Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/03/29

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

Subject: [Leica] OMG, I bought a 617 camera!!!
From: photo at frozenlight.eu (Nathan Wajsman)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:09:57 +0200
References: <AANLkTinnpJ0W_RyX10F4gZS6t0hnJFkwCBXCK_uVEz-m@mail.gmail.com>

So that's fairly accurate, since my Texas Leica yields 6x9=54 cm2 images, or 
just over half of yours.

Cheers,
Nathan

Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu
http://www.greatpix.eu
http://www.nathanfoto.com
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog

YNWA







On Mar 30, 2011, at 5:58 AM, Richard Man wrote:

> 35mm: 2,5 x3.6 = 9 square cm
> XPan: 2.5x6.6 = 17 square cm
> 617: 6x17 = 102 square cm
> 
> I think I will call it the Alaska Leica :-)
> 
> (Alaska is more than twice the size of Texas)
> 
> -- 
> // richard <http://www.imagecraft.com/>
> // icc blog: <http://imagecraft.com/blog/>
> // photo blog: <http://www.5pmlight.com>
> [ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all previous
> replies in your msgs. ]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 



In reply to: Message from richard at imagecraft.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] OMG, I bought a 617 camera!!!)