Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Well, this is why "bigger is always better" is not always right. It must be prefaced with "All other things being equal..." On a digital camera, you have the support circuitry, the AD converter, the processing engine, and the rest of the camera to give you that final RAW output. This is presumably why Nikon dares to charge $4000-$5000 more for their D3x than the Alpha A900A850 even though the sensors are the same. This is why the Canon G11 (?) with its teeny 2 micron pixel pitch size *under some conditions as tested,* produces printed output indistinguishable from a MF digital back, as claimed by Michael Reichmann. This is why if you have $4000+ to buy a lens, you buy Leica, if you have $2000, you buy used Leica, if you have only $1000, you buy Zeiss. If you have only $500, buy Cosina or ancient Leica. On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 10:24 AM, George Lottermoser <imagist3 at mac.com>wrote: > Apparently it can be worth less than a larger pixel > (up to a point yet to be determined) > > ;~) > > For the moment > I'm putting my money on > the 6 - 6.8 pixels on a CCD > 'cause that's what the "big" boys use > (and what's in my M8 and DMR) > (even though my 5D sports 8.2 on its Cmos) > > ;~) > > > Regards, > George Lottermoser > george at imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com/blog > http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist > > On Mar 2, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Jim Nichols wrote: > > I looked at two sources. Both said 5.49, for what that is worth. >> >> Jim Nichols >> Tullahoma, TN USA >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Lottermoser" <imagist3 at >> mac.com >> > >> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 11:54 AM >> Subject: Re: [Leica] PIXEL PITCH SIZE >> >> >> the two numbers came from two different sources. >>> I'm not sure which one is correct? >>> Just wasn't interested enough to track it down. >>> >>> Regards, >>> George Lottermoser >>> george at imagist.com >>> http://www.imagist.com >>> http://www.imagist.com/blog >>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist >>> >>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 11:49 AM, Mark Rabiner wrote: >>> >>> It cold be when they use two numbers like that >>>> 5.49 - 5.54 size pixel >>>> There is something else going on. Maybe you're supposed to multiply >>>> them?!?!? >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- // richard <http://www.imagecraft.com/> blog: < http://imagecraft.wordpress.com> // portfolio: <http://www.dragonsgate.net/pub/richard/PICS/AnotherCalifornia > // mailing lists: <http://www.imagecraft.com/contact.html> [ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all previous replies in your msgs. ]