Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Not to mention the vision and technical skill of the photographer; the quality and intensity of the light; the content and context of the subject; all of which, in the end, carry more importance than pixel pitch. (unless the pixels actually impair the image; which does indeed happen) Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist On Mar 2, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Richard Man wrote: > Well, this is why "bigger is always better" is not always right. It > must be > prefaced with "All other things being equal..." On a digital > camera, you > have the support circuitry, the AD converter, the processing > engine, and the > rest of the camera to give you that final RAW output. > > This is presumably why Nikon dares to charge $4000-$5000 more for > their D3x > than the Alpha A900A850 even though the sensors are the same. > > This is why the Canon G11 (?) with its teeny 2 micron pixel pitch size > *under some conditions as tested,* produces printed output > indistinguishable > from a MF digital back, as claimed by Michael Reichmann. > > This is why if you have $4000+ to buy a lens, you buy Leica, if you > have > $2000, you buy used Leica, if you have only $1000, you buy Zeiss. > If you > have only $500, buy Cosina or ancient Leica. > > On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 10:24 AM, George Lottermoser > <imagist3 at mac.com>wrote: > >> Apparently it can be worth less than a larger pixel >> (up to a point yet to be determined) >> >> ;~) >> >> For the moment >> I'm putting my money on >> the 6 - 6.8 pixels on a CCD >> 'cause that's what the "big" boys use >> (and what's in my M8 and DMR) >> (even though my 5D sports 8.2 on its Cmos) >> >> ;~) >> >> >> Regards, >> George Lottermoser >> george at imagist.com >> http://www.imagist.com >> http://www.imagist.com/blog >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist >> >> On Mar 2, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Jim Nichols wrote: >> >> I looked at two sources. Both said 5.49, for what that is worth. >>> >>> Jim Nichols >>> Tullahoma, TN USA >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Lottermoser" >>> <imagist3 at mac.com >>>> >>> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 11:54 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Leica] PIXEL PITCH SIZE >>> >>> >>> the two numbers came from two different sources. >>>> I'm not sure which one is correct? >>>> Just wasn't interested enough to track it down. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> George Lottermoser >>>> george at imagist.com >>>> http://www.imagist.com >>>> http://www.imagist.com/blog >>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist >>>> >>>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 11:49 AM, Mark Rabiner wrote: >>>> >>>> It cold be when they use two numbers like that >>>>> 5.49 - 5.54 size pixel >>>>> There is something else going on. Maybe you're supposed to >>>>> multiply >>>>> them?!?!? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more >>>> information >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > > > -- > // richard <http://www.imagecraft.com/> blog: < > http://imagecraft.wordpress.com> > // portfolio: <http://www.dragonsgate.net/pub/richard/PICS/ > AnotherCalifornia >> > // mailing lists: <http://www.imagecraft.com/contact.html> > [ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all > previous > replies in your msgs. ] > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information