Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/06/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jayanand Govindaraj wrote: >>> Doug, You are still missing the point. I do not have to try one at all. I am sure it is a fantastic camera, and we all know the quality of lenses available. I trust all of you when you say what you do. But when someone says that it is better because it saves him adding a layer of sharpening, I have to laugh! BTW, I have yet to see moire in the Nikon D300 I shoot, and as you know, I shoot a lot of stripes (-: !! <<< I'm not missing the point at all. I'm not saying that the AA filter is the road to ruin, all I'm saying is that it's a compromise and that excellent image quality can be also obtained via other compromises (which the M8 or DMR is, like any engineering design). I also believe that the list would be a poorer place if criticism were shouted down. OTOH we have the experience of several who have used both types of camera systems and I'll take the results of their empirical comparisons, all consistent with each other, over what appears to be an emotional defense of a camera system choice. Nobody is shouting you down, but if you wish to compare your system of choice with another, then using both systems would make your comparison more reasoned. Without actual experience using both systems, an argument for or against one system or another seems more emotional than reasoned. Not that emotion is bad, after all we're trying to create an emotional response to the viewers of our photos. Regarding the moire issue, I've never seen it in mammals in photos from my DMR, even mammals with stripes. It's the fine feather detail of birds that can cause the problem. For the DMR it's worst with the California Quail; coincidentally (or not) it's in photos of the California Quail where I've seen moire problems with the D200. >>> My argument is not about the capture device, but about the final output. I have plenty, and I mean dozens of actual holdable prints taken with a M8, and as you know I have a few of yours taken with a DMR. I cannot see a difference up to A3 size ( which is all I have) between a Leica, or a Nikon, or a Canon. Whether this entails a little more PP, or a little less PP is totally besides the point. Maybe at larger sizes it might be apparent, but I cannot say as I have not seen Leica digital prints of those sizes (I have seen dozens of prints taken with Nikon & Canon, and I cant make out differences between equivalent bodies there either). <<< Then it seems we're addressing different points. I'm don't have a problem with your emphasis on the final output. The point I was trying to make is that Mark's aversion to the M8's crop factor is not based on a reasoned comparison. >>> I remember being almost lynched on this group when the M8 came out saying that it was very expensive for what it offered. <<< I don't recall seeing any nooses posted in anyone's photos. But please recognize that a reasoned comparison is not the same as an emotional one. Doug Herr http://www.wildlightphoto.com walk softly and carry a big lens -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com - Microsoft? Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange