Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]My memory isn't what it was, I don't think.... but I seem to remember the Leica guy at the Leica UK gathering saying that Leica found 10 megapixels equivalent to 35mm film and that was why they chose it for the R back (at a time when there others were using more or fewer) Frank On 22 Nov, 2004, at 02:50, firkin wrote: > Feli di Giorgio writes: >> I would be very happy with a 10-12MP full frame camera. >> Manageable file sizes, DOF of a 135, low noise at high ASA, due >> to the large size of individual receptors. I really don't need 20MP >> for what I do... > > The immediate question is what do you do that requires 10 to 12. I > mean this seriously, not as a jibe or insult. My mind tell me that 10 > to 12 seems about right, because I suspect (never tried and therefore > don't know) that you could print 16 x 20 at about this level with 35mm > happiness. Barry Thornton claimed that only really "lucky" good 35mm > negs could produce "perfect" images larger than about 10 x 14 (I > think) I remember thinking "I've got larger ones" but then thinking > but they are not all "perfect", so he may be right. > Like many, I suspect I've been too worried about making big > enlargements, when smaller well crafted images would be "better" and > store much more easily !!!!! > This brings me back to my nagging question; will todays good film > scanners "match" a 10 mega pixel dedicated digital camera when you > view moderately large images side by side? > Alastair Firkin @ work ;-) > http://www.afirkin.com > http://www.familyofman2.com > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >