Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/05/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Gary, > To > boot, many of the older Leica lenses outperform optically their > more modern > counterparts at Pentax, Minolta, Nikon, et.al. Maybe this point is just > too obvious. If you understood how digital sensors worked, you'd understand that the glass "outperforming" is, for the most part, irrelevant. The digital sensor has a low pass filter over it that will basically, dumb down the MTF of the lense to match that of the sensor pitch. > When is the last time Contax > released anything that made any real noise in the marketplace? The Aria is a fantastic camera, and I also think the N-Digital is as well. You simply have amnesia as to how long it took Canon to come out with lenses and bodies for simply an autofocus line, much less a digital line. How about the TVS digital? That seems to be a pretty nice camera from what I've heard. > Its sales are very slow today. Yes. > But > back to the ND. How is the ND usable? At only up to 100 ISO > without noise > it's usability is severely limited. Understood, but it makes superb images, period. > The camera sold originally for $7000 > new and today about 6 months later can be had on the street for well under > $5000. That somehow makes it not a good camera? > If you're defending the ND perhaps your loyalty to a brand is > clouding your thinking. Nope, not at all, but it is only one of three full frame sensor cameras on the market, though it's not really on the market any more. Whether it is/was a marketing flop, in no way negates the technical contribution it is. > The only thing amazing about the ND is how it so > quickly makes your investment in it disappear. I would be quite happy to give you $2k for it. Austin - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html