Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/21

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled
From: feli2 at earthlink.net (Feli di Giorgio)
Date: Sun Nov 21 19:53:41 2004
References: <BDC68D10.AC9E%mark@rabinergroup.com> <341A7A4E-3C2F-11D9-AE5E-00306599C552@earthlink.net> <20041122025039.5953.qmail@balhpl01.ncable.net.au>

On Nov 21, 2004, at 6:50 PM, firkin wrote:
> The immediate question is what do you do that requires 10 to 12. I 
> mean this seriously, not as a jibe or insult.

I would like a few extra pixels in case I have to crop. There's not 
much room for error with a 6MP camera.

>  My mind tell me that 10 to 12 seems about right, because I suspect 
> (never tried and therefore don't know) that you could print 16 x 20 at 
> about this level with 35mm happiness. Barry Thornton claimed that only 
> really "lucky" good 35mm negs could produce "perfect" images larger 
> than about 10 x 14 (I think) I remember thinking "I've got larger 
> ones" but then thinking but they are not all "perfect", so he may be 
> right.

I agree. I tried to enlarge 35 negs to 16x20. It can be done, but I 
think it depends on the subject matter and the
technical quality of the the neg. For anything above a 11x14 I grab the 
Rolleiflex. ;-)

> Like many, I suspect I've been too worried about making big 
> enlargements, when smaller well crafted images would be "better" and 
> store much more easily !!!!!

Some shots simply look better small...


> This brings me back to my nagging question; will todays good film 
> scanners "match" a 10 mega pixel dedicated digital camera when you 
> view moderately large images side by side?

I used a 1ds (11MP) back at my old job and compared some shots with 
scans I made with my Nikon SC 5000 ED (4000dpi) against it. Modern 
Leica glass with fine grain film is right up there or better. But it 
gets tougher to match as the asa goes up.
I have a gut feeling the new 16MP 1ds II would be a lot tougher to 
compete against. On the other hand film negative has way more exposure 
range, digital is like shooting slide film. Besides compared to a 
Leica, the 1Ds feels like a Speed Graphics, Ever tried sticking one of 
those in your pants pocket? ;-)

But I don't shoot 35 film, because of ultimate resolution. It has 
enough for what I do. If I was a res nut
I would be running around with Hobo 8x10. ;-)

feli

_______________________________________________________
feli2@earthlink.net                    2 + 2 = 4                     
www.elanphotos.com


Feli




Replies: Reply from firkin at balhpl01.ncable.net.au (firkin) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from feli2 at earthlink.net (Feli di Giorgio) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from firkin at balhpl01.ncable.net.au (firkin) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)