Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/02/04

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

Subject: [Leica] Canon doesn't see it quite like Mark
From: imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:49:13 -0600
References: <CAA4z8hd7a-PEENcTb4w7wfDaZptnDakxzVM+0dLoWYU5hi3GJg@mail.gmail.com>

On Feb 3, 2013, at 12:40 AM, Gary Benson wrote:

> All these arguments over format size get very tiresome, very quickly.

Helps me to view them as opinions rather than arguments.
I don't think there's a win/lose debate here.

One company stepped out and made a "full frame" mirrorless, fixed lens 
camera.
Another company expressed a differing opinion re: "full frame" mirrorless 
cameras;
as well as removable lenses.

In the days of film I thoroughly enjoyed each and every format
from 35 mm to 12x20 (never owned a Minox or half-frame - though did shoot 
16mm Bolex and Bell and Howell).
I feel privileged to have been able to own and explore all those 
possibilities.

I WISH that I could afford to own and seriously explore each digital sensor 
size available
(including the amazing video possibilities with companies like Red and the 
new Arri's).
Alas - I cannot.

So I muddle along with 5 year old technology which continues to produce 
superb image files
(one FF, two 1.3 - fantasizing about the day I own a medium format back - 
that will never be FF 6x6)

Regards,
George Lottermoser 
george at imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com/blog
http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist







Replies: Reply from red735i at verizon.net (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] Canon doesn't see it quite like Mark)
Reply from jhnichols at lighttube.net (Jim Nichols) ([Leica] Canon doesn't see it quite like Mark)
In reply to: Message from bensonga at gmail.com (Gary Benson) ([Leica] Canon doesn't see it quite like Mark)