Interesting Leica product announcements today ...

On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:50:53 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

Bruce wrote:

... but I cannot reveal what they are. Sorry! :-(

The news is embargoed worldwide until Leica product seminars across
the USA have concluded.

I will say that the product news is well worth waiting for. It shows
that Leica are working hard and investing for a strong future.


The deadline has passed and the three products announced today can be
revealed:

1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
up to ISO 10,000.

Great specs, but the images look like crap on DP Review. What a waste.


2. Leica Summicron 50mm f/2 ASPH. The first 50mm Summicron with an
aspherical element. The previous (pre-ASPH) model was one of the
sharpest lenses ever made. This one will be even better.

3. Leica X2 autofocus compact P&S with 16 MP APS-C sensor (up from the
12 MP of the X1), 24mm f/2.8 lens (full frame equivalent focal length
of 35mm) and a socket for an accessory EVF.

The seminar will continue tomorrow and may include further
announcements. However the M10 rangefinder and new mirrorless system
camera/lenses are unlikely to appear before Photokina in September.

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

Great specs, but the images look like crap on DP Review. What a waste.

Eighteen megapixels is low resolution for monochrome. I used to shoot
Technical Pan in B&W, which will blow 18 megapixels away easily.

no it won't. according to roger clark, tech pan is roughly equivalent
to 16-18 mp.

nospam wrote,on my timestamp of 12/05/2012 2:18 PM:

Eighteen megapixels is low resolution for monochrome. I used to shoot
Technical Pan in B&W, which will blow 18 megapixels away easily.

no it won't. according to roger clark, tech pan is roughly equivalent
to 16-18 mp.

Roger is yet another idiot with pretentions to scanning and film expertise. I
have 135mm tech pan that easily exceeds 24MP. Looking at the negatives with a
microscope proves it beyond any doubt. Only wish I had a scanner capable of much
higher rez to show it at its best.
The thing these "experts" totally miss is that starting from an image taken 30
years ago with **** lenses and technique is no proof whatsoever that film cannot
show high resolution. Most of the "comparison" sites around the net have some
of the worst film images I have ever seen, parading as "proof" that film is
incapable of high resolution.

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

no it won't. according to roger clark, tech pan is roughly equivalent
to 16-18 mp.

Roger can believe what he wants, but I got far better than that.

and you can believe what you want.

I could
distinguish extra details by examining the negatives with a microscope. Of
course, you need a lens that can step up to the challenge, but many Leica
lenses can do just that (such as the 90 mm Summicron that I liked to use).

with a microscope, you'll only see grain.

post comparison photos, in particular, resolution charts (which is what
roger did).

In article , Noons
wrote:

Eighteen megapixels is low resolution for monochrome. I used to shoot
Technical Pan in B&W, which will blow 18 megapixels away easily.

no it won't. according to roger clark, tech pan is roughly equivalent
to 16-18 mp.

Roger is yet another idiot with pretentions to scanning and film expertise.
I have 135mm tech pan that easily exceeds 24MP. Looking at the negatives
with a microscope proves it beyond any doubt.

no it doesn't. a microscope proves nothing.

Only wish I had a scanner capable of much
higher rez to show it at its best.
The thing these "experts" totally miss is that starting from an image taken 30
years ago with **** lenses and technique is no proof whatsoever that film cannot
show high resolution.

they aren't comparing to images taken 30 years ago.

Most of the "comparison" sites around the net have some
of the worst film images I have ever seen, parading as "proof" that film is
incapable of high resolution.

the thing these film luddites miss is that digital is much better than
film ever was.

Noons wrote:
nospam wrote,on my timestamp of 12/05/2012 2:18 PM:

Eighteen megapixels is low resolution for monochrome. I used to shoot
Technical Pan in B&W, which will blow 18 megapixels away easily.

no it won't. according to roger clark, tech pan is roughly equivalent
to 16-18 mp.

Roger is yet another idiot with pretentions to scanning and film expertise. I
have 135mm tech pan that easily exceeds 24MP.

13,5 cm? As in "4x5 inch large format camera"?
Of course you should see *way* more than 24 MPix there.
But the others are talking about 24x36mm film.

http://clarkvision.com
finds that then the resolution is around 18 MPix. Yes, you
can probably do more with superb lenses and technique. Much
better? I doubt it. Yes, you should overscan. But the extra
pixels don't translate 1:1 into detail recovered.

Looking at the negatives with a
microscope proves it beyond any doubt. Only wish I had a scanner capable of much
higher rez to show it at its best.

So photograph the microscope output.

The thing these "experts" totally miss is that starting from an image taken 30
years ago with **** lenses and technique is no proof whatsoever that film cannot
show high resolution. Most of the "comparison" sites around the net have some
of the worst film images I have ever seen, parading as "proof" that film is
incapable of high resolution.

So show your own proof. Go ahead, do a drum scan ...

-Wolfgang

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

no it doesn't. a microscope proves nothing.

A low-power microscope allowed me to see detail that I was unable to scan.

if you have to go to such extents just to see it, then it's for all
intents, not there.

In article , John A.
wrote:

no it doesn't. a microscope proves nothing.

A low-power microscope allowed me to see detail that I was unable to scan.

if you have to go to such extents just to see it, then it's for all
intents, not there.

Huh?

huh what? if you have to resort to a microscope to see a difference,
then there's not really much of a difference in the first place, thus
his claim that it's much better is wrong.

Mxsmanic writes:

nospam writes:

no it won't. according to roger clark, tech pan is roughly equivalent
to 16-18 mp.

Roger can believe what he wants, but I got far better than that. I could
distinguish extra details by examining the negatives with a microscope. Of
course, you need a lens that can step up to the challenge, but many Leica
lenses can do just that (such as the 90 mm Summicron that I liked to use).

I'm fairly sure this discussion is so fraught partly because there are
two different issues.

First, there's resolution -- can we resolve detail at a given level?
That's "easily" (well, doing really careful testing is never actually
"easy", but at least it's fairly well understood how to do it) tested,
for both any given film and for digital.

But, second, there's "enlargability" -- how big a print can you make
that looks good? At some point, lack of resolution starts to look bad.
But, with most films, to many viewers the print starts to look bad
considerably *before* that because of artifacts (grain).

So, one crew can say "this film has equivalent resolution to that
digital MP number" and be completely right -- but the film can't be
enlarged to make as big a good-looking print as a rather smaller MP
number. This side is more subjective of course, and depends on style
and subject (most people like or tolerate grain more in some styles and
subjects than others).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

nospam writes:

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

no it doesn't. a microscope proves nothing.

A low-power microscope allowed me to see detail that I was unable to scan.

if you have to go to such extents just to see it, then it's for all
intents, not there.

Oh, come on; that's nonsense. 35mm film is routinely enlarged 10x or
more, and 100x has been done (not for prints people are expected to view
from too close!) So for purposes of measuring resolution, looking at
the negative with magnifications in that range and a bit higher is
absolutely appropriate.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info