Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/18

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

Subject: [Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled
From: rdcb37 at dodo.com.au (Rick Dykstra)
Date: Thu Nov 18 00:55:43 2004
References: <5FE96E80-3904-11D9-A438-000A95C33F68@dodo.com.au> <BDC15E26.1C6AD%telyt@earthlink.net> <6.1.0.6.2.20041117204518.057b4910@192.168.100.42>

Wow, no need for people to get personal about it.  These things are 
subjective after all.  I'm convinced that film will remain better, much 
better than digital until such time as I buy a high end digi back from 
Leica.  Either this first one or their next one at 20 or so Mpix.  
hehe.


On 18/11/2004, at 4:00 PM, Richard wrote:

> It depends on who you ask. All I know is that for me personally, I 
> look at the 13x19 prints from my friend's 1Ds (11Mp)  and my 11x14 
> prints using M lens and scanned at using the Nikon 4000 that they both 
> look darn good. One is neither better than the other, they do look 
> different. 1Ds is entirely grainless but then again Provia, even at 
> 400F is fairly grain free too.
>
> Of course there are some people of the opinions that the 1Ds and the 
> new 1Ds MkII is VASTLY better than 35mm, rivalling medium format. At 
> least Michael Reichmann of Luminious Landscape is quite reasonable 
> about discussions, but there are others who use Michael and other 
> websites as proofs that how much better 11Mp is. e.g.
> http://www.leica-camera.com/discus_e/messages/2/95118.html?1100749479
>
> Look under Pascal... He trashed me in another post because I told him 
> my eyes tell me that my friends and my prints are different but 
> neither one is "better." He said I was condescending and how dare I 
> disagree with the experts :-)
>
> At 07:59 PM 11/17/2004, Doug Herr wrote:
>
>> on 11/17/04 5:51 PM, Rick Dykstra at rdcb37@dodo.com.au wrote:
>>
>> > what's the LUGs view on how 10.5 Mpix
>> > compares with good film?  I enlarge from film to 20x30in, via a 
>> 6144 x
>> > 4096 scan.  The digi back's sensor is way less pixels than this, by 
>> my
>> > calculations, good for around 8 x 12 at the same resolution.  Not 
>> bad,
>> > but not as good as film.
>> >
>>
>> There isn't a direct correlation between pixels from scanned film and 
>> native
>> pixels.  The scanned photo needs to have quite a few more pixels to 
>> make up
>> for the losses inherent in making the scan.
>
> // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, 
> please use richard at imagecraft.com)
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>


In reply to: Message from rdcb37 at dodo.com.au (Rick Dykstra) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from telyt at earthlink.net (Doug Herr) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from richard-lists at imagecraft.com (Richard) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)