Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/12/08

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

Subject: [Leica] High ISOs Comparison
From: walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson)
Date: Fri Dec 8 06:27:11 2006
References: <20061206214243.BXP45425@ms03.lnh.mail.rcn.net> <A60E7CFF-A5DD-4A0E-BB3C-7324CEC5BBCA@comcast.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20061207080917.02807240@infoave.net> <43c3d48744166758eda769a953ddebaf@earthlink.net> <45782167.4010301@waltjohnson.com> <ekdhn2h0t93ippsdj85q38rn3628i0hdjr@4ax.com> <4578BCD2.2070801@waltjohnson.com> <e4ihn25nm9sr4jspupdob4qke9q51c6cd2@4ax.com>

Eric

I certainly can't disagree with your reasons for going digital but just 
for the heck of it don't get that M8 yet.

Get a Nikon Coolscan for $600 and let Walgreens process your film (no 
prints, process only) for $2.15 a roll. After that, you can decide on 
color or b&w while sitting in front of your PC. An Epson 1280 for $300 
will turn out a fine 11x14 and if you get after market inks the print is 
archival. (whatever that is supposed to mean)  This will let you save 
$4000 so get a $400 Canon from Target and put away the rest for a nice 
trip to Vegas. :-)

Walt


Eric wrote:

>Walt:
>
>  
>
>>What if the 
>>Nikkormat with a 50mm f2.0 provided a better finished product than your 
>>M8? Think there is a chance of that happening?
>>    
>>
>
>I don't have an M8.  But if somebody wants to give me one, I'd be happy to
>test it against all the older cameras I could get my hands on.  :)
>
>If an older, film camera produces a better finished result than an M8, I
>would suggest buying that older film camera and not having to worry about IR
>filters.
>
>Right now, at this point in my life, the better finished result for me will
>come from a digital camera.  I don't have a local, reliable lab.  I don't
>have time to do my own processing.  I don't have the equipment or the desire
>to do color processing.  So for me, at this point in time, digital is my
>best solution.
>
>That said, if I could see night and day difference in finished prints of my
>normal subjects between my current equipment and other digital equipment, I
>would probably start figuring out what I'd need to do to switch over.  At
>this point, I think that competent photographers can make fantastic prints
>using the brand of their choosing.  I suspect that we'd have a hard time
>telling the Canons from the Nikons from the Olympus from the Pentax from the
>Minolta from the Leica judging only by prints.  I believe you'd see more of
>a difference based on how the print is made, and not what captured the
>original image.
>
>
>
>--
>Eric
>http://canid.com/
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>  
>

Replies: Reply from xrogers at comcast.net (Clyde Rogers) ([Leica] High ISOs Comparison)
Reply from ericm at pobox.com (Eric) ([Leica] High ISOs Comparison)
Reply from imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George) ([Leica] High ISOs Comparison)
In reply to: Message from larry.k at rcn.com (larry.k@rcn.com) ([Leica] High ISOs Comparison)
Message from xrogers at comcast.net (Clyde Rogers) ([Leica] High ISOs Comparison)
Message from images at InfoAve.Net (Tina Manley) ([Leica] High ISOs Comparison)
Message from telyt at earthlink.net (Douglas Herr) ([Leica] High ISOs Comparison)
Message from walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson) ([Leica] High ISOs Comparison)
Message from ericm at pobox.com (Eric) ([Leica] High ISOs Comparison)
Message from walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson) ([Leica] High ISOs Comparison)
Message from ericm at pobox.com (Eric) ([Leica] High ISOs Comparison)