Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/07/18

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

Subject: [Leica] Speculation
From: douglas.sharp at gmx.de (Douglas Sharp)
Date: Tue Jul 18 01:01:59 2006
References: <527.3a94e8b.31eb1b22@aol.com> <44BC6E5E.1000005@nathanfoto.com>

Should be double frame really :-)  Barnack built his camera to cover two 
standard movie film frames.
Douglas

Nathan Wajsman wrote:

> There is no law of nature that defines 24x36mm as "full frame". It is 
> a mere coincidence that this was the size available to Barnack back in 
> 1913. If movie film had been a different size, than we would be 
> thinking of that size as "full frame". Judging from the results 
> produced by high quality 1.3 sensor cameras, such as the Canon 1D II 
> or indeed the Leica DMR, there is no imperative for Leica to attempt 
> to make a digital M with a 24x36mm sensor; in fact, producing one with 
> a 1.3 sensor will help it sell some more lenses on the wide end.
>
> And you can be sure that no brakes will be put on product development 
> now. I have no inside knowledge, but given the expectations raised by 
> Leica, the company would be commercially comatose if not dead if they 
> do not show a WORKING digital M at Photokina in 2 1/2 months.
>
> Nathan
>
> Afterswift@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Will the digital M be FF? Even if Leica had no inkling of the Canon 
>> D5  that burst on the scene a few months ago, it seems reasonable to 
>> assume that the  brakes are on whatever sub-FF M sensor that Leica 
>> Solms intended  to be rolled out at Photokina. In any case, it's a 
>> whole new ball  game.
>>  
>> Bob R
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>>
>>   
>
>

In reply to: Message from Afterswift at aol.com (Afterswift@aol.com) ([Leica] Speculation)
Message from nathan at nathanfoto.com (Nathan Wajsman) ([Leica] Speculation)