georg Posted September 10, 2009 Share #21 Posted September 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Mr. Puts once was a skilled optics-specialist but I never fully understood his esoteric lens-descriptions... But he has shown several times that he has no idea about digital cameras. He not only mixed up MB/MP, he said "pixels"! Many of his comments aren't entirely wrong, they're just strange and misleading, just like the comment about lines/mm and print size. He was the one who compared the M8 with JPGs and came to the conclusion that it barely reaches the quality of a Canon Rebel... Why is Leica still giving him new samples/prototypes? I think there are more skilled people in the internet who could test them. My knowledge is also very limited, but I'm not a paid self-called "specialist" thousands of readers trust (or don't they?) getting free prototypes! By the way, dpreview is great, the technical data descriptions are excellent. But they can't test cameras properly! The resolution measurement is one example, the M8 cannot resolve 2600lph because it's sensor just has 3936 pixels in the horizontal direction, so given a perfect lens and monchrome structures it could theoretically resolve 1968 linepairs! What they "measure" are alaising artifacts enhanced by sharpening - so when they come up with a resolution comparison M9 vs. D3X/1ds/5ds/A900 the results are nearly useless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Hi georg, Take a look here Erwin Puts on M9. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
nugat Posted September 10, 2009 Share #22 Posted September 10, 2009 How to undesrtand the results below? They do distinguish between "Absolute" and "extinction resolution". Leica M8 Review: 20. Compared to...: Digital Photography Review "As you can see from the figures above the M8's built-in software anti-alias (moire-reduction) algorithm begins blurring the image fairly early and limits horizontal resolution to around 1900 LPH (compared to between 2400 and 2600 LPH from RAW). This puts the M8's JPEG resolution in the same ball park as the best eight megapixel digital SLRs (which is a pity considering the amazing resolution, thanks to not having an anti-alias filter, available from RAW)." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted September 10, 2009 Share #23 Posted September 10, 2009 Pixels are not resolution, lines per..XYZ or CoC are resolution. When I say resolution, I mean the same as Leica does on their spec sheet: 5212x3472 pixels. Any other definition is not useful in this discussion, since to cover an A3 and get a sharp print you need a certain number of pixels. Of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted September 10, 2009 Share #24 Posted September 10, 2009 When I say resolution, I mean the same as Leica does on their spec sheet: 5212x3472 pixels. Any other definition is not useful in this discussion, since to cover an A3 and get a sharp print you need a certain number of pixels. Of course. Pixels are cheap. Get them for free from the printer driver and for some $$ from any software. Genuine Fractals are good at it. Real Detail is dear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted September 10, 2009 Share #25 Posted September 10, 2009 @nugat I have no idea what they want to show with "absolute" and "extinction" resolution - but even the "absolute" resolution is often over nyquist limit which is simply impossible! It's strange they make so fundamental mistakes while offering comprehensive information and wonderfully designed MTF-results from their lens-tests that are so neatly arranged!? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted September 10, 2009 Share #26 Posted September 10, 2009 Pixels are cheap. Get them for free from the printer driver and for some $$ from any software. Genuine Fractals are good at it. Okay, now I *know* that you are joking. How is a printer driver or software going to invent real detail for pixels? And if it isn't real, then it isn't going to be very impressive. Real Detail is dear. That is exactly what I meant with "any reasonable camera/lens". All good cameras will be able to fill their buffer with a reasonable amount of detail, Leica especially so due to their incredible lenses and missing AA filter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted September 10, 2009 Share #27 Posted September 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) @nugat I have no idea what they want to show with "absolute" and "extinction" resolution - but even the "absolute" resolution is often over nyquist limit which is simply impossible! It's strange they make so fundamental mistakes while offering comprehensive information and wonderfully designed MTF-results from their lens-tests that are so neatly arranged!? So dpreview tests are worth nothing? Can somebody from Dpreview comment please, sure you read these forums. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted September 10, 2009 Share #28 Posted September 10, 2009 Okay, now I *know* that you are joking. How is a printer driver or software going to invent real detail for pixels? And if it isn't real, then it isn't going to be very impressive. That is exactly what I meant with "any reasonable camera/lens". All good cameras will be able to fill their buffer with a reasonable amount of detail, Leica especially so due to their incredible lenses and missing AA filter. I think we misunderstand our posts. I am saying that one can print any size becasue the printer driver, or PP software, or specialized soft will interpolate the missing pixels from the given file to the output file at a set pixel print density (usually 240 or 300 dpi or double that). But to have any gain from uprezzing other than a really big print with little detail, the detail has to be in the original camera file before "uprezzing". That is the result of sensor/processor/lens work. Given the resolution tests from DPreview (disputed here) M8 delivers 2600LPH while FF 36x24 D3x, A900 and Canons 2700LPH. The resolution of M8 and FF cameras with their best glass is comparable. The files can be printed to 10 inches high with the real resolution at 260-270 lpi. Anything bigger will result in lower per inch DETAIL resolution. The pixels will be there (uprezzing and keeping at the 300dpi or 240dpi) but will not carry new detail. To sum up: Resolution is the real detail in a digital file (eg in LPH) File size is how many pixels (also megabytes) are used to represent the detail eg camera original 24MP is 6000x4000 pixels which can be printed to any size-even billboards. According to DPreview 2700LPH is the vertical resolution limit of that file imposed by the lens/sensor/processing on -camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
osscat Posted September 10, 2009 Share #29 Posted September 10, 2009 What is the resolution of TriX at 400 ASA (ISO for the young'uns)? Pushing film to 1600 is possible but it has a cost in terms of grain and contrast or tonal range. Perhaps the comparisons of prints should be made with enlargements from 35mm negs v digital files? Ahh but then we will have deep discussion on aesthetics, authentic film look, vintage quality and unique silver print quality (each one being unique) as opposed to the smooth, full tonal range, infinitely reproducible and consequentially less valuable prints from the digital process. This M9 operates like an analogue camera in the hand and with one camera you can go into any situation and come away with an image due to variable ISO. What is the problem - no need to buy wider focal length lenses to accommodate for the crop factor. Bliss Osscat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.