airfrogusmc
Veteran
Well the 246 MM has no color so it actually compares more to a 48 MP color sensor when talking IQ.
A big jump in math or in real IQ?
Well the 246 MM has no color so it actually compares more to a 48 MP color sensor when talking IQ.
One option: Buy it, and mail it to Leica "for sensor cleaning". If they tell you it is a corroded sensor, Leica will replace it for no charge. Right?
I think with the SL maybe/perhaps 20x30 could be the normal print size if one has the big enough printer, and the money to print consistently big.
I think it is more than math. Know that I'm gauging all this against my Monochrom which I have done extensive printing large. I am also utilizing inputs from people I respect on this forum that suggest in they see little difference between 13x19 prints when comparing MM, M-246, and SL B&W prints.
Cal
Thanks for mentioning an important fact, but some would gauge the effective comparision to about a third more resolution, not double. Perhaps a 36MP color sensor, which is a lot.
I just want to make clear that the M-246 is a remarkable camera, and it is mucho more advanced in many ways over my MM. I have no intent to bash someone else's camera. In fact I wouldn't mind owning one, but there are limits...
What is good for me, likely is not good for others...
Cal
Not to derail the conversation even further from main topic... I can see the difference in resolution and sharpness, yes. I just fail to see the need for super ultra sharpness that people sometimes willing to sell a family farm for... I have seen original prints of André Kertész, for example, that were not sharp at 8 by 10, let alone larger size. Yet they are remarkable pieces of art...
On the other hand, who looks at 20 by 30 print with the magnifying glass? I have several prints of this size that look wonderful on a wall as one stands couple feet away. Taken with Canon 10D and L-lens, as well as 35mm something.... And that's how people stand when they look at them...
In fact, maybe to my twisted brain only, something in size 20x30 looking bitingly sharp on a wall would be un-natural.
M,
We live in a world where we can transcend formats. What I am saying is that one can reveal the detail and extended tonality of medium format and at times large format from a small format camera.
A point I was trying to get across is one can print crazy big if one wants to, not that one has to.
Some people would say that Fuji Acros looks digital, but I guess some people say that they don't understand large format photography.
As far as exhibitions go Sabastion Salgado printed really big wet prints that used a lot of large format aesthetic and utilized 4x5 digital negatives to print a stunning exhibition that was truely remarkable.
Not that it is inexpensive, but now that technology is within grasp of regular people.
Cal
I confess, Fuji Acros to me does look digital, so does Kodak Ektar (I dont know why bother and in the end get results smooth as digital).
But I see your point- you don't have to but you can, that's why you want it. That's fine.
BTW, I saw the huge prints by Sabastion Salgado while in Florida last year... I did like his old work and did not his latest (Genesis) at all. For example this looks bad to me.![]()
Back on topic:
Well.... the original topic is sensor corrosion. Just saying.
Well.... the original topic is sensor corrosion. Just saying.
Dear Mikhail,Not to derail the conversation even further from main topic... I can see the difference in resolution and sharpness, yes. I just fail to see the need for super ultra sharpness that people sometimes willing to sell a family farm for... I have seen original prints of André Kertész, for example, that were not sharp at 8 by 10, let alone larger size. Yet they are remarkable pieces of art...
On the other hand, who looks at 20 by 30 print with the magnifying glass? I have several prints of this size that look wonderful on a wall as one stands couple feet away. Taken with Canon 10D and L-lens, as well as 35mm something.... And that's how people stand when they look at them...
In fact, maybe to my twisted brain only, something in size 20x30 looking bitingly sharp on a wall would be un-natural.
....
With a Nikon 105/2.5
![]()
Speaking of which, how does one learn tonality?
Speaking of which, how does one learn tonality?