From: NameHere on
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:35:10 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)>

>Also, I strongly disagree with his final comment "If the picture lacks
>content, not even a 24 Mp camera could make it a masterpiece!"
>This is inane and stupid.

Attached below is a 24mp image, see the content? You're as inane and stupid
as your comment.

From: Me on
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Me" <user(a)domain.invalid> wrote:
>> Bowser wrote:
>>> While I did not upgrade from the 5D to
>>> the 5D II simply for more resolution, the added resolution is clearly
>>> visible in prints as small as 8 x 10.
>> Did you upgrade from about 3mp?
>> I've actually used and compared 5d 1 &II, and my conclusion is very much
>> the same as this:
> That's not my conclusion: I find the improved detail/texture rendition
> significant at 12x18. This is because, at least for sizes up to 12x18,
> people walk up to prints and take a closer look. If you show your prints,
> they'll get looked at from 10" away. (Even larger prints get looked at up
> close in every gallery I've been in.)
> Also, I strongly disagree with his final comment "If the picture lacks
> content, not even a 24 Mp camera could make it a masterpiece!"
> This is inane and stupid. A good workman knows his tools, their abilities,
> and limitation. S/he uses them to capture images appropriate to the
> capabilities of the tool at hand.
I presume that it's the same as said in other ways, a fool with a tool
is still a fool. Unnecessary, perhaps a little inane, but still worthy
of repeating.
>> Added resolution "clearly visible at 8x10" is plain and utter nonsense.
> Well, I'd call it a bit of an overstatement<g>. For some test patterns, I
> can see a difference in prints between 360 and 720 ppi source files. But in
> general, 300 ppi from a good digtal original looks good, whereas 240ppi
> looks noticeably short on detail.
> It's interesting that the canonical 300 ppi really is a good target
> resolution. I suppose I might have preferred a somewhat higher resolution
> when my eyes were 40 years younger, though...
I've got 6,6 vision without glasses, but at 52 I can't focus at 10
inches. At a quick measure, about 14 inches is my limit. If you peer
at prints at 10" (with reading glasses I assume) then that's overkill.
If you do that in a gallery around here, then you might very well be
asked to leave.
>> I think I actually can tell the difference between 6 and 24mp at 10x8, but
>> to say it's "clearly visible" is totally delusional.
> Hmm. I find 6MP to be completely unacceptable for 8x10 (A4 borderless*,
> actually).
You mean a 6mp crop from a larger image - or one taken with an old 6mp
dslr? With the former, then if the image wasn't absolutely nailed
(focus etc) then I agree. From an old 300d, D70 or whatever, then I
don't agree - they can be stunningly detailed at 8x10. A4 borderless is
quite a bit larger, especially if you crop off the end to get a 3:2
format image to fit.
It just doesn't render detail and textures as well as I like.
> Compared to the large numbers of A4 prints from scanned MF lying around
> here, 6MP (like 35mm) simply doesn't hack it at this size. But 12MP is fine.
> This isn't just me, anyone who looks at a mix of my 6MP shots (I used a 300D
> for family stuff for years) and MF shots at A4 is knocked out by the quality
> of the MF stuff. That difference goes away at 12MP.
> *: I've been printing at 7x10.5 on A4 paper lately, though. 6MP might not be
> such a disaster at that size.
>> Printer used is R1800, which also exceeded wet-process print resolution
>> (150lpi) by about double (horizontal) to about 50% (radial) (printer uses
>> the same print engine as the R2400 used by David L).
> The print engine is actually quite different (I have both an R800 and the
> R2400) but detail rendition is similar. But wet-process projection printing
> _at its best_ (e.g. printing medium or large format film at enlargements
> under 6x) is better than these printers, although that improvement is
> largely academic, especially if you can print at 360 ppi.
The R1800 and 2400 are mechanically the same printer with different
exterior cases, I assume Epson did the same with R1900/2880.
"Print engine" wasn't the correct term. To be picky, the 1800 fires
smaller droplets (1.5 vs 3 picolitre), so might outresolve the 2400, but
either will easily resolve >300dpi.
The R800 is a slightly different beast - despite using the same inkset
as the R1800, gamut and tonality isn't the same.
With the new Epson A3+ range, they reduced cartridge size from about
13ml to about 10ml and increased the price a bit too. That was a very
nice thing for them to do - not.
Considering that the 800/1800/1400 are now 5 year old technology, it's
surprising how very marginal any improvements have been in newer models.
From: stephe_k on
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> <stephe_k(a)> wrote:
>> You really can't understand even simple concepts can you. Let me make this
>> a bit more simple for you Alan. The manufacturers raised the MP count on
>> smaller sensor cameras higher and higher, past the point where it improved
>> IQ purely for marketing reasons. And in your wisdom, you think this don't
>> happen to Dslrs?
> I can't speak for Alan's wisdom, but I can speak from my experience. Canon
> has done exactly the right thing in the 5D2. (I'd guess Alan's experience
> with prints from his 20+MP dSLR is similar to mine.)

So you feel a 20MP APS sensor will be an improvement? How about a 40MP
full frame one? And you don't think they will continue this trend?

From: stephe_k on
Bowser wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:39:42 -0500, "stephe_k(a)"
>> It's not likely to end even if YOU say it will. There isn't a limit when
>> it comes to marketing.
> Who cares about SLR/P&S comparisons? Two different beasts, and
> comparing them proves nothing, really. Why not compare a 5MP P&S from
> 5 years ago with a newer cam in the same market? Try this: compare a
> Canon G2 with a Canon G11 and see which one produces better images. I
> have, and the G11 wins every damned time. That's a 4MP P&S compared to
> a 10MP P&S and there's no question, really, which is better.

So you believe a 20MP camera with the same size sensor will be even
better? That is where this is headed.. And does a G2 and a G11 have the
same size sensor? Sorry I don't know the answer there.

From: RichA on
On Mar 11, 9:29 am, Bowser <Ca...(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:42:19 -0500, "steph...(a)"
> <steph...(a)> wrote:
> >Alfred Molon wrote:
> >> In article <hn7ckt$g4...(a)>, steph...(a) says....
> >>> But is a crop camera 44 x 33 mm vs 56 x 42 mm of full 645 format. Not a
> >>> huge increase over 36x24mm for the price and what you lose on wide angle
> >>> $$$ MF glass etc.
> >> 68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have
> >> 40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close.
> >A: Is is equal resolution to what a good full frame DSRL has now?
> >B: Is the MF glass resolving enough to do anything if it does resolve as
> >highly. i.e. are you actually gaining anything.
> I've seen these questions before, but back in the "film" days. Testers
> would *prove* that MF glass has lower resolving power than 35mm glass,
> but when comparing images from my hassy 500 C/M to those from my
> Nikon, there was NO comparison. So will the reality that meant "more
> film means higher quality images" hold true for larger sensors,
> despite that the glass may, theoritically, be capable of less
> resolution? I'm guessing yes, but I'll wait and see. Anyway, I'm sure
> that anyone with a Pentax MF system loves this news. The 645 N II I
> had (for a short time) was a stellar machine and maybe the best
> handling camera I've ever owned.

Given good lens resolution, enlarging was the real kiss of death of
film images.