Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/06/16

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Nikon Digital SLR's
From: Mark Rabiner <mark@rabinergroup.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:53:41 -0700
References: <NEBBJDFBIKOBILIKPPBNIEJJMKAA.red735i@earthlink.net>

Frank Filippone wrote:
> 
> Sure it does.  Yes, the outer image area is truncated..... but the image
> captured ( albeit smaller) has the same angle of view as a 640.   Why do you
> think the 210 on a 4x5 is about the same as a 50 on a 35mm camera?  The
> angle of view is the same.  Is the quality of the image the same with less
> pixels?  Maybe, maybe not.  It is 2 different sensors and 2 different
> recording systems.  Compound this with the fact that the user will probably
> not blow the picture up past the 4x5 or 5x7 size, and the user will never
> know the diffeence in quality.  So a 400 CAN act like a 640 given 2
> different sensor sizes..
> 
> That is preciesly the point.... the marketing hype, when said to the right
> audience, becomes sales.    So, while the intelligent and informed buyer is
> cautious, your neighbor is out there spending his hard earned cash on
> marketing "facts".  And if you run a company on profits, which they all do,
> then the hype is good, confusion is good.  The most important 2 words in
> marketing......Trust me......
> 
> Frank Filippone
> red735i@earthlink.net
> 
> A 1.6x digi SLR DOES NOT make your 400mm act like a 640mm!  It makes a 400mm
> picture with the outer 40% of the image cropped off.  Marketing claims like
> this are confusing everyone.
> 
> --Jim
> 
The 210 on a view camera is about the same as a 65 or 60 on a 35mm
format camera or a 100 on a medium format 6x6 square camera. A 31 degree
horizontal angle of view I'm sure the diagonals are also close. And I
say this because it is my favorite focal length I've dreamed about the
MACRO-ELMARIT-R f/2.8/60 mm for years, the lens Sebastião Salgado mainly
uses. I 've got my new 100 on by Hasselblad right now. It's s cropped
normal. But not a very shot tele. Like the 75 on a Leica M. It's a long Norma.

It seems just cropped enough to take out some optical flaws which appear
around there. And generally tighten things up.

One interesting thing about digital photography, which I'm getting into,
is that it gets people printing instead of going to the minilab to pick
up 4x6 snapshots. And the norm seems to be letter sized! 8.5x11! This of
course gets people involved in their photography on a much higher level.
They see the artifacts they are getting and are interested in their
removal. They are involved down to the smallest detail. They can see the
difference better glass, say a fixed lens over  a zoom perhaps.
(That said there is a CO existence of zooms and digital photography. One
gets the impression that photograhsers who used zooms half the time now
use them all the time once they've gone digital.) Does anyone else
notice this? And know why?

It's strange that the "kids" who seem to be so smart and savvy have
fallen for this bit about their telephotos acting like long telephotos
and so on.

But mainly a strange emphasis on the superwide. The super duper wide to
achieve a super wide on digital.
How many superwide shots have I been looking at all these years on film?
I don't thing that many.
As a photographer for  20 years who did some photojournalism and lots of
effect i hardly ever used my 24 2.8 Nikkor, the widest lens i had. My 28
was my 24 with the bad stuff cut off. Now I have a Leica M 24 which has
no "bad stuff: on the edges to crop off and I have a 21 which is
wonderful but has yet to pay itself back. I doubt it ever will but its
great to have those extra 6 degrees.

I'm getting into dialog in the next two week. I "m getting a  14 mm
f/2.8D ED AF Nikkor with a 114 degree diagonal angle of view on a 2.8
lens. Cropped 1.5 that gives you a 21mm lens! Wow its 21mm would out
even trying that hard. The full lens is said to be excellent a real
improvement over the also excellent 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Ultra Wide
Zoom-Nikkor which is a very popular lens despite the fact it only goes
to 17! Which is the same as shooting with a 24 on film. When the 17-35mm
first came out it was a 20-35mm f/2.8 and was thought to be used to
shoot film, not digital. Was that three years ago?

By the way I'm picking up the 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor so I'll
finally get to shoot my favorite format in 35mm But not on a Leica darn
it. I think the Nikon might not kill me or my reputation. And it becomes
a 90 when shot digital! My "breadwinner" focal length. Because of which
i have two 90's for my Leicas! You know, 

Analog cameras!


Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon USA
http://www.rabinergroup.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from "Frank Filippone" <red735i@earthlink.net> (RE: [Leica] Re: Nikon Digital SLR's)