Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/17

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled
From: rdcb37 at dodo.com.au (Rick Dykstra)
Date: Wed Nov 17 17:50:50 2004
References: <115850111530a8.11530a81158501@shaw.ca>

It's going to be $7500 AUD, so around $5000 to $5500 USD, I'd say.  
That's a lot of money.  Still Leica claim that a similar standard Canon 
costs more than a Digi R Back plus a new R9 to go with it.  But it's 
all academic if you're loaded up with Leica R lenses - the Digi R back 
is the only solution.

Now, back to my earlier question, what's the LUGs view on how 10.5 Mpix 
compares with good film?  I enlarge from film to 20x30in, via a 6144 x 
4096 scan.  The digi back's sensor is way less pixels than this, by my 
calculations, good for around 8 x 12 at the same resolution.  Not bad, 
but not as good as film.

Thoughts?

Rick Dykstra, Australia.

On 18/11/2004, at 11:31 AM, GREG LORENZO wrote:

>> Doug Herr writes:
>
>> B.D., the DMR - Leica's digital back - is about $5,000, not
>> $7,000.  And why are you guessing the hypothetical Nikon digital
>> back will be truly swappable?  Is there any basis for this guess?
>>
>>
> Wishful thinking?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>


Replies: Reply from telyt at earthlink.net (Doug Herr) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
In reply to: Message from gregj.lorenzo at shaw.ca (GREG LORENZO) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)