Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/05/31

[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 (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 17:34:18 -0400

I agree with all of this of course and its my thought that these
multitudinous variables exist in different forms with film. Its really a
horse of a different color.
But the way I think of it and the area I know about is sharpening;
coincidently what were are also talking about here.
This is what really obviously makes a comparison between two camera systems
this millennium pretty impossible. In the old days you could shoot
Kodachrome 25 in both.
People tend to way over sharpen or way under sharpen as they don't sharpen.
And that in some peoples eyes make a pop bottle bottom perform like and APO
Aspherical optic with rare fluorite clusters and nano coatings wafted on in
metaphysical conditions.

Its hard to know what you got any more.

And when I hear of people who I suspect don't print make grand statements
about this and that system or lens it just goes in one ear and out the
other; with no sharpening or anti aliasing of any kind. Nor IR cut off.

Mark William Rabiner

> From: Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie at>
> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at>
> Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 09:08:05 +0100
> To: Leica Users Group <lug at>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] OT: D3x vs 'Blad CFV 16MP full sized samples
> completely mistaken, and are therefore deceiving themselves. There are
> lots of subjective reasons for not using the camera makers recommended
> corrections, and each raw convertor software supplier has their own
> algorithm for each camera to give the look they want.
> Others work out their own personal preference for each camera profile.
> cheers,
> Frank

In reply to: Message from Frank.Dernie at (Frank Dernie) ([Leica] OT: D3x vs 'Blad CFV 16MP full sized samples)