[Leica] fins and treadmills

[imagist at imagist.cnc.net (George Lottermoser)]

> I'd suggest again that the 20D produces terrific
> results, and unless one has a specific problem or need, the 
> introduction of the 30D shouldn't cause 20D owners to lose sleep. 
> Think about how much of this is really just the latest example of the 
> "mine's bigger than yours" phenomenon.

B.D. I both agree and disagree with your assessment. We 20D owners
shouldn't lose sleep over it. But if one doesn't move along one will
lose money. And these annual or 6 month 'improvements' aren't just
glitter, chrome and fins. The difference betwee the 10D and 20D is
significant. While the 10D did and continues to do what it does - well -
it cannot compete with 20D in terms of real image information and
quality. A comparison to the improvements made in film emulsions would
be more relevant, than claiming just more pixels for the sake of having
more pixels in the pockets of your tight jeans. The pixel quantity and
quality, together with software improvements actually do make a
difference in image quality - just as improvements in the glass in front
of the sensor/sensitive emulsion makes a difference in image qualities.
As always the choice remains - what do you and/or your client want the
image to look like? Our viewing of 72ppi jpg's on monitors does begin to
reveal what our negatives or digital files have in them. After using 6
different digital cameras, over almost 20 years - the first one to
actually deliver, for me, was the 20D (not counting the medium format
backs - which the 20D can't touch). Bottom line: Shoot the same scene
with different digi-bodies/and/or films. Look at the negs/files. Which
one will deliver image qualities you seek? That's the one you need to do
the work.

Then there's the form factor. Lord knows everyone on this list would
love to have a digi-M which would deliver the equivalent quality of
Panatomic x, with an asa of 100, right on up to noiseless 3200 asa,
behind our new f:1.4 apo asph glass.

regards, George