Re: [Leica] Thoughts on digital and the impact on Leica

["Steve LeHuray" <steve@icommag.com>]

Damn! I wish people would learn how to edit these multiple posts.

Instead of Austin Franklin wrote:

it should be:

Steve LeHuray wrote:


> At 3:22 PM -0400 9/29/02, Austin Franklin wrote:
>>  > .....I suppose which side of the fence you are on means you are going to
>>>  promote your team.

Then it becomes:

Austin Franklin wrote:
>>
>>Steve,
>>
>>You're certainly correct, but badly done testing (or biased, intentional or
>>not, reading of the results) is simply unacceptable.
>>
>>I don't mean to sound arrogant at all, but I'm not on any fence with respect
>>to this issue.  I have been designing digital imaging equipment for over 20
>>years, and I have done VERY extensive testing in this area, and I know the
>>facts first hand.  I KNOW that claim is simply wrong.  I've done hundreds
>>and hundreds of tests, and the conclusions drawn by this "article" are
>>simply flawed, or misleading at the least.

Then Henning replies:
>
> So, in your hundreds and hundreds of tests of Canon 1Ds 11Mp cameras,
> this is the conclusion you've come to? :-) What we're seeing here
> with this camera is a new level of performance, and in spite of
> preconceptions and 'knowing' the right answer, we'll just have to
> wait until we get a chance to try it ourselves or have someone we
> trust do a test.
>
>>A VERY poorly exposed, developed and scanned, 10 year outdated high speed
>>film that was sitting on the dashboard of one's south facing car, in
>>Florida, for a week, before being developed, would probably be inferior to
>>an 11M pixel Bayer patterned camera.  Is that "fair" to use images from that
>>as the poster child for film?  Of course not.
>
> These assumptions, or rather implied assumptions are of the worst
> sort. Michael Reichman definitely seems to be on the digital side of
> the fence, but he has used enough different cameras over a long
> enough period, from Leica through Hasselblad and Sinar, many in a
> professional capacity to know how to handle film. He scans on an
> Imacon, which may not be up there competing with $50,000 drum
> scanners, but is as good or better than what most of us will have
> access to.
>
> I think that before we say that his 'tests' are flawed or misleading
> we need a lot more information. I would tend on first impressions to
> say that Michael Reichman is possibly onto something, in spite of my
> own experience and analysis of the digital vs. film situation at the
> present stage of development.
>
> As others have stated, I also find the Canon and Kodak cameras ugly,
> and of course they need their respective humungous lenses so that
> compactness and discretion are left well behind, and they seem to
> suffer from terminal featuritis, but they possibly do deliver the
> goods for a lot of people. We'll just have to wait and see.
>
>>Also, sharpness has nothing to do with resolution, as I stated in another
>>post.  It's something that is commonly misperceived.
>
> Most of us know that quite well, Austin.
>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Austin
>

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html