[Leica] PIXEL PITCH SIZE

[imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser)]

Mark,
I totally agree with you on the acreage issue.
I'd love to own a full frame M9 (and R for that matter).
I'd love to have a CFV39 for my 'blad Zeiss glass
(as well as the ability to hang the back on my Ultima).
I cannot see being able to afford the high end acreage
for the foreseeable future.

I don't have the engineering skills to explain
why my little (cropped) M8 and DMR 6.8 CCD pixels out perform
my (full frame) 5D 8.2 Cmos pixels
in every subjective, visual way that I care about
(fine detail and dynamic range)
from ISO 160 through 640
above which
the 5D begins to deliver less noise.

(however, in many, not all, subjective cases
even from ISO 640-1200
I prefer the "look" of the noise from the M8 and DMR
to the "look" of the noise from the 5D.
above ISO 1200 - no contest - 5D wins)

Just my experience with the equipment I own and respect
(yes I do respect the 5D and the C lenses I own).

Each of my 3 digital systems has its optimal applications.
I choose the right tool for the intended objectives.

YMMV

As someone else pointed (Frank D I believe)
the M8 continues to be my "little" camera
and I see no need for anything smaller
(nor need for larger pixels;
and yes I wish it were an M9;
but I need to fix the wash machine
and install a new ceramic kitchen counter
and faucet in the next week; the roof needs replacement;
and the house list goes on and on).

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 1:08 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote:

> George as a person who has shot mini formats as well as 8x10 film  
> you are
> area of what "real estate" means in film directly.
> There is not a direct coronation to it in digital imagining. As to  
> why a
> bigger format is better in digital as well.
> But pixel pitch size is a basic issue which is very close to THE basic
> issue.
> As basic if not more so than the amount  of pixels. MP's
> And defines the reason why you'd want the biggest sensor as  
> possible in the
> first place. Other than depth of field issue and the coverage area  
> much
> closely matching your lens in the 24x36 format.
> Why IS IT that you get 5 or more f stops more ISO's with 24x36 than  
> you do
> over 23x15?
> Shooting 35mm film does not make it so you can shoot 5 times height  
> ISO's
> than half frame film. Yet in digital it does.