Leica Forum

I will try to upload a few pictures of the camera and one other device that I didn't sell all those years ago.  As far as I can tell there is nothing particularly special about this camera other than it was acquired right at the end of the war in 1945 and at some point it suffered some very minor damage at the top of the left rangefinder lens at the front.  There is a colored filter installed on the left side and it is at a slight angle so that is one of the things that need to be addressed during a service.   IMG_4728.HEIC IMG_4729.HEIC

IMO Peter Karbe pretty much lays out the relative high level facts with illustrations and examples of which we can use to apply going forward for those interested.  FWIW. Roger has answered why he wrote what he did and added a bit more detail to his intent and to whom he was addressing. See the DPR thread reference above.  https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66954443  RCicala • Contributing Member • Posts: 829 Re: Are Perceptual Megapixels stupid? In reply to SrMi • Mar 21, 2023 15 "Well, first off, Roger's wrong all the damn time. Sometimes, like this time, he even knows it as he writes it, so to speak. As Jack pointed out, I was aiming for as simple as possible, and gave up accuracy to try to get understanding among the group who were losing their minds over DxOMark's metric, and the "you have to buy a new lens for your new camera" marketing. As an oversimplified generalization my math pretty well holds for decent lenses on reasonable cameras, but there would be lots of exceptions, especially towards the extremes of high resolution sensors and inadequate lenses. I didn't mean it with anything like scientific accuracy. But the argument that I was fighting was "if you put your 20 perceptual megapixel lens on a 20 megapixel sensor, you get 20 megapixels. If you put it on a 40 megapixel camera you still get 20 megapixels". I will take full responsibility for using oversimplified and somewhat inaccurate math, but I want full credit for being more accurate than DxOs pseudoscience. At least I showed my "formula"  All that being said, though, perceptual megapixels are stupid. Even the name is stupid.  Roger"   https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66957672  RCicala • Contributing Member • Posts: 829 Re: Are Perceptual Megapixels stupid? In reply to chrisfisheye • Mar 22, 2023 5 "I think all the above have merit and and are correct depending on specific circumstance. What does NOT have merit was the way the general community was interpreting perceptual megapixels, which was basically the lowest of camera resolution or lens resolution was what the overall resolution would be. Basically, they were saying "if a lens perceptual megapixel is 20, then there's no reason to have a camera greater than 20 megapixels; it won't make a difference". This got encouraged by the not-so-subtle manufacturer's "lens rated for 40 megapixels" marketing. I was simply (oversimply for this subforum, but consider who I was writing to) trying to walk people back from that ledge and point out that they would indeed see a significant difference with either a better lens OR a better camera. My off the cuff formula definitely breaks down at very high resolution or with very bad lenses, but given a starting point of adequate lens on adequate camera, I think it's pretty accurate as a general description of consumer range equipment."

Worked briefly earlier today on Safari (iPad), now most images won't show (bad gateway), also tried Win 10 & 11 PCs Chrome & Edge - same problem.

congrats! well done