[Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?

[frank.dernie at btinternet.com (FRANK DERNIE)]

The d30 was 3.3 megapixels, I owned one and my findings largely agreed with 
Reichmanns. It was the d60 which had 6+ megapixels.
I am aware of plenty of theoretical studies which prove film is capable of 
better resolution. With 25asa B&W film this may be true, with the films I 
used the overall printed results are clearly better from my digital camera, 
from the d30 to the D3x in order of pixels.
I am tempted to suspect that what we measure in terms of resolution is not 
what a human looks for in a picture. A bit like hifi where steady state 
distortion is used as a measure of sound quality, which it clearly is not, 
probably because it is easy to measure with simple instruments rather than 
any real relation to sound quality.
Certainly AA filters seem to be largely unnecessary, despite what the theory 
says, implying that the theoretical analysis is not actually of the key 
parameter(s).
Just like hifi.
cheers,
Frank

--- On Thu, 13/8/09, Richard Man <richard.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Richard Man <richard.lists at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?
> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org>
> Date: Thursday, 13 August, 2009, 10:09 PM
> Well, remember Michael Reichmann's
> oft-misquoted summary that "the D30
> (the original Canon 6 Megapixer) is as good as medium
> format film."
> 
> Most people will choose digital pics, even from a low end
> P&S to film.
> Many studies have shown that.
> 
> I don't think it's about what your customers prefer to see,
> but what
> you prefer to use.
> 
> Simple as that.
> 
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:55 PM,
> wildlightphoto at earthlink.net<wildlightphoto at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > Now, my specified conditions: Comparing 11" x 14"
> lightjet prints made from
> > Provia 400 scanned at 4000 dpi with 11" x 14" lightjet
> prints made from ISO
> > 400 DMR files (same lens for all photos), the gallery
> owner I met with this
> > week did not conclude that the film-origin prints were
> sharper. ?He had no
> > idea what camera, lens or technology I used on any of
> the photos so he had
> > no vested interest in either technology. ?He singled
> out the DMR prints and
> > commented on the 'remarkable detail and color
> quality', and he asked what
> > camera I was using. ?The prints he chose for the
> gallery were all from the
> > DMR. ?YMMV.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> // richard m: richard @imagecraft.com
> // w: http://www.imagecraft.com/pub/Portfolio09/ blog:
> http://rfman.wordpress.com
> // book: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/745963
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more
> information
>