Is the Leica an "Investment?"
I think burgers is a bad example, since I was talking about how the quality wasn't actually usable in the Leica so it's more like if you added that the proteins in the healthy food weren't digestible by humans..
Originally Posted by georg16nik
Lol I will admit to the scanner part. But who has the money to own an enlarger that will make a 4x5 FOOT print where it would make a difference?
Scanned negatives from my scanner can print up to about 20x24 at 300dpi before interpolation. So the "optical printing is better" line is just like the Leica's are better line. Sure in optimum NO BUDGET LIMITS circumstances sure, there may be slight advantage but real world application is much different. So you're paint for results you can't even fully take advantage of unless you're a millionaire ...
Side note, there's a poster in another thread who asked a question and the result answer was instruction on optical printing and how to correct in that process, the STUDENT's reply was that he had planned to get into optical printing someday but since his school only used scanners that's all he had available, this is a school with a photography degree. Some don't even teach film anymore. So again real world application is much different than on paper statistics.
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk