Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/04/12

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

Subject: [Leica] Pt Three of Digilux 2 posted
From: abridge at mac.com (Adam Bridge)
Date: Mon Apr 12 23:18:16 2004

Ah but B.D. if you can know you have a good exposure, and the technology can
give you that information before your eyes, then it's not in the way, it's
serving you. You'll note that I asked to have it vanish at the push of a button.

If something is digital then let it serve you. It's madness not to.

But then I'm the lunatic who'd like to have monochrome version that either had
higher pixel density or better low-light performance. Myself I'd go for bigger
buckets so s/n at 1600 would be great.

Adam




>
>"B. D. Colen" wrote:
>> 
>> I have to say that I'm amused by the fact that on the one hand, people
>> talking about wanting a camera that works like an M, doesn't have all
>> the digifoldarol, etc. etc., and on the other someone's asking for a
>> histogram superimposed on the viewfinder - talking about digifoldarol
>> and not destroying the entire idea of that bright, clear, uncluttered
>> viewfinder....:-)
>> 


In reply to: Message from n.wajsman at chello.nl (Nathan Wajsman) ([Leica] Pt Three of Digilux 2 posted)