Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/10/06

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

Subject: [Leica] LUG M9 owners ( was [Fwd: Leica Newsletter --05 October2009])
From: mark at (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:04:31 -0400

> My feelings exactly, after taking 8000 pictures with my M8--I look at
> the framelines, if they are not wide enough, I put a wider lens on. I
> think being hung up on a size defined by a historical accident is silly

THREE people just said this and the reason may be because we really are not
so results orientated here on the LUG. Our results typically are displayed
on internet galleries and websites. A few hundred pixels in each direction.
Printed at 240 dpi that gives you a picture for your business card. Its no
wonder we don't mind shooting half frame we might as well be shooting Minox.
We could be using  a credit card camera for all anyone would know. And we
get shown stuff from cameras which sensor sizes similar to that every week.

Though many of us have an Epson 3800 printer which can print a 17x22 inch
print. And the specs of our cameras really don't support this.

On the M9 we get  5212 x 3472 (18 MP)

If I print at 240 on rag paper I get a x 14.4  x 21.7 print
A 17x22 would NOT be a stretch.

The M8 gives  you 3936 x 2630 and from a much smaller image grabbing area.
For a  10.9 x 16.4 inch prints at 240.

So that's
14.4 x 21.7 x vs.
10.9 x 16.4

And a lot of you guys like to print  glossy  at 300.

Mark William Rabiner

Replies: Reply from sonc.hegr at (Sonny Carter) ([Leica] LUG M9 owners ( was [Fwd: Leica Newsletter --05 October2009]))
In reply to: Message from photo at (Nathan Wajsman) ([Leica] LUG M9 owners ( was [Fwd: Leica Newsletter --05 October2009]))