Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/08/06

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] squabbling over digitial vs. film
From: Mark Rabiner <mark@rabinergroup.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:25:12 -0700
References: <008a01c35c5e$985d5300$3e23fea9@ccasony01>

bdcolen wrote:
> 
> Come off it, Randy.><Snip> 
> And are your R series lenses better than the Nikon and Canon "pro"
> series lenses? I don't know - but I'll be that under normal
> circumstances, using, say 200-400 asa film, virtually no one would be
> able to tell the difference given a blind test.;-)
> 
> B. D.
> 
That's what you've been saying for months to years BD. But a logical
thought would be that those of us into R most of them are under the
impression that their R glass would make such a difference. Otherwise
why forsake 10 frames per second and auto focus let alone matrix
metering? 
The feel of the R8//9?

On the other hand we use the M system because we think that the glass
will give us an edge and not just with 100 films but modern 400 films as
well. I'd say maybe even the ultra fast films both black and white
(Neopan 1600) and color (forgot what it's called). I'm sure the average
ASA for an M user is 400 just like Nikon and Canon users.

The R users want that same edge as the M users. I think they get it to
with the bulk of what the R system has to offer. Why is Sebastian
Salgado shooting with the Leica 60 instead of the Nikon? He must think
it's worth his while.
In the mostly 16x20 images which result. I've seen these images and
right off was glad i was into the whole Leica thing because I felt
strongly the Leica aspect as really making a difference in these images.

It's again what I call oversampling stealing a term from audio. Two
systems are out of balance. There is much more information in one than
there is the other. It is silly for one system to filter the other. But
it works out surprisingly well anyway. Glass has much higher res then
the film? All the better to pick out the relevant information to put on
that film. A better image results.

In other words the film does not get every thing the lens sees. But what
it ends up getting is better than it would end up getting if it had an
inferior or mediocre lens projecting and up side down image on it.

I'm somehow reminded of a basic rule in theatre. 
Never talk down to your audience. They always know it. 
Let them rise to the occasion.

I think of this as cultural oversampling.


Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon USA
http://www.rabinergroup.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from "bdcolen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> (RE: [Leica] squabbling over digitial vs. film)