Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/12/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]As far as I know Leica made no such claim. I think this was a wish of some one hee ar on another list. Gene -------------- Original message from "Robert Jagitsch" <robert.jagitsch@gmail.com>: -------------- > I have had many digital cameras over the years, going back about 8 or > 9 years. And many more film cameras going back 30. I currently have 3 > digital and 3 film. They are all ultimately just tools to do a job, > and they all have individual idiosyncrasies. Each one may require > slightly different methods or usage to get the 'best' performance. In > addition, each user may have differing opinions of what 'best' is. > > Tina's comparison showed me something I never would have thought of > (using a lower ISO and underexpose) in order to reduce noise. This > nugget made the thread valuable to me. > > In my case, I have no plans to use an M8, if I acquire one, at ISO > 2500. I would not remove the M8 from my wish list just because of > Tina's comparison. > > But I almost certainly would try the above trick. > > Removing the M8 from my wish list because of one comparo at ISO 2500 > would be akin to saying I have removed the Ferrari 360 from my wish > list because it doesn't accelerate from 140 to 200 quite as fast as a > Porsche 997 Turbo. I don't plan on accelerating from 140 to 200 more > than 1% of the time, so that test is not relevant to me. ;) > > Lastly, I would like to see where the factory claimed that ISO 2500 > performance would be equal to Canon 5D performance at ISO 3200. What > did the factory claim, can someone point me to it? > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information