The only thing that this "review" revealed is that the "reviewer" had no clue, no clue at all.
That was my point Klaus...if I hadn't made myself clear.
BillBingham2
Registered User
YES you should David.
I am happy to help you work through the pain of your shame and offer you a new loving home for your M9 here in the Midwest.
It's beautiful here, miles and miles of corn and/or soy beans. Beautiful clouds, blue skys, I promise to give it lots of love, shutter activations and careful use.
I'll even send you an honorarium (gift) of ten A4ish prints of different images I capture during it's first year in it's new home.
B2 (;->
Huss
Veteran
derleicaman
Member
I for one think that 24MP is more than enough for most work. I have used the original D70, the D300 and then the D700 professionally with great results. I recently upgraded to the M10 from the M9, and the increase in MP from 18 to 24 is welcome but not essential. I also use my MM1 and am happy with its 18MP sensor, but that is a bit of a different animal.
I regularly made 20x30 enlargements from my D700 and M9 images. I have not used the M10 long enough to go that large with anything yet, but I am sure it will produce a great image that size.
Here is an image that I have printed many times at 20x30 and it stands up very well to even close inspection. I have printed it in color and B&W.
Guess what camera took this image? Beta test M8 with its measly 10.3 MP sensor!
I regularly made 20x30 enlargements from my D700 and M9 images. I have not used the M10 long enough to go that large with anything yet, but I am sure it will produce a great image that size.
Here is an image that I have printed many times at 20x30 and it stands up very well to even close inspection. I have printed it in color and B&W.
Guess what camera took this image? Beta test M8 with its measly 10.3 MP sensor!
Attachments
dct
perpetual amateur
Nothing. For me. Nothing happens. For an unplanned snapshot, I can live with my smartphone. But if I want to take "pictures" of something, I spend the few seconds to reach for my compact camera and I will have a completely different photographing experience.
/RANT ON
I cannot handle for longer than a minute these too thin, grip less and nearly weightless, dial less and viewfinder less smartphones. After a few minutes I go into spasm with my hands.
/RANT OFF
Regarding the topic: I really don't mind resolution for my work. As already told by others: Composition, framing, tones (or colours), sensible bokeh is more important for the end result.
David Hughes
David Hughes
No, I realise the depths of my shame and the awfulness of the crime and I'm determined to atone for it. The first thing I'll do is continue to use the M9 openly as a warning to others.
And to think that I thought mothers hid their daughters from me because of the beard...
Regards, David
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I think the critical word here is "work" meaning earning a living.
For the rest of us it's an indulgence to have too many pixels. I bet very few could find wall space at home for every picture they've taken if they were 20 x 30 and so on...
Regards, David
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
[FONT="]My very first gig with my first digital camera, a Canon 10D with six megapixels, was a bridal portrait. I was in the transitional stage, so I planned to shoot with my standard rig at the time, a Pentax 6x7. I didn’t yet know or trust my shiny new Canon 10D, but thought I would make a few shots with it just for comparison purposes.
[/FONT] [FONT="]The 10D files showed promise, so I had 16x20 prints made at a professional lab, one from a 10D jpeg and the other, of the same pose, printed from a professionally scanned NPH negative. I showed the resulting prints to a number of my fellow commercial photographers and several of the art directors I work with. Only one could tell which was which. (I later learned it was only because the digital file had more depth of field.)
[/FONT] [FONT="]A bunch of experienced professional photographers and art directors in my city couldn’t tell the difference between a 16x20 printed from a six-megapixel digital camera and one printed from a 6x7 film negative!
[/FONT] [FONT="]And now we have cameras offering 16 -- 18 -- 24 megapixels. How much image quality do we need, anyway? I shot my best architectural work with a 12-megapixel Canon 5D. We have way more than enough to do anything we want to do.[/FONT]
[/FONT] [FONT="]The 10D files showed promise, so I had 16x20 prints made at a professional lab, one from a 10D jpeg and the other, of the same pose, printed from a professionally scanned NPH negative. I showed the resulting prints to a number of my fellow commercial photographers and several of the art directors I work with. Only one could tell which was which. (I later learned it was only because the digital file had more depth of field.)
[/FONT] [FONT="]A bunch of experienced professional photographers and art directors in my city couldn’t tell the difference between a 16x20 printed from a six-megapixel digital camera and one printed from a 6x7 film negative!
[/FONT] [FONT="]And now we have cameras offering 16 -- 18 -- 24 megapixels. How much image quality do we need, anyway? I shot my best architectural work with a 12-megapixel Canon 5D. We have way more than enough to do anything we want to do.[/FONT]
willie_901
Veteran
No need to go overboard. Simply avoid the temptation to print them larger 24 X 36" (A1) if viewers will be close to them.
The Leica M9 has a 6.8µm pixel pitch which is entirely adequate.
Here's a technical article for anyone who wants to know more about the relationship between pixel pitch, print size, and standard viewing distance.
The standard viewing distance, m, is based on the limits of human vision and is proportional to the print's diagonal, d.
m = d /43.3
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I worry about this formula but I'm due at the dentist very soon and so the brain may have switched off. (And, obviously, I've not read the article but will do so later on and thanks for the link.)
Using some rough figures; a 12 x 8 has a diagonal of about 15" and 43.3 is roughly 45. So roughly m=15/45 and that's about a third of an inch...
I could do it to several places of decimals but the answer is still weird for a viewing distance.
OTOH, it confirms my view that photography is not so much about numbers as about prints and so on. In other words it's one of the (black) arts. This is probably because all the numbers in photography vary a lot. There's simple proof if we consider a 200 ISO/ASA film with a latitude of 2 stops under and 1 over; meaning a 200 ISO works as a 50 to 400 ISO film...
And as for exposure, could two photographers ever agree about the correct exposure for an object? Or the framing or cropping or developing or printing? And so and so on...
Regards, David
Bike Tourist
Well-known
A stock image of mine was used on both billboards and on the sides of buses. It is 6 mp.
Axel
singleshooter
Yes - that is exactly my experience.
Thats the point. What formula ever describes it, if we have a viewing distance to look at a picture at a whole its megapixels doesnt matter.
Not exactly the pixel peepers dream surface! haha
David Hughes
David Hughes
And you can cheat a bit. Stick the rougher ones on the wall with an armchair in front of it to stop the pixel peepers getting too close.
Regards, David
ptpdprinter
Veteran
I always look at photos up close to assess their technical quality, as well as from a "normal" viewing distance to assess their aesthetic value.
Axel
singleshooter
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Here are some billboards that I have shot all on 24mps or less.
and
and an L Stop ad from the same image as the last billboard.
by Wrigley Field last year
and
and an L Stop ad from the same image as the last billboard.
by Wrigley Field last year