Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/05/03

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

Subject: [Leica] 8 or 8.2
From: mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 16:56:46 -0400

Even so 1 4000th is as they say 4 times faster than 1000th and you've got
the ability to drop your ISO when needed or shoot it at auto ISO.
So the flexibity of the camera in shooting high speed glass wide open in non
dim light is there; even with out that added f stop.

And when you shoot Niagara falls you don't quite get the same tumbling ice
cubes effect at 4000 than you do at 8000th.
I can live without 8000th.
I am living with out it now with my Leica D40x I've had at my side for 21.4
Months.
And I lived without it for most my photography experience since the 60's in
which cameras which went as fast as 8000th came out the day before
yesterday.


Mark William Rabiner



> From: Mark Pope <mark at whitedogs.co.uk>
> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 08:44:51 +0100
> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] 8 or 8.2
> 
> I could well be wrong (I usually am) but I thought the 1/8000 was
> dropped as to make the shutter quieter, it was basically slowed down.
> My impression was that they had a space on the shutter speed dial which
> needed filling...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Pope,




Replies: Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] 8 or 8.2)
In reply to: Message from mark at whitedogs.co.uk (Mark Pope) ([Leica] 8 or 8.2)