Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/08/12

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

Subject: [Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?
From: richard.lists at gmail.com (Richard Man)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:57:45 -0700
References: <C6A926DF.52C9A%mark@rabinergroup.com> <p06230904c6a961a6bb8e@10.0.1.199>

Stop bursting Mark's bubbles :-)

The fact is no matter what the format size is, many of the older lens
are not good enough for the high res sensors. This is why there are
chromatic aberrations with Canon wide angle, or that they just don't
resolve good enough sometimes. And this is again why the Olympus
E-Systems makes sense :-)

BTW, I know Nathan says his M8 pics are much sharper than his E-3
pics, but I beg to differ. To each of their own, of course.

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Henning Wulff<henningw at archiphoto.com> 
wrote:
> There are probably a number of Zeiss lenses that are up to the task; the
> 100/3.5 is probably among them. The 40's aren't, and most likely the 50/4
> isn't either. Since the backs available are crop format, wider lenses are
> necessary and the shorter ones aren't quite up to the best standards.
>


-- 
// richard m: richard @imagecraft.com
// w: http://www.imagecraft.com/pub/Portfolio09/ blog:
http://rfman.wordpress.com
// book: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/745963


Replies: Reply from frank.dernie at btinternet.com (FRANK DERNIE) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
Reply from photo at frozenlight.eu (Nathan Wajsman) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)