[Leica] quality

[imagist at imagist.cnc.net (George Lottermoser)]

> Whether B. D. or anyone else sees the difference in technical quality
> or not is irrelevant.  What matters is whether the person buying and 
> using the camera sees the difference, and how much he/she values this
> quality vs. the other factors each equipment choice has to offer.

Doug, You've nailed this topic of "quality." It is far to relative to
make blanket statements pro or con without actually "looking" at results
(and certainly not at screen resolution). Below is a piece from another
list re: relative digital quality:
----------------------------
i've been hearing the comment a lot lately that the DSLR cameras are so
good, they're closing the gap on the "medium format" digital backs. i
also had a guy who needed to know if he could use the Canon (EOS1DsM2)
to repro paintings instead of coughing up for the 22mp Imacon or Leaf.

SO, i had to put this to rest by doing some comparisons.

the first thing i did was to shoot a painting and print it at full size.
it was 40" x 60", so i shot it and printed a 40" wide strip. i shot it
with the Canon, the H1 with the Imacon 22mp chip, and then the Imacon in
Micro-step (16-shot, effective 80mp) mode.

there's a BIG diffference. the Canon is ok, but doesn't have the
resolution, color accuracy or dynamic range to capture the nuance in a
painting (a pretty simple task, considering the dynamic range of paint).
the 22mp single shot looks good, and the microstep is astounding. we
used to talk about the difference in a nikon scanner, at 4000 "dpi" and
an imacon at 8000, and the description i liked was that, at 4000 you can
see the grain, at 8000 you can see the edges of the grain. it's much the
same with the painting. in 16-shot you can see the edges of the canvas
tooth. the range and color are heads over the Canon, too.

that was pretty much expected. the
ted-dillard-rule-of-chip-performance-and-high-speed-motosports holds
up... you want to go fast, you need horsepower and got to pay the money.

however, i've been hearing that the big-chip DSLRs are "good enough",
especially since a commercial shooter rarely prints over a double-page
spread. i've actually said that, too. so i wanted to compare and print
at 16x20 to see the difference in files, as printed, and well within the
comfort range of any of the cameras.

i shot the Nikon D2X, the Canon EOS1Ds, again the Imacon in single- shot
and microstep. (due respect to the Leaf Valeo 22, it's going to do about
the same as the imacon in single shot, and my V22 was out on a rental.
AND, i don't want to hear squawks about not shooting with the Canon
MARK2. even owners who have replaced their 1Ds with the 1Ds M2 at great
expense have said, after all, there's not much diff.)

i processed them as well as i could, trying to show each file in it's
best light. i printed them on the 4000 at 16x20. the results were VERY
interesting.

FIRST, the Nikon and the Canon were VERY similar files, even looking
close before the print. this was quite an eye-opener... i was not
greatly impressed at first glance at the Nikon files, but, toe-to toe
with Canon they hold their own. i even think they have more dynamic
range and better color, but that ain't science talkin...

NEXT, there's a BIG difference between the final prints. the best
description i can make is the difference between an 8x10 print made with
35mm film, 4x5, and an 8x10 contact print. the big chips give you more
dynamic range, better color, better resolution, generally a richer, more
vibrant print. the most interesting thing to me was the comparison
between single and 16-shot with the 22mp chips... i would have thought
you couldn't see the difference at 16x20, but it was astounding.

wheeler... you remember when you were talking about doing some shooting
with 2 1/4 back in the '90s and panned it? you had said that even at
8x10, the 4x5 simply has more "data" than 2 1/4, and we laughed because
it was such a perfect analogy. well, it still holds true.

i get so carried away trying to find out how big you can push these
cameras, i forget about what they can do small... it's just like making
a contact print again. it's funny... all the prints look good, but when
you put them side-by-side you see the clarity, richness and definition
of the big chips. sort of like putting a selenium-toned print next to a
non-toned print. you don't know what you're missing until you see it
there. i guess its the same reason you and rantoul hump that big-assed
8x10 all over god's green earth to make ART. (or is it ARTHUR?)

that's it for me. off to see the PAW-SOX with a dozen 5th grade boys!
woohoo!

Ted Dillard
EP Levine, Inc.
EPL Digital
23 Drydock Avenue
Boston, MA.  02210
----------------------------------

Fond regards,
G  e  o  r g  e    L  o  t  t  e  r  m  o  s  e r, imagist
----------------------------------------------------------
Presenting effective messages in beautiful ways
                                                since 1969
----------------------------------------------------------
web                                      <www.imagist.com>
email                                   george@imagist.com
voice                                         262-241-9375
address                       10050 N Port Washington Road
                                          Mequon, WI 53092