Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/10

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: Re: [Leica] Re: Digital M
From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:05:50 -0800
References: <026801c3f021$9c3f7fa0$6401a8c0@CCA4A5EF37E11E>

B. D. Colen said:
Subject: RE: Re: [Leica] Re: Digital M


> I'd certainly be happy with a good 5 mgp sensor - I'd like larger, but 5
> can do just fine.<<<<<<

Hi B.D.,
I know I'm a total klutz when it comes to digital techie stuff like mgp
sizes. However, much to my surprise it appears a number of folks say 5 mgp
isn't very big and you can't make good big prints larger than 5X7 or at best
8X10.

So if that's the case, how is it when I look at an 11X16 print of an Epson
2200 in colour, I can see the pores in the skin of the subject? I mean
really see the pores easy enough to count and each hair in the subjects
moustache?  Or in a landscape almost each blade of grass stands out
individually?

I know there's my klutz factor here some place, but is bigger mgp's better?
We're shooting with a Canon G5 and some prints made 13X19 appear better than
anything shot with a Leica M7 and an aspherical lens. And that's absolutely
not an exaggeration.

So what am I missing in why everything should be bigger and more? Or is this
just the typical call of society these days that bigger is always better,
but in truth has no real relevance to the end product quality? Certainly up
to say 16X19 prints.

ted


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from Aaron Sandler <aaron.sandler@duke.edu> (Re: [Leica] Recent PAWs)
Reply from "animal" <s.jessurun95@chello.nl> (Re: Re: [Leica] Re: Digital M and slide suprise)
Reply from "Jim McIntyre" <mcintyre@ca.inter.net> ([Leica] Recent PAWs)
Reply from Will von Dauster <vondauster@earthlink.net> (Re: [Leica] Re: Digital M)
In reply to: Message from "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> (RE: Re: [Leica] Re: Digital M)