable to me, and, I was told, to everyone else > who made the same comparison. And they both looked stunning, by the way. > So why 16.7mp? Is this just a marketing scam? When does it stop? <, Hi Dan, My question exactly everytime somebody get's the hots about "more.. bigger.. better!" Like you, "When the hell does this end?" When someone finally lets the cat out of the bag and it's been nothing but a big money grab by the outer space techie people in digital electronics? Because they know photographers are generally "Toy freaks who think bigger is better" so they've been sucking everyone dry from their money when the truth is, a 5mgp or 8 will produce a print that the human eye sees as magnificent! Put it on a test bench with huge magnifiers and all kinds of baddie stuff can be seen, so they tell us you must have the mega-size 16mgp 17, 20 but you must have big to have the best. However, under normal every day viewing of a print at the correct viewing distance, you wont be able to tell the difference because the human eye can't see as finely as the magnifiers on the test bench. So that's why we're told so often that a print made at 300 dpi is just the cat's whiskers fine for a very excellent looking print. And one at 600 or 1000 is a waste, as your eye, not to mention inks, can't see any difference. So maybe the truth is, a 5-8 mgp is just fine for 99.9% of us, so why are people knocking their brains out being sucked into the larger is better mgp myth when you can't see the difference? ted