Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/12/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Doug I don't disagree but wonder if many aren't rationalizing in favor of a questionable product. We all know Leica has been building great cameras for decades but did they succeed with the M8? Being well past my prime doesn't mean being against innovation. The innovation, however, must be tangible and not simply marketing. I'd love to have a digital M6. No chimp screen, full size sensor and the capability to shoot 2-3 frames a second. Manual focus, a decent meter and nothing automated. AA batteries too. :-) Walt p.s. Priced under $3500 and weather resistant. Am I dreaming? Douglas Herr wrote: > On Dec 7, 2006, at 6:12 AM, Walt Johnson wrote: > >> Doug >> >> Wouldn't it seem reasonable to test machines under the same >> conditions to evaluate their performance. We could hand one PS >> oriented shooter a Nikkormat and a less gifted one an M8. Not too >> valid a procedure for checking camera capabilities. What you've >> suggested holds true for film and software but not equipment. >> >> Walt > > > Walt, I disagree. Even with one RAW file different RAW developers > produce different results. What we want to compare is final output. > Canon RAW files are different form Nikon RAW files are different from > DNG files. We want to optimize the entire imaging chain and clearly > what's optimium for one person's technique might not be optimum for > another's. What you're suggesting is like handing film from a > single-use camera to a pro lab vs. taking 100UC from a Leica to the > corner one-hour lab. Neither is likely to be optimized. > > Doug Herr > Birdman of Sacramento > http://www.wildlightphoto.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >