Archived posting to the
Leica Users Group, 2009/08/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index]
[Home]
[Search]
Subject: [Leica] Hasselblad digi-backs, lenses - was M9"M8
From: red735i at earthlink.net (Frank Filippone)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:16:08 -0700
References: <C6A9E9C7.52D0A%mark@rabinergroup.com> <p06230908c6aa3189a222@[10.0.1.199]> <0D984AC4-A065-4311-A904-AA8B335CDDB1@mac.com> <00c901ca1c64$0a373ce0$1ea5b6a0$@net> <702D11A1-78F4-4346-978C-0735359809EC@mac.com>
I shoot 4x5, still. ( Still film. Still an amateur as well.....)
I realize the Schneiders and Rodenstocks are all for view cameras, but now
the bar is significantly raised, again. You are comparing the quality of 20
square inches of film plus scanner to a digi-sensor.
Not as easy a comparison as 35mm or 645 systems.... there is a LOT of
information in 20 square inches of film......5 times the data as a 2x2
negative....... and maybe double that for a MF Digi-sensor.....
Just not as easy...... or straightforward..... scanner or not.
Frank Filippone
red735i at earthlink.net
However, when we discuss medium format backs with Rodenstock,
Schneider or Mamiya lenses
we're really discussing hybrid view camera systems.
Replies:
Reply from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] Hasselblad digi-backs, lenses - was M9"M8)
Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Hasselblad digi-backs, lenses - was M9"M8)
In reply to:
Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Hasselblad digi-backs, lenses - was M9?M8)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] Hasselblad digi-backs, lenses - was M9?M8)
Message from red735i at earthlink.net (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] Hasselblad digi-backs, lenses - was M9"M8)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] Hasselblad digi-backs, lenses - was M9"M8)