Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I read this a lot, but my take on it is different in that this is only true when pixel peeping at 100%.The more pixels you have (regardless of format), the better quality of lens you need. More importantly, you need to use a tripod more because the sensor is less forgiving not because the sensor is bad.
Thanks for making that request!Could a moderator move this thread into the right forum. Thank you.
No he did not. He showed, convincingly, that the cheaper (but still pricey) Zeiss 24 mm nearly matched the 6x more expensive Leica and was a great match. Each lens had its strong points; both were excellent. i agree with him. I think you should re-read his article.Too bad he also showed, convincingly, that a $6000 Leica 24mm was required to get the most of our that camera.
I agree with this so completely. I think it has had some interesting and not necessarily good results as well - it seems to me that some camera manufacturers are actually making cameras with lower pixel counts just because they realise that they will be judged by their performance at 100% NOT by the image performance overall.I read this a lot, but my take on it is different in that this is only true when pixel peeping at 100%.
:ROTFL:Comparing at the same output (print) size it makes no difference.
This famous WTD came back to mind reading this thread:
:ROTFL:
I print 24x36 from my A900 all the time. They look awesome.You're joking, right? I ask because my other camera is a Contax 645/Phase One P30+ combo and even with its 31 MP of AA-filter free pixels, 15x20 prints on 17x22 paper are as large as I'm comfortable printing the average photo. To my eyes, my m4/3 gear (G1, GF1, E-P1) runs out of IQ with prints larger than 12x16 (although it appears the GX1 may be good for prints a bit larger than that) and I was never happy printing my 7.5MP L1 files any larger than 7.5x10. There are exceptions to the above, of course, but not too many, so either I'm a lot pickier than you are and/or your standards are lower than mine...
+1 on the M9 for Landscape, Though I had trouble focusing it with the 90, I wish I never sold mine....On the other hand - if you want a landscape with lots of foliage in it, then the 18mp of the M9 (without an AA filter) is pushing it.
:ROTFL:Can I have the last 10 minutes of my life back please
Yes, I've seen that one over on TOP and it is the perfect remedy for rampant Pixel Peeping.:ROTFL:
Actually . . what with Pegelli's cartoon I think things are rather looking up.
Yeah, a common myth. But it does sell lenses and tripods.I've found my own observations to echo those of Mr. Reichmann, plus stuff I've gleaned from the fine folks in the Medium Format sections and chats I've had with Doug Petersen of CI: The more pixels you have (regardless of format), the better quality of lens you need. More importantly, you need to use a tripod more because the sensor is less forgiving not because the sensor is bad.