Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/11/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Mark, I am sure it does - I think bigger is better in both cases - however I do not thing same size is equivalent. Many customers faced with a picture taken by a digital P&S are impressed and consider it good enough. Would they have been happy with a cheap camera using minox size film and a cheap wobbly zoom lens, I think not? I get results which satisfy me from a sensor 22 mm wide, this is smaller than film. Many photographers more experienced than me consider 35mm film sized sensors to give results comparable to 6x4.5 MF. I think bigger is better but as big as Hasselblad is not necessary for most users if they use digital. Hasselblad sized digital backs cost $20,000 so why keep a Hasselblad if you are happy with a camera which costs a fraction, with a wider range of cheaper lenses - which are pretty good (My 500 Canon is clearly better than my 280 f2.8 Leica BTW) Sensors like the Nikon D100 and canon 10D compete reasonably with 35mm film IMO. What am I saying? Bigger is better, digital or film. Digital sensors do not need to be quite as big as film for comparable results so D100 = 35mm and EOS 1Ds = 6x4.5 Don't expect results as good as a Leica from any P&S digital with a wobbly zoom and minuscule sensor. When you look at what they are working with the results are impressive though. I expect the Leica digital back to be better than 35mm film with the only disadvantage being the effective change in magnification. cheers Frank On Saturday, November 29, 2003, at 06:21 am, Mark Rabiner wrote: > Frank Dernie wrote: >> >> I would expect the performance to be limited by the sensor size - it >> has the really minute one about 4x6mm half the size of my little >> fingernail, probably to keep cost and size down. IME the size of the >> sensor is as important in digital cameras as in film for overall >> quality. >> cheers >> Frank >> >> <Snip> > > We've seen these pictures of a photographer on a bluff with a view > camera and a 4x5 digital back back to fit it and a laptop and we assume > they are getting better images than we are. > But why are the Hasselblads being dropped like lemmings going over the > cliff filling up the used glass cases in the camera stores? > "My digital photography with my Nikon/Canon body is so good anyway!" > they all say. > > Would it be even better if it was "medium format' digital photography > I've got to ask. > Would the law of bigger the better film/sensor acrerage not exist > between the 35mm sensor sizes and the medium format sensor sizes? Like > it does with film? > > I'm sure it does and am looking forward to doing some "medium format" > digital photography and plan on holding on to my Hasselblads. The old > fashioned square kind made by Swedes mainly. With those inconsequential > Zeiss lenses. > > Mark Rabiner > > Portland, Oregon USA > http://www.rabinergroup.com > -- > 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