[Leica] Format output obviousness

[lrzeitlin at gmail.com (Lawrence Zeitlin)]

Richard writes:
You tell that to Michael Reichmann. He said, in "Luminous Landscape":

"At one point I found myself looking at raw files on-screen and not being
sure if I was looking at Hasselblad P45+ files or Canon G10 files. That
includes at 100% onscreen enlargements."

In (a test) case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19"
prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and
the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and
overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In other
words, no better than chance.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
- - - - -

I think the key point of Reichmann's "Luminous Landscape" article is in one
of the last paragraphs. He says:

"Please don't write to me asking whether I think camera X or Y is as good as
the G10, or better than it, or how any of these might compare to a
Hasselblad or Phase back. That's not what this is about. The point of all of
this is simple. As the industry matures the low end is improving rapidly
while the high end's improvements are slowing down. This is narrowing the
gap, and that's good news for all of us. Don't read too much more into it
than that."

It is quite possible that Olympus misread the public desire for a 4/3 DSLR
format camera. I bought one of the first, an E-500. It was significantly
larger than my Oly SLR OM1 and OM2 SLR cameras and, to my mind, less
convenient to use. I was seduced by the fact that my excellent Oly film
lenses could be mounted. They could, but shooting with them was a 20 year
regression in convenience. And I agree that the E-5 may be the last full
sized DSLR for Olympus. It is almost as big, heavy and expensive as its full
frame competitors. But the micro 4/3 format (and other sub full frame
formats like the APC) have a lot of life left. I long for a 4/3 format
camera with the size, handling ease and built in eye level viewfinder of the
old film Pen F, not the Mickey Mouse EP-1s that have stolen the name.
Remember that Leica was derided as not offering the same image quality as
its 6x6 and 6x9 cm. competitors until improvements in film and lens quality
made the difference too small to matter practically.

I don't thing that anyone on the LUG maintains that the 4/3 format is the
technical equivalent of full frame nor that P&S cameras like the D90 and G11
are suitable for truly professional work. But the smaller formats are
adequate for most photographic needs of many on the list. Certainly they are
for me. These days I rarely print larger than 8x10". For those pictures just
about any modern digital camera that I can fit in my pocket is adequate. I
find that if I compose carefully, my 4/3 camera will produce the few good
quality 16x20" prints that I submit to regional photo shows. Some have even
won prizes. Sure, I wish I had an M9 but it would be a very expensive
overkill for 95% of the pictures that I take these days. If I ever had a
need to produce super quality pictures, I would pull out my 50 year old M3
and go back to antiquated wet chemistry.

When I was a car crazed teen ager the prevailing wisdom was "there is no
substitute for cubic inches." Similarly, all things being equal, there is no
substitute for larger sensor size. But all things aren't always equal.
Sometimes adequate is good enough.
Larry Z