Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/05/30

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

Subject: [Leica] OT: D3x vs. 'Blad CFV 16MP full sized samples
From: mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 02:02:14 -0400

I can't imagine that a drum scan of a 24 x 36mm slow speed ISO neg shot with
Leica glass shot on a tripod would not have a whole lot of information in
it.

Pit against a KAF-10500 sensor with an active area of 27 x 18 mm which you
find in an M8 I'm not sure I'd root for the sensor in the camera.

I'm not a betting man normally but I'm afraid I'd put 2 bucks down on the
drum.

I've made 30 x 40 inch darkroom prints from 35mm negs and its amazing the
stuff in there from medium speed film even. Or 400 speed film.
And a drum scan can have billions and billions of megapixels in there.



Mark William Rabiner



> From: George Lottermoser <imagist3 at mac.com>
> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 19:23:22 -0500
> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] OT: D3x vs. 'Blad CFV 16MP full sized samples
> 
> I've done this test with cameras locked down on tripods.
> 
> I have no doubt that your M8 will technically out perform even drum
> scanned 35 mm film at:
> 160 asa
> 320 asa
> 640 asa
> 
> I've not done higher speed film comparisons.
> 
> The only way you'll technically out perform the best decent sized
> digital sensors
> is with drum scanned very large format transparencies shot with
> extremely fine lenses.
> 
> The aesthetic qualities of film continue to carry their own weight
> very well.
> 
> Regards,




Replies: Reply from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] OT: D3x vs. 'Blad CFV 16MP full sized samples)
In reply to: Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] OT: D3x vs. 'Blad CFV 16MP full sized samples)