[Leica] No M9 in the near future

[imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George)]

George's format choices moving down in size:
Film:
8x10 with 165mm to 610mm glass
5x7 and 4x5 with 90 to 610mm glass
6x9 roll backs for above
120 square with 40 to 150mm glass
35 (both SLR and Range Finder) with 15mm to 560mm glass (+2x)

Digital:
24 X 36 mm (5D) with 15mm to 560mm (+2x)
18 X 27 mm (M8) with 15mm to 75mm (more with Visoflex)
17.6 X 26.4 mm (DMR) with 15mm to 560mm (+2x)
15.0 X 22.5 mm (20D) with 10mm to 560mm (+2x)

Now, in terms of pure technical image quality, the DMR and M8 provide  
the best results up to 400 ASA.
 From 800 to 3200 ASA the 20D and 5D provide some technical (noise)  
improvements while sacrificing some in aesthetics (personal opinion)

35mm Film with ASA ratings of 25 to 40 and 120 Film with ASA ratings  
of 160 to 400 and drum scanned will compete well against the DMR and  
M8 at 100 and 160 respectively - probably a toss up in terms of  
technical image quality.

4x5 and 8x10 film, drum scanned, will blow any digital sensor I own  
out of the water all together.

I can't afford drum scans. And I hate the tedium and quality of desk  
top scanning.

Apparently a 39 megapixel H3 will give drum scanned sheet film a run  
for their money - well actually not for their money - the 39mp will  
set you back $40K without a lens, and it's no where near 6x6cm FF.

I shoot in the following digital formats (in mm): 15 x 22, 17.6 x  
26.4, 18 x 27, 24 x 36,
and in the following film formats (in mm): 24 x 36, 60 x 60, 60 x 90,  
101 x 127, 127 x 179, 203 x 254

so yeah a format is a format - but it is not a "format" like we used  
to know formats.
why did they call it 120 film - what did 220 mean?

Full Frame is no longer a relevant term to me. And in 20 years it  
will mean even less than it does today (assuming still photography  
actually continues to have any adherents at all).

Fond regards,
George
george@imagist.com
www.imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com/blog
Picture A Week - www.imagist.com/paw_07



On Mar 7, 2008, at 2:51 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote:

> Yea well a format is a format.
> We're talking the difference between full frame and half frame.
> Which is like the difference between full frame and medium format.
> And when you  move up or down a format its a different ballpark as  
> to your
> end result. All talent and dedication aside. You walk in and out of  
> the
> shoot with a whole different set of options.