tennclay
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.3 #1 · canon DSLR vs Leica M8 for extended traveling | |
Lotusm50 wrote:
I was pretty much with you except for this statement. Indeed, a bigger file, more pixels, can be the source of more detail, provided the lens is up to it. That is a pretty good reason for more detail. If you can see a detail difference on the screen, then the detail difference can be seen in a print, provided the enlargement is sufficient. A 1 to 1 comparison is not really difficult at all -- either you reduce one to the size of the other, or you enlarge one. Actually I think enlarging one to the size of the other will expose the differences in resolution and detail more readily. Now, this is fine if what are interested in is which camera produces the most resolution, or detail, is is sharper, or produces less artifacts like moire. This is valid comparison in it own right. However, each user should look at purchase with respect how they will use the output (all other things being equal, or a separate part of the purchase calculus). Depending on your output, you may never see a difference. No question about it and that might certainly be the case with decision between the 5D and M8. For your uses, in your printing, they might show detail that is practically the same. That, however, doesn't mean they are the same.
I don't doubt that the 5D might provide marginally better detail and resolution than the M8 as Richard (and Jack) point out, but I also don't doubt that you don't see a difference in your prints. The 2 positions are not mutually exclusive.
...Show more →
I would agree 100% with your reply - and that is why used the word "could" in my last sentence.  .
Yes, it all depends on the print size, and if one image starts with more detail you will be able to see that difference at some size print. It is only logical that my comment about viewing at 100% would translate to viewing a print at some threshold size. Personally, I only print up to 24" wide, and at that size, usually, neither camera produces prints acceptable to me - if there is fine detail involved. I prefer medium format film (I have no MF Digital, and probably never will!) for the larger ranges.
There is a famous thread in which a printing expert declared that his 30x40 prints from the M8 looked like a print from a LF 4x5 camera. That was taken to mean that the M8 files were the equivalent of 4x5 scans, and endlessly referenced across the web as proof of the 'magic' of the M8. Of course not much mention was made of the post processing techniques used (like adding noise to the file to mask the resizing artifacts) to produce that print, or the fact that similar techniques could be used to produce even larger 4x5 prints.
I did a well controlled test of the 5D vs a Mamiya 7II here a long while back. It put a dent in some "conventional wisdom" that the 5D had surpassed medium format and many arguments were put forth to prove that either the differences would never matter or that my technique was biased toward the film camera. Some of those arguments were - "could never see the difference in print" - of course you would at some print size, or "your interpolation was inadequate" - I posted the raw file and no one could produce a better up-res with any of their tools, or "I would do a pano stitch with the 5D" - of course that would never keep up with a pano stitch of the MF camera!
It all points out that personal preferences and goals should be the deciding factor. My intent was not to declare that the M8 produces files equal to or better in every way than the 5D, but more to address the statements presented as fact that the M8 has poor image quality - which is simply not the case.
|
