Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/05/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search][ This is funny, Gene - So after all the whining from people about wanting > full frame, it really doesn't matter? What doesn't matter, quite > frankly, is that jump from 8.5 mgp from the new Canon 1D Mark II CAMERA, > to the 10 mgp of the Leica BACK. And the entire Canon camera costs about > what the Leica BACK will cost - and it will shoot at something like 8.5 > fps for up to 40 frames, have terrific autofocus, state of the art > metering, an iso of 50 to 3200, etc. etc. etc. (And I am not a Canon > user, btw ;-) ) The Canon, which can take Leica lenses for manual use, > will blow the Leica out of the water, for about $2000 less for a > complete camera. I think that I'm in the position og giving an opinion as I'm both a R8 and EOS 1Ds user. I sincerely doubt that the new R8/9 digital back can be better than the 1Ds. But the lenses from Leica may be in any cases, not always, better than Canon equivalent. So, probably, if I can, Ill give my R8 a digital back. Some people do not like automatic anything -metering,autofocus and so on- I find it useful and comfortable- and the EOS is great camera! The problem is that right now there a different approach. Frech magazine Chasseur d'Images and frech company O&O have cleared up that now there is no possibility of a LENS judgement but LENS+CAMERA results. This is absolutely true. A lenst may work fine in a film camera and not so well in the same camera but digital. My EOS 1Ds forgive lens quality much less than film EOS 1V and the camera are practically identical. So to see how will work my Vario Elmar R21-35 -my most R lens used- I'll go to the shop with camera an lens to do a test. With the output I 'll see some results just for deciding. I'd like to have the best of two worlds but I'm rather skeptical. Felix