Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/12/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Dec 31, 2012, at 3:14 PM, Robert G Adler wrote: > How so? If you mean by merging, stitching, the pixels per unit of image > circle is far greater in the best MFDB than in the M9 (or even N 800E). > > For a 50mm field of view the new Leica M250 will still have 25 megapixels > of coverage. A 80 MP digital back will have 80 megapixels for the same > field of view with an 80mm lens. If you want to throw stitching into the > mix then, as you know George, we need to compare that to stitching with > MF. > > But if you mean something else by merging, I don't know what that term > means but would love to know! > On Dec 31, 2012, at 9:38 AM, George Lottermoser <imagist3 at mac.com> > wrote: > >> >> On Dec 31, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Robert Adler wrote: >> >>> Not too sure about it rivaling medium to large format... >> >> I'd imagine that exposing and merging multiple M9 frames >> would begin to "rival" medium format CCD sensor real estate ;~) Yeah. It gets to be a silly discussion pretty quickly. I guess one could discuss using 8x10 film and "merging" for an 8x20 or 10x16; though it wouldn't be the same as shooting 11x14 or 12x20 film. those of us who can't afford the medium format digital back kit; attempt to get more (or at least the most) from what we've got. I have played around with using lenses with large image circles and moving the camera around within that circle (as apposed to rotating camera on nodal point); and yes, you can do the same with your medium format back and will always end up more real estate than I will with my less-than sensors. Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist