Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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