Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]It's not a question of being repressive, Sam, and I notice that you didn't respond to my comment about "toys." ;-) The fact that there hasn't been allot of discussion recently about Leica rangefinders can be attributed to two things - first, even on this list, the hot topic is the advent of serious digital capability, what that means for us as photographers, and what it means for photography in general; note how many Leica diehards have made, or are making the shift to digital, after swearing they never would. And, two, most people on this list have been on it for more than 30 days, and after that time,what is there to talk about in terms of Leica rangefinders, unless we're talking about collection and snookies and nookies and the like? How to hold the camera? Where the shutter release button is? Which lenses to take on a trip to Kansas City? Where the "Barbie" sticker goes? :-) - -----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 1:50 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Leica] digital in low light Take it easy, B.D. No reason to be nasty. There hasn't been a hell of a lot of talk about the 35mm Leica rangefinder for a while. The drift has been about film vs digital image quality. Let's assume that the film camera being used in comparison is 35mm because we are in a Leica forum. When the discussion drones on about image quality, and sensor size, which is of course related, isn't there a logic in addressing the fact that on the film side there are medium format cameras that handle as well as 35mm cameras and outperform digital? We haven't held digital sensor size to match only the sensors in Leica digital cameras, have we? Why should we be so repressive about film. Sam S B. D. Colen wrote: > 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 > > - -- 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