M9 18 mp prints A2 format

[SJP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I for one would be very happy if the M9 is exactly the same no. of megapixels as the current M8. It is more than good enough from my point of view and I would prefer dynamic range & less noise over more pixels any day.

 

If you want to print A0 & study them with a microscope get a real camera in the $20K + range.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest malland]

i forgot to add that this thread is a wonderful confirmation of the fact that many leica m users (amply represented here) belong to a slightly evolved group of lomo artists.

peter

Although sarcasm is the lowest form of humour you're probably right in the sense that, while a camera with more and better quality photo sites would produce better resolution, my preferences are driven by my liking for the "35mm aesthetic". Some years a go a friend photographed a river scene on Tri-X with an M6 and a Mamiya M7, which is a medium format camera. Looking at the prints we both preferred the 35mm shots because they had more "bite" resulting from the more accentuated grain. Now, at low ISOs the M8 produces a file that resembles scanned MF film more than 35mm film, as Sean Reid and others have often stated. With my love of the 35mm aesthetic I often destroy the "superior image quality" of the M8 to get more of 35mm look. Having gotten that look there is no problem printing the file at 100x150 cm and maintaining that look at the normal viewing distance, the latter being the length of the diagonal of the print. Sure, an 18mp camera is likely to produces more resolution, but that is not usually the look that I want. Of course if there is an M9 and if it is 18MP I can destroy it's superior image quality as easily as I do that of the M8, but I don't necessarily equate the quality of a photograph with that of if resolution.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Scratching the Surface©

[BerndReini]

It is more than good enough from my point of view and I would prefer dynamic range & less noise over more pixels any day.

 

I second that!

[Printmaker]

More is better.

[BerndReini]

Yes, I want it all: dynamic range, high ISO, MP, endless depth of field, and an in camera processor that decrease the depth of field and creates beautiful bokeh in the background once I've nailed focus on my main subjects. Sure. But if I can choose only two, I'll go with the dynamic range and ISO.

[j. borger]

Largest i print is A3+.

With that printsize my M8 prints do not look superiour to my 6mp R-D1 prints.

So i doubt the 18 MP of the M9 will make a difference at that size.

I have no intention to print any larger in the future because i simply do not like large prints very often. Even at exhibitions i prefer to look at smaller intimate prints for most subject matter, with few exceptions.

 

For the 35mm esthetics Mitch refers too.. this is a matter of taste. I do not agree.

I have seen several exhibitions where MF prints from Hasselblad or Rolleiflex where shown along with Leica M prints and i prefered the MF prints by a huge margin.

 

I also fooled around with Alien Skin and other software to add grain and simulate B&W 35mm film with my M8 for a long time. I feel liberated since i stopped doing that and accept the M8 files as they are: with a look more like scanned MF film. And completely forget about making the M8 files look like something they are not: grainy/ gritty 35mm B&W film.

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

More is better.

More of anything? There are lots of things that I could use less of. Maybe your case is different.

 

The old man from the Age of the Box Camera

[adli]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Printmaker

More is better.

 

More of anything? There are lots of things that I could use less of. Maybe your case is different.

 

Less is more.

[Printmaker]

Sorry, got busy and couldn't keep up. Coincidentally, I was making 30x45 inch prints from 12 mp D300 files for a gallery opening yesterday. The prints look good from a normal 2 meter viewing distance. And I guess that's the key - normal viewing distance. 10 to 12 mp is sufficient for making big prints. But 18 mp will add more detail. And, yes, 18 mp will make a better A2 (16.53x23.38 inch) print. Im not sure you will be able to see the difference on an A3 (12.95x19.01 inch) print, as that size is close to ideal for printing M8 files.

 

To be perfectly clear, the IQ difference is quite small. Most will never see any difference. And when you move up to 20x30, 24x36 or 30x45, most people will never know the difference. At those sizes, M8 files have that WOW factor. Imagine how much better they could be with nearly double the resolution.

 

Tom

[ennjott]

To make things a bit clearer: I am not printing myself, I always order laser prints and with these what I see is basically what the calculations suggest (21 MP very good but not perfect for A3, A4 is perfect). So all the stuff about me being unable to print: yes, that's true. I own a 300 DPI color laser printer with terrible photo quality.

 

The ordered prints however are just fine, and they show what's already obvious from theory: that a 5600 pixels wide sensor with an AA filter and a CFA does mostly, but not quite match the resolution of a 5000 pixels wide print. Not a surprise, or Foveon wouldn't look any better viewed at 1:1...

 

It's also no secret that the M8 delivers at least comparable quality in pratical use thanks to the missing AA filter and generally better lenses. I expect the M9's IQ to clearly leave the current C/N DSLRs behind.