[Leica] Digital M

[bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen)]

Thanks, Dan. I've found, as I said, that the Olympus so-called 4/3
format doesn't change anything about the way I shoot - I'm simply
looking through a different window at the world. And of course the 4/3
translates better to 5x7 and 8x10 than does the traditional 35 mm
format.

Best
B. D.

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
Dan Post
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 11:35 AM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] Digital M


BD-
Once again- You hit the nail on the head. With all due respect to Greg,
being trapped in a mindset of wanting a 'full frame' with the 35mm
aspect ratio is really self limiting. I would assume that when the old
vest pocket Kodaks started to replace the 4x5 in general use, that many
lamented the passing of the 'perfect' format, and as you stated, those
who use 2 1/4 negatives don't have such a problem. Personally, I like to
think the sensors are more 'half-frame'- the original 'cine' format! I
am pleased that they are bigger and better than my Minox negatives, even
when I use the high resolution Agfa COPEX film. :o)~ Sadly, Leica may go
the way of the Universal Camera Co., Folmer, Graflex, and many of the
other famous marques- I find dinosaurs fascinating, but in the long run,
I can live without them if need be. It's the same with the
Leica- I use a IIIf, and an M7, however much I like them the fact
remains that form- in such things as contrast and resolution, and fine
lenses, are not more important than content- insofar as the creative
vision of the photographer is concerned. It's a tool- and like my wish
for a great old Stanley mitre box, the fact remains that my trusty Delta
10" electric mitre saw makes cleaner and more accurate cuts. The final
product looks just fine, and that is what matters. Just my .02 worth!
Best of light to you, Dan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
To: "'Leica Users Group'" <lug@leica-users.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 2:55 PM
Subject: RE: [Leica] Digital M


> They ain't - perfect. But I have to say that using a DSLR the 
> difference in frame doesn't bother me at all - what I see is what I 
> see is what I get. I'm not looking at a scene thinking '35 mm' any 
> more than I'm doing that when I work with a 2 1/4....
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
> [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf 
> Of Greg Locke
> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 2:49 PM
> To: 'Leica Users Group'
> Subject: RE: [Leica] Digital M
>
>
> Actually, Nikon has stated publically that it has no intention of 
> developing the "full frame sensor" and will concentrate on lens 
> develop to maximize the current sensor.
>
> As a big part of their market is pro newspaper and wires service 
> photographers the added focal lengths are a benefit.
>
> Myself I would prefer the full sensor because I am beginning to notice

> that perspectives, aspect ratios and DOF of the current Nikon cameras 
> just don't correspond to film cameras either.
>
> It took me a year to figure out exactly why I couldn't "see" the same 
> frame in digital as film.
>
> I'm at a stage where I use digital alongside film and its not nice. 
> The company that can make the film-digital transition seamless and 
> unnoticable will be making a breakthrough for those to shoot both 
> ....which is most pros. That, short of some optical trickery, will 
> require a full frame sensor.
>
> That said I have recently met a couple of young news photoraphers who 
> have NEVER shot a roll of film professionally arfter first year 
> college. They came out of school and went into all digital shops.
>
> Times have changed but the new tools still ain't perfect.
>
>
> Greg Locke
> St. John's, Newfoundland
> http://blog.greglocke.com
>
>  ----JUST RELEASED-------
> NEWFOUNDLAND ...journey into a lost nation
> by Greg Locke and Michael Crummey
> McClelland and Stewart
> ISBN # 0-7710-6142-0
> http://www.straylight.ca/newfoundland
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lug-bounces+locke=straylight.ca@leica-users.org
> > [mailto:lug-bounces+locke=straylight.ca@leica-users.org] On Behalf 
> > Of Jerry Justianto
> > Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 2:20 PM
> > To: Leica Users Group
> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Digital M
> >
> > That will be a wrong move for Leica publishing the small sensor in 
> > 2006.  By that time I think most sensor will be 1:1 like in EOS 1Ds
> >
> > JSJ
> >
> > On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:02:01 +0100, Steve Unsworth 
> > <mail@steveunsworth.co.uk> wrote:
> > > You could always buy a Nocti if 800 wasn't fast enough ;-)
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: lug-bounces+mail=steveunsworth.co.uk@leica-users.org
> > > [mailto:lug-bounces+mail=steveunsworth.co.uk@leica-users.org] On 
> > > Behalf Of B. D. Colen
> > > Sent: 11 July 2004 16:46
> > > To: 'Leica Users Group'
> > > Subject: RE: [Leica] Digital M
> > >
> > > So we're looking at a magnification factor of 1.37, a top
> > iso of about
> > > 800, and a price somewhere north of $4500 K? And a new lens
> > that will
> > > undoubtedly cost more than a couple Ms?
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Leica Users Group.
> > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more 
> > > information
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>



_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information