Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/11/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Felix This is interesting from a technical point of view. Given the current design of imaging chips there were a limited number of choices open to Leica. 1. They could make a completely new design of SLR or M using a 24x36 sensor . 2. They could commission the manufacture of a 24x36 sensor specially designed in layout to fit into the film gate of normal film camera suitable for a custom digital back for an existing film camera. 3. They could make a custom back using the largest conventional sensor which would fit in an existing film gate. Leica is not huge, otherwise either choice 1 or 2 would be feasible. Volume is so low that their chosen route was, I imagine, the only workable one. As far as quality goes I think the proposed R back will produce results as good or better than film. IME the Canon 10D is competitive with 35mm film for almost all my uses. The big disadvantage of smaller chips is inferior performance in poor light and the Leica R back chip is several times bigger than the P&S chips and bigger than Olympus E1, Canon 10D and Nikon digital SLR sensors, all of which give good results. My only disappointment over the size of the R digital chip size is that my 19mm will have the same angle of view as a 24. Many people on this list seem quite satisfied with a digital P&S which has a chip smaller than a Minox film frame and a zoom lens. I don't think anybody would expect a piece of film this size to produce such good results. I think the use of the SD card is simply because of the Panasonic electronic link. Panasonic have completely committed to the SD route believing that with the advance in technology CF cards will be much bigger than is necessary for the memory sizes available. They are probably right but I fear SD cards are too easily lost! I regret this choice as well - but I will almost certainly be buying the Leica digital back! cheers Frank On Friday, November 14, 2003, at 11:41 pm, Félix López de Maturana wrote: >> Who knows if full-frame is really necessary? Nikon doesn't have one >> and >> it's not really missed that much. >> >> I think Olympus is on the right track. Why should something from 35mm >> be >> transplanted onto digitial? >> >> Daniel > > > Daniel > > Opinions are free. Mine is just opposite to yours and based in my > experience > as I've shooted firstly with a small sensor and afterward with a, so > called, > full format sensor. So for me it's necessary as the output is > measurably > better. Maybe not for others. But I'd like to distinguish between > necessary > and affordable. So, to come back on topic, I'm afraid Leica may be > mistaken > with his R digital back not being full format. He tried to but it was > too > expensive. So smaller means cheaper not better. Another matter about > I'm in > doubt is the choice of mass storage being, again in my experience and > in my > opinion, much better the CF than SD (I think) cards chosen by Leica > for the > R back probably for a size issue. > > Felix > > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html