Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/10/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I've been having 10.2 to play with on my D200 and D40x and it seemed like they were later going to top out at an even dozen but then they kept going. Now I have a dozen so guess I can make an even bigger print smoother. I can make a 11x17 full bleed at 240 dpi that's only an inch longer in length than before with my D200. I've already found out the images are immensely more croppable why I'm not sure. The direct competition to the D700 is the 5D which is the same price and the most visible camera among pro's. I think the D700 is a close second. But the newer 5D has jacked up rez its not an even dozen mp's but about twice that at 21mp's. You'd think that would make for some problems at the high ISO's but they say it ain't so. The two bodies compete directly on that and most ends. 5616 x 3744 vs. 4256 x 2832 on the D700 Your 18 mp M9 gives you higher than the middle at 5212 x 3472 All the money I make from working with my new first full frame for me body I'll get a high rez nikon or back for my Hasselblads. Or M9. -------------------- Mark William Rabiner Photography http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ mark at rabinergroup.com Cars: http://tinyurl.com/2f7ptxb > From: Alastair Firkin <afirkin at afirkin.com> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 21:07:33 -0400 > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] D700 > >> For me, anything past about 12 mp is wasted anyway. If I need to make >> gigantic prints there is always Photoshop or plugins that extrapolate >> extra pixels. resolution has never mattered to me much, except in >> rendering texture. The D700 suits me fine. The thing I like best >> about Leica Ms is that the bodies are small, compact and simple and >> the view is direct. None of these SLRs are any of those things, but >> the D700 is the smallest and simplest. The D3 cameras make me feel >> like I'm working as a photographer again, with the sore shoulders and >> back to match. >> >> Marty > > I'm not sure where I lie in the mp debate. The exposure range of the CFV39 > and the M9 seem greater than I've previously used allowing for more range > in the depth of the image. > > With the rangefinder, I'd argue that I wanted 14 mp to allow me to crop > images. I found the 10 on the M8 sometimes was a bit "pushed" and I really > wanted to fill the frame better. You get away with 10 on an SLR with > zooms, but I wanted 14 on the M9 and I got 18, which for me was a bonus. > Now I can crop to half frame and still have a decent 9 mp to enlarge, and > the lens copes with that "interrogation". > > Cheers > > Alastair > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information