Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/02/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Its interesting I'd just come upon some writing that when the Leica first came out they were selling the idea that viable photography could be done in a format way smaller than what was done at the time. And they key was that the optics were so good it would make of for the difference. The ELMAX which became the ELMAR designed by Max Berek for the 24x36 format. So instead of your 5x7 inch snapshot being a contact print it was now a projection print. From a negative which had gone through all kinds of solvent hell. But Leica was saying the the remarkable optics made for the camera leveled the playing field. Just pure baloney. But blame it on the marketing group. We can certainly in this day and age edge out a Nikon or Canon optic costing $400 by a Leica Asph Apo costing $4000 but with both negatives or sensors being the same size. Pick up a twin lens Rolleiflex or a Leica S and it blows it out of the water. The different between APS-C and full frame is not small. By square mm its about twice: 25.1 * 16.7 = 419.17 APS-C 24 * 36 = 864 full frame. On 2/22/14 12:52 PM, "Doug Herr" <wildlightphoto at earthlink.net> wrote: > Bob Adler wrote: > >>>> > So has the Fuji X system pretty much been out-wowed by the Sony system? > Primarily because Sony is FF vs APS-C? > <<< > > Speaking only for myself, yup. > > Doug Herr > Birdman of Sacramento > http://www.wildlightphoto.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- Mark William Rabiner Photographer http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/