Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/11/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]It could also very well mean that actual, real, and extensive experience with both the equipment and image files under discussion trumps the theory that "whatever is newest qualifies as best in all cases and under every condition." I don't own an M9. I cannot compare it's image files to the DMR, 5D or M8 that do own. Yet it does not surprise me the those who do own an M9 can see differences as they compare their image files. Each system has made necessary compromises to achieve different design goals. The micro lenses on the M9 sensor are sure to have an effect different than the DMR. The firmware will have an effect how the 16 bit information is translated, etc. The M9 is optimized for ISO 160. The DMR is optimized for ISO 100. I'm sure the list could go on. In either case we're talking about top shelf gear; each able to do a certain set of tasks extremely well, within the scope of their limitations and advantages. And neither able to do some things as well other gear. Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist On Nov 7, 2010, at 10:07 PM, Doug Herr wrote: > Mark Rabiner wrote: > >>>> > If your picking a cropped file from a 5 year old sensor over results from a > just out current full frame M9 with a 90 Summicron there is something wrong > with the processing of the files. Or your eyes. Or both. > Also something very basically wrong with the universe. > <<< > > Or it means that those of us who have been singing the DMR's praises have > had something to sing about (also shows why we're so MAD that there will > be no R10). > > Doug Herr > Birdman of Sacramento > http://www.wildlightphoto.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information