Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/09/07

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

Subject: [Leica] M8 M9 Tech Compares
From: richard.lists at gmail.com (Richard Man)
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 21:40:36 -0700
References: <C6CB11C9.54392%mark@rabinergroup.com> <BB10FA2C-9EE9-48E2-8D03-5F1D985566DD@frozenlight.eu> <7ac27f4f0909072125n5ab567bbh92dfee28a6a72951@mail.gmail.com> <C843FAAF-3A3E-4AA6-9E0C-59CAFFDFDF37@frozenlight.eu>

Dang, where's that curmudgeon that whines about people pissing and
moaning about pricing in whatever fancy car shops? :-)

Anyway, I agree with Mark, it sounds like a round off error. 0.5mm is
pretty small and supposedly there are tons of room inside the M8 shell
to put in the full frame sensor and electronics.

Besides, you can recoup any cost by selling off the UV-IR filters
:-)!! (that is assuming you don't keep the M8 as a backup, hmmm....)

I do think the M9, if they do the high ISO reasonably right (e.g.
good/excellent up to 1600) will be the new M3, so to speak.

On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Nathan Wajsman<photo at frozenlight.eu> 
wrote:
> It all adds up, and there is no technical reason for changing the size. A
> 100 Euro here, a 100 Euro there and suddenly you are talking real money.
>

-- 
// 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 sonc.hegr at gmail.com (Sonny Carter) ([Leica] M8 M9 Tech Compares)
In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] M8 M9 Tech Compares)
Message from photo at frozenlight.eu (Nathan Wajsman) ([Leica] M8 M9 Tech Compares)
Message from richard.lists at gmail.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] M8 M9 Tech Compares)
Message from photo at frozenlight.eu (Nathan Wajsman) ([Leica] M8 M9 Tech Compares)