david strachan Posted February 19, 2018 Share #381 Posted February 19, 2018 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Andy...and the printing workflow too. Agree, rigor every step through to framing and the ambient light on the print. ... Edited February 19, 2018 by david strachan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 19, 2018 Posted February 19, 2018 Hi david strachan, Take a look here Why not more pixels in the M camera?/ 36 MP {merged}. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pico Posted February 19, 2018 Share #382 Posted February 19, 2018 (edited) However, it means that those who want more pixels in order to make bigger prints (as repeatedly stated on this thread) will not get the full benefit of all their extra pixels unless they take extra care to avoid motion blur. Only if they are making prints large enough to cover a handball court and crawl across it with their nose against the print. Edited February 19, 2018 by pico Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 19, 2018 Share #383 Posted February 19, 2018 Frankly, I do not believe motion is more conspicuous with greater pixel counts unless one is viewing on a monitor at 1:1 - an entirely impractical practice. This is generally true. If you want the file to behave like a 24MP file, downsize it and most of these issues disappear. Actually the file is a little better because of super sampling. I have been shooting high resolution (60MP and greater) for a decade now and IMO, the issue of movement and blur is over talked. It's not that it isn't true, it's just that it's a hurdle that is new to the experience of working with this sort of resolution. You can't just go bumbling doing what you always did, there are some changes but really it's not a big deal. Other mileage may vary of course. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 19, 2018 Share #384 Posted February 19, 2018 Only if they are making prints large enough to cover a handball court and crawl across it with their nose against the print. I would advise against this. Some modern papers are quite abrasive and there is a H&S risk of taking the skin off the end of one's nose, which is not only painful but also leaves smears on the print which, combined with the crawling marks, mean frequent reprints. Its far better to mount the print in the handball court, photograph it and then post the images on the web, together with a few close ups, so that we can all appreciate how good it would be if we actually did crawl all over it with our noses against the print. There needs to be a little common sense and realism fed into this discussion and clearly the way we view high resolution images needs to be redetermined. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 19, 2018 Share #385 Posted February 19, 2018 (edited) Everyone knows that real artists work with massive imagery on ceilings rather than floors. I'm not much into handball anyway. Edited February 19, 2018 by Paul J Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 19, 2018 Share #386 Posted February 19, 2018 In the USA it is basketball and those guys are 3 meters long. They are much closer to the ceiling than we are... Anyway, did anybody ever try to determine the resolution of the Sistine Chapel? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 19, 2018 Share #387 Posted February 19, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) Anyway, did anybody ever try to determine the resolution of the Sistine Chapel? Mike obviously used the wrong brush - should have used a smaller one for the fine detail. Technology, pah! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 19, 2018 Share #388 Posted February 19, 2018 Yes - if you compare to Carel Willink - obviously inferior work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 19, 2018 Share #389 Posted February 19, 2018 Mike obviously used the wrong brush - should have used a smaller one for the fine detail. Technology, pah! Relatively speaking, I think Mike got the job because he could paint with such great resolution. The other guy drawing stick men went hungry. Anyway, since God made Mike in his image it's not like he could ever complain. Even if he did complain, God forgives. Clients, not so much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted February 19, 2018 Share #390 Posted February 19, 2018 You may have some wool in your ears. At this point, however, it is clear you've reached your idiosyncratic conclusions and you just want people to argue with about it. Well, to each their own. I don't reply to personal rude attacks here in this forum - consider yourself blocked. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
olgierdc Posted February 19, 2018 Share #391 Posted February 19, 2018 (edited) @pgk, congratulations on your awards. I know nothing about it. But I know something about statements like the one above that keep repeating over and over again despite evidence to the contrary. It’s the Energizer bunny phenomenon, I guess. And I’m not just a Leica user, I’m obviously also a Sony user. https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Jfdr66/ https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-x8Mwmw/ I would never guess which picture comes from which camera. If I were to compare landscape photography, it would probably be a difference in the corners. I tried to use the Sony A7 II, but the user interface is not optimal for me. In addition, I was surprised how loud and strange sound the A7 II shutter is. I have a Sony RX100 III and I only use it when I need a small pocket camera. Leica 10 is not the best camera in terms of technical parameters, but it is the best camera in terms of ergonomics. Ergonomics is the most important in everyday shutting. I accept that a few percent of my photos would be better if I used a camera with better technical parameters. But I do not accept that, say, 30-40% of my photos would be worse due to insufficient camera ergonomics. Of course I prefer when I control the camera as opposed to the case when the camera controls the photographer So I stay with Leica M10 and M9. Edited February 19, 2018 by olgierdc 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adli Posted February 20, 2018 Share #392 Posted February 20, 2018 Leica's next president will make pixels great again! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 20, 2018 Share #393 Posted February 20, 2018 Apparently they are already great - there's just not enough of them . 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmod Posted February 22, 2018 Share #394 Posted February 22, 2018 Perhaps those other brands are what you should choose and not bother with inferior Leica cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_d Posted February 22, 2018 Share #395 Posted February 22, 2018 The real question that should be asked: "Will more pixels make you a better photographer?" 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tllabron Posted February 22, 2018 Share #396 Posted February 22, 2018 The pixel count for M10 is significantly less than full frame cameras from the other brands. Why is that? What's the thought process behind it? Is there something inherent in the design process or the way the camera works? Does Leica not have the technology for this? I buy the argument that if you only print <up to a certain> size, you dont need that many pixels - but that strikes me as a bit of an apologetic argument. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TG14, Haven't you realized yet that the Wetlar Gods have deemed it unnecessary for you. Why would they give the M10 more pixels when they refuse to give the Leica S more pixels, although everyone else in the mid format range are increasing their camera's pixel. There are a number in the 100 range and 50 is almost the norm for the cameras that are left.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adli Posted February 22, 2018 Share #397 Posted February 22, 2018 If you have a client who demands pixels, buy them a camera :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 22, 2018 Share #398 Posted February 22, 2018 Or better still - have them buy you a camera. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 22, 2018 Share #399 Posted February 22, 2018 If you have a client who demands pixels, buy them a camera :-) Or uprez and change the exif data in a suitable text editor . 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 22, 2018 Share #400 Posted February 22, 2018 In the USA it is basketball and those guys are 3 meters long. They are much closer to the ceiling than we are... Anyway, did anybody ever try to determine the resolution of the Sistine Chapel? Quite low, but the viewing distance is about 65 feet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now