Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/07/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mark, if there are the same number of usable pixels then the resolution is the same. But when you pack the same number of little photo bucket thingies into a smaller area, then they need to be smaller, which tends to make for more signal noise. But there is a great deal of processing going on after those little buckets fill up with photons. Various camera /sensor makers have different approaches on how much processing is going on. He who has the best algorithms wins! It ain't the size, it's what you do with it. Four thirds does have a noble sentiment that the mount is standardised, like the old K mount 35mm Pentaxes and even their earlier thread mount. Still totally with you on the idea of a compact body with compact fast prime fitted. Also that the proof of the pudding is in the printing. You can download sample pics from DPReview, for example if you wish to run printing tests. Anyhoo, I'm looking forward to seeing some pics from your Leica D40X Cheers Hoppy -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Olympus vs. Leica On 7/20/07 9:40 PM, "G Hopkinson" <hoppyman@bigpond.net.au> typed: > Mark the resolution is virtually the same despite the difference in sensor > size. How the camera software and/or the user deals with > noise and sharpening and ISO levels might be more significant than the > physical sensor size. > I absolutely agree with you that compact DSLR bodies are a welcome > development. Even better with a compact prime on the front. > Cheers Hoppy The big new dumb thing now is smallish cameras with huge glass on the front to double the size. Leica a leading offender. People never get to experience how handy their body was designed. We need pancakes as usual. I disagree though on your saying the resolution is the same so what's the difference. Both a Minox and a Rolleiflex are capable of making 16x20s. Put the prints side by side and acreage counts big. And its the same with digital capture. Cameras are sold by their megapixels and the sensor size is often impossible to unearth and we get sucked into it. This cutting of the APS-C format in half just to come up with a new thing seems very arbitrary to me; the 4/3 format. But at least it stops wrong minded people from trying to do serious work on point and shoots which sensor sizes the size of regular 8 movie film. No offence Jim Shulman! Unfortunately is does not stop other not in the know buyers from trying to do serious worth with a 4/3 which should be done with at least a APS-C. With the APS-C format you have overkill in much uploading to galleries or what not or much magazine or newspaper work but you DO have the option to make really clear large inkjets. That option is open to you. That digital to analog conversion is encouraged. I still say the proof is in the printing. Make a handier camera and the lack of blow-up-ability is worth it. But are 4/3s handier than a D40 or smallest rebels? Hardly. And you cant even use the other guys "Leicas" glass without major caveats. Which are hard to polish out. Mark William Rabiner Harlem, NY rabinergroup.com _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information