Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Oh, please - It's about toys? Let me be frank - and nasty; this list is as much about toys as is the late and overpriced FAO Schwarz! And why frame the discussion in terms of 35 mm? Because this is a Leica Users Group, and while it may have slipped your mind, the Leica is a 35 mm camera, and thus the quality question damn well should be framed in 35 mm terms. Geeeees! ...Let's see, should I get a hammertoned MP with a pearl surfaced shutter release autographed by Queen Noor, or should I get the Ostrich Skin model with...About toys indeed! B. D. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of sam Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 1:51 AM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Leica] digital in low light Are you suggesting that had he used the lastest Canon digital it would have smoked the 4x5? I believe the point he was making was that for a few hundred dollars one could get unsurpassed image quality. This whole digital thing has been framed in relation to 35mm film cameras. Why? If the issue is image quality why would one not go medium format? Or large format? The issue is not about image quality and never was. The issure is about toys. Sam S Eric Welch wrote: > Well, duh. Could it be that the latter site is matching a 4x5 camera > against an ancient (by digital standards) Nikon D100 that has CCD (and > thus more noise at high speeds) than the CMOS chips Canons have? > > On the other site, I didn't see any mention of a digital vs film > debate. > > Eric > Carlsbad, CA > - -- 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