[Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron

[s.jessurun95 at chello.nl (animal)]

Well  if you buy a new R8 for 1700 US$ and the new digital back for 4500? 
and have no need for fast sports action you would be off a lot cheaper then 
any comparable system I think.
According this
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
you need about 16 mp for velvia quality and 17 or more for films like 
techpan.
Cameras with those kind of sensors would be this that costs about 8000 US$
http://www.dpreview.com/shop/merchants.asp?id=canon_eos1dsmkii
or this versatile back for about 30 000US$
http://www.sinarbron.com/sb54sam_new/sysarch.php

The 10 mp Leica back would be enough for most of the applications while the 
1700 dollar camera can still use the best films.
And as a bonus you can mount the best lenses ever made which you might 
allready own .
The more then 2000 US$ difference will buy about 4000 feet of techpan film 
with chemicals i believe

I fail to see the clear advantage for one above the other
best
simon jessurun
amsterdam





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Klein" <pklein@2alpha.net>
To: <lug@leica-users.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 11:17 PM
Subject: RE: [Leica] Summilux vs. Summicron


> B. D. wrote:
>
>> I think that those of you for whom money is less of a concern than it is
>> for most people greatly underestimate the importance of cost in this
>> film-digital equation.
> <snip>
>
>> Yes, Seth, film will be around as long as we will - but with every
>> passing year it will become more and more exotic and, I suspect, more
>> expensive. Just as the price of digital storage and printing is
>> dropping, and will continue to drop up to a certain point, so the cost
>> of film and processing it will continue to rise.
>
>> If you like film, shoot it. Enjoy it. Revel in it.  But don't allow your
>> personal enjoyment to keep you from seeing the reality that we are
>> living through one of those major moments in the technical history of
>> photography in which the medium of photography moves from one form of
>> image capture and storage to another.
>
> Well, B. D. you have a point. Even though you seem to be making it with
> all the triumphalism of a fundamentalist on November 3.  :-)
>
> But I wonder if the P&S user will truly get as much of a cost benefit as
> they think.  They have to buy a camera, printer, paper, and expensive ink
> that dries out if not used regularly.  And unless they learn at least some
> photo editing, they will still be plagued with red-eye, pictures with
> excessive contrast, washed-out highlights (including those precious flash
> pictures of Grandma and Junior), etc.
>
> Will they care?  I suspect some will, and might still use film for
> important occasions. Enough to matter?  Who knows?  People's taste seems
> very moldable by the marketeers.  The word "digital" has been made into a
> synonym for "better."   If perception is reality, we're in trouble.
>
> Now, how about the reasonbly knowledgeable amateur who owns a working film
> SLR?  They already have the camera.  A P&S digital won't give them the
> same image quality that their SLR did.  To buy a DSLR or even a high-end
> digicam is expensive.  Film may still make sense if they only shoot a few
> rolls a year.
>
> Even for a amateur with semi-pro-level knowledge, the cost issue is
> complex.  I worked out that at the rate I shoot film (2-3 dozen rolls a
> year), it would take me about 3 years for my new E-1 to pay for itself
> (yes, folks, I just took the plunge and bought an Olympus E-1).  I will
> probably shoot more with digital, since it "doesn't cost anything." And as
> you say, I will learn more.  But the cost savings will be in pictures I
> wouldn't have shot if I hadn't gotten a DSLR.
>
> I didn't buy a DSLR to save money. I bought it because I want to eliminate
> the time and hassle of scanning from pictures where digital will be just
> as good for the intended purpose.  I have many pictures that I think are
> good, but I've never scanned.  I ran out of time, I got tired.  Then I
> shot another roll, the previous one went into the storage box, and who
> knows if I'll ever get to it again?  With digital, there's less "stuff"
> between me and a finished picture.
>
> But I don't doubt for a minute that I will continue to shoot film.  Even
> the E-1 feels big and clunky compared to a Leica M.  I can't take it
> everywhere, all the time.  The "look" is not the same as film.  The
> dynamic range is a lot less than negative film, and if you err on the side
> of overexposure, bye-bye shot.
>
> There are a lot of places in the world where film is still viable as a
> mass market (Anywhere in the Third World, for example).  And there may be
> enough diehards to keep it alive even here, once the digital sales
> curve peaks.
>
> The question is whether the "death of film" will be a self-fulfulling
> prophecy, brought on by marketeer's hype and American business'
> ostrich-like obsession with the quarterly profit at the expensse ofthe
> long view.  Or whether Kodak will keep selling film as long as we will buy
> it. I suspect Fuji will.  As will some enterprising souls in Eastern
> Europe and elsewhere.
>
> I agree that the market will shake out, and there will be less film and
> processing available.  The question is how fast will it happen, and how
> much.  Those of us in or near major cities will probably be OK.  Those
> elsewhere may not be.  So far it's happened faster than most of us would
> have believed.  But there might be a plateau rather than a continued
> acceleration to zero.
>
> --Peter
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information