[Leica] More RD-1 Samples

[abridge at gmail.com (Adam Bridge)]

I think you have the gist of it.

The smaller sensor size just crops the image to the middle of the
traditional 35mm frame so you can take a scan you've made of a full
frame 35mm image and manually crop it to see what the result of using
that lens.

And  yes, especially for the M lenses, it's getting the light down
into the pits of the sensor that appears to be the major problem.

Adam

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:20:28 -0700, Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca> wrote:
>  Feli said:
> > Another reason why I wish there will be a full frame M.<<<<<<
> 
> B. D. Colen responded
> > Well,I'd like a full-size sensor just so I could use my lenses as
> > designed. But you don't need a full-size sensor to get high quality
> > images.<<<<<<<<
> 
> So gentlemen do I understand this correctly?
> 
> A:
> the small size sensor is still capable of excellent quality capture, 
> however
> it doesn't allow for a full 35mm frame as we expose on film? And this is 
> why
> a 21mm lens becomes a 35? or whatever?
> 
> B:
> There is a design or production problem in making a full size 35mm sensor
> due to the light capture capabilities as it comes through the lens?
> 
> Therefore the sensor is the biggest problem with this whole digi camera and
> using our existing lenses to their fullest with anything other than a full
> size 35mm sensor?
> 
> So how am I doing?
> 
> And it's not likely the new digital M whatever, will have a 35mm size
> sensor, but the one it does will still produce extremely fine 
> re-productions
> with only some loss of lens coverage?
> 
> I'm trying to keep this as simple as possible and like one step at a time.
> So please don't get into techie jargon or the whole exercise is going to go
> down the tube from not understanding the words.
> 
> over to you folks, thank you.  KISS IT! :-)
> ted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>