Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/08/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]A slightly heretical question.Does anyone really think that a Leica Digital Back, or maybe even an M7D is going to make such a difference when compared with, for example, an EOS with Leica lenses on it , as far as I'm concerned the breakdown of a qualitively good image is as follows, in order of importance. A) the human factor 1) Being there 2) Seeing the shot 3) Timing 4) Correct settings - experience B) The equipment Factor 1) Good lenses (OK, Leica are the best, if they are good for digital sensors then, QED, they're also good on an EOS, there won't be any autofocus on either, the Leica or the EOS, ) 2) Good film/digital sensor (is there a Leica sensor ? No, there isn't) 3) Good ergonomics of the camera body - easy and intuitive operation, the EOS 300 feels a bit cheap, but solid up-market bodies are still cheaper than a Leica DigiBack) 4) Good software - intuitive , versatile (does Leica develop their own ? No) Unless Leica comes up with something really new and innovative, IMO, they are still going to be lagging behind the rest of the field. If they built the DigiBack with an option of changing sensors for higher resolution or updating to a full frame that would be really something. Or a plug in viewing screen with the size of a palm pc,maybe touch screen control of all parameters (remote too) then it would start getting interesting. The only advantage I can see for a digital back is the option of film or sensor on one body - and that at close to the price of 4 digital Rebels!! Is it worth it just to have the name Leica on the camera ? Douglas who will continue using his bunch of Leicas until they fall apart (or until I fall apart, whichever the case may be) but is not averse to putting Leica glass on another marque.