[Leica] More RD-1 Samples

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

When are people going to get this - The digicams ALL, I don't care what
brand, produce noisy images at 400 iso because of the tiny sensor size,
while the DSLRs, whether Canon, Nikon, or Olympus, produce much, much
better images at that sensitivity. Period.

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
FRANK DERNIE
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 4:33 AM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] More RD-1 Samples


I only judge my prints, not numbers. If I believed the
numbers I would still believe 35mm film is better than
large sensor digital whereas a quick glance at a print
shows that it is not. At iso100 my digi 2 clone is
superb, at 400iso it is way behind my canon eos 10D.
Perhaps crucial parts are hand selected and the best
ones fitted to the Leicas and less good to the much
cheaper Panasonic branded cameras. I don't say my
prints are not good from my almost Digi2, just that
the Canon ones are better, a great deal so at 400asa+,
probably because the sensor is bigger than a
fingernail!
Frank

--- Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca> wrote: > FRANK DERNIE
offered:
> Subject: Re: [Leica] More RD-1 Samples
> 
> 
> > Hi Ted,
> > I have the Panasonic lika digi 2. It is nowhere
> near
> > as good as my APS sized sensor digi SLR so is
> unlikely
> > to be anywhere near as good as a properly
> engineered
> > digi rangefinder with a reasonably sized
> sensor.<<<<
> 
> Hi Frank,
> I guess I have to borrow a few digi cameras so I can
> see what the difference
> is in quality one onto the other. Because when I
> look at 13X19 prints from
> the Digilux 2, I have a hard time imagining a
> better, sharper, more detailed
> photograph than it produces off an Epson 2200
> printer.
> 
> I know those $9 - $10 grand SLR's make a difference
> due to a larger capture
> sensor. My son has a couple of them for his sports
> work and without question
> there's a difference. But anything I've seen from 4
> - 5- 6 mgp's doesn't
> appear to make any difference to my eye.
> 
> Now given I'm a quintessential digi cam / print
> rookie, I assume my eye
> isn't fine tuned to the nuances of digi quality from
> the lesser size
> sensors. And or the inner electronic capabilities
> with each camera.
> 
> Given I've shot 99.9% of my digi shooting over the
> past 5 months with the
> Digi 2 set to auto everything, I'm still blown away
> with the quality out
> doors & indoors by available light. Not only that,
> it's the quality of the
> after prints when one can see pores in the skin in a
> portrait style H&S. I
> figure any better than these and we'll see under the
> skin! ;-)
> 
> Sure I want to use the best there is in equipment,
> if the bigger the chip
> the better final print, that's fine. However, I
> don't want it so
> sophisticated and expensive that it's beyond the
> human eye to see the
> difference between say a 5 sensor and a 10 sensor.
> (Just using fictitious
> numbers here.)
> 
> Particularly when the bottom line is, it's some
> techie computer geek playing
> a numbers game when we can't discern the difference
> with our eyes. Not to
> mention the "more is better syndrome" then
> corporations stick it to the
> buyers for more money, when in reality not a human
> in a thousand can see the
> difference.
> 
> How far off am I?
> 
> ted
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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